Yes, it might well be prudent to hold people in such situations.

What a pity you considered the issue of torture in a single paragraph. Why isn't the Red Cross given proper access to the US facilities?

What are we supposed to be fighting for?

Both Habib and Hicks are or have trained with bloodthirsty,cowardly, animalistic terrorists. Either one would probably blow you (a Christian or even a westerner)up or pass info to those who would slaughter both you and yours. So the little petals were "tortured?" with sleep deprivation etc. - tough titties!!! Better that information was gathered by "torture??" than my or your family to be brutally slain.

Sleepless with worry about possible "torture??" of terrorists, numbat

Numbat's response certainly serves to illustrate that neither side in this battle has an exclusive claim to, 'bloodthirsty, cowardly, and animalistic' rhetoric.

The courageous stance in the current situation would be to hold strong to principles such as the right to a fair trial, the right to not be held without evidence, the right to be certain that Western governments will not employ torture. The coward's position is to fold on all these principles when faced with an enemy who does not share them.

"That war, against the terror-sponsoring government in Afghanistan, was authorised by formal resolution of the UN Security Council." he says!

I have tried to read all the resolutions from 1999 to find that authorisation, but I must be illiterate, I can not find it. Can someone help?

"than individuals captured in such suspicious circumstances as Habib."

Oh yes, being on a bus in Pakistan is highly suspicious.

The Yanks said there was not enough evidence to even charge Mr Habib - not even under their specially set up kangaroo courts. But to cover their mistakes they still insist that people being released under such circumstances are a danger. But wothout actual evidence to support the claim.

The capture of, removal to Egypt, then transfer to Gitmo and the abuse and torture of Mamdouh Habib were all illegal acts.

"Having ignored the laws of war, fighters in Afghanistan were not entitled to claim Geneva Convention protections against stressful interrogation."

Really? Why does the same not apply inside Australia, or America? Using the same logic you could argue that suspects (who include many people later found to be innocent and released) should be subjected to stressful interrogation techniques.

The main problem with torture as an investigative tool is that it results in an unfortunate ammount of false testimony, which means the real guilty parties go free.

Dave