applied to German and Japanese prisoners of war, some held for 4 long years or more, should have been granted habeas corpus rights and trials, or released.

But those soldiers were likely in uniform when they were imprisoned. That would be a bit more difficult case to fight.

Actually, World War II, at least the part where the U.S. was taking prisoners, lasted less than 4 years. Pearl Harbor was December 7, 1941 and the Japanese surrender was in August, 1945. The German surrender was in May, 1945.

Anyway, the key point here is the specific status of the people at Guantanamo. If they're prisoners of war, they're subject to the Geneva Conventions, which permits detention until the war is over; if they're criminals, they should get tried for their crimes; if they're neither, then we don't have a right to hold them. The habeas proceedings will decide this.

When is the War on Terror over? Who did Congress declare it against?

Let's see, people are attacking me but I can't quite fit what they're doing into one of the lawyers little boxes so I guess I won't do anything about it.

Breaker:

Let's see, people are attacking me but I can't quite fit what they're doing into one of the lawyers little boxes so I guess I won't do anything about it.

You're absolutely right, Breaker! Please remind me again when the federal government declared war against the Michigan militia group that Timothy McVeigh was associated with? And when did federal troops occupy Michigan, the state which harbored this terrrorist? Also, how many enemy combatants did the feds seize and hold without trial who incited the violence? You know, G. Gordon Liddy, Rush Limbaugh, and all the other media talking heads ("imams," perhaps?) who talked ad nauseum about the grave injustices commited by the "corrupt" federal government at Ruby Ridge and Waco. Such hate speech surely can't be protected during a time of war?

Also, I was mugged & assaulted in 2001 while visiting NYC. Turns out, these people have also been attacking innocent Americans for decades! When will we declare war on them and profile them at airports and bus terminals? My attacker was a white American male in his late 20's; let's start with this group!

... well, I guess that's as good enough response to illogoc as any ;-)

This question may point up why your logic, and the Administration's, is flawed: Were those Japanese & German POWs facing trials for crimes?

The Administration at least doesn't consider these folks POWs. Rather, most are being detained as "illegal combatants" -- that is, folks not adhereing to the laws of war -- and some are accused of what would be "war crimes" if committed by soldiers. These folks accused of crimes are not being held pending cessation of hostilities. Instead, they are being held pending criminal prosecution. Those folks who arern't facing trial might be released at the end of the war, but how do you define when that is -- it's not like traditional hostilities where an oppossing force is beaten to the point of its national political leadership capitutlating...

In other words, adverts to prior experience at war aren't particularly helpful in the current circumstance -- the conflict now is not analogous enough to the conflict then, or so the Administration has oft reminded us in seeking new authorities it argues as necessary to success in the new paradigm...

Can't have it both ways...

I agree. This debate over prisoners held in U.S. jails hinges on the legal status of the prisoners: military personnel vs. criminals.

Historically, military personnel have been employeed by a military organization, and paid for services, provided a uniform, weapons and food. Behavior is controlled via a code of ethics and military legal code. Violators are subject to imprisonment.

Criminals operate more loosely, perhpas like organized crime -- drug lords, or the mafia. Behavior is controlled by a code of ethics and allegiance to the boss. Violators are subject to death.

I feel the difficulty with this situation really hinges on Bush insisting that his terror prisoners were neither military personnel nor criminals. Bush wanted a new legal classification for his prisoners: enemy combatants.

For me, Bush's prisoners were indeed international criminals. They should not be classified as military prisoners.