Knowingly imprisoning a few innocents to house the guilty is, in my opinion, unconscionable, especially in a war against an ideology which cannot be won.

Every human being deserves due process. Did we overthrow tyranny in the hopes that we could become the tyrants or because we felt that tyranny was evil? I hold to the latter, and feel that what is occurring at Guantanamo Bay is our national shame. We're better than that, and it's time we showed it.

AD as long as Bush is around to blame for any mistakes PC will run amok, let there be another attack on America and watch how fast these cowards on the left run away from their PC positions

Agreed

Gid, while I understand your position I ask that you stay on topic in your defense. No one (on either side) is saying that we should torture just anyone (unrestrained power). The innocent here are people who are guilty by association or has evidence that links them to a plot or act.

The only problem with due process is that if I discover a plot to blow up a major building sometime next week there isn't time for due process.

So do you torture someone in order to uncover the details of this plot?

I'm not saying you kill the suspect but to wait for due process while a few thousand civilians are at risk. But if there is enough evidence that this person has information that can potentially save thousands and there isn't time for due process what do you do?

Says who?

Due process is an invention of civilisation, it is not available in nature (the tiger will eat you) nor is it a good deal or fair towards the uninvolved.

Within a legal system, like under a king or in a republic, due process is a good deal to keep the balance between government power and the right of the individual. But that is not the situation Guantanamo is in.

All wars see the innocent become casualties. But here's the thing:

Guantanamo keeps lots of terrorists out of the war, reducing the number of battles.

The innocents in Guantanamo (and I doubt they are a large percentage) are in the mean time enjoying a far better fate than the innocent casualties of the battles would have.

Sometimes the question is not right or wrong, but pure mathematics. Should we keep innocents alive and in prison or should we risk them (more likely others) being killed in battles that can be avoided by keeping terrorists in Guantanamo?

If the US would apply the idea that no innocents' rights must be harmed no matter what to the war (or any war), the US wouldn't be able to fight.

Tell that to the terrorists' victims in the west and the middle east.

Find a police man or soldier willing to do that, torture the suspect to get the information, then allow justice to deal with the police man or soldier.

Result: many lives saved, one guy in prison for several years

Alternatives are legalizing torture and not torturing.

Result 2: many lives saved, lots of people tortured for no reason

Result 3: many lives lost, nobody tortured

Yes, but I see this being the fundamental question which reveals how one thinks. Logically or Emotionally.

I am staying on topic, AD. I'm not speaking of the torture in this case as much as the indefinite detention without benefit of a trial. I feel that there needs to be stronger evidence of torture before I am willing to accuse our soldiers of participating in it as standard practice (Abu Ghraib, for instamce, was an anomoly, which is why the soldiers caught were tried and punished).

For the record, I'm not wholly opposed to the concept of military tribunals. They may not be the equivalent of a civilian court in our country, but there is at least some measure of justice. My solution? Military tribunals for initial determinations, to be followed by civilian trials when it is practical to do so. Not perfect mind you, but there is a better chance of sorting out innocents who might be detained.

and are you able to accept that few innocents are mistakenly tortured in order to protect civilians?

Gid, this is diverting from topic.

Your usage of tyranny is in effect of Abu Ghraib which they were not torturing to get information. That was pure torture not interrogation (with the means of torture).

No one is advocating unwarranted torture. And rightly so the soldiers were punished which shows a balance from unrestrained power (definition of tyranny).

Torture is wrong.  Period.  End of story.

"better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished"

I have a huge amount of respect for McCain because of his anti-torture stance and I would vote for him if he got the Republican nomination.  Of course, he won't get the Republican nomination because somehow it was wrong for him to point out that waterboarding is a torture technique invented by the Inquisition. 

better ten guilty men go free and thousands die?

OK, so where we're splitting here is in our definition of tyranny. I believe that an unlawful, indefinite detention with no access to the legal system to defend one's innocence is a form of tyranny and is the very tyranny we're employing here. I'm not talking about torture, but about unlawful, indefinite detention.

Hence my agreement to due process w/ military tribunal.

But my topic is before the indefinite detention. It is on the subject that we have information of a plot to bomb a building hosting thousands of people and we have evidence linking them to the plot.

Do you torture them to get potential information to save the thousand innocent civilians?