> > That because you can technically define people to be outside the Geneva convention, that that makes it okay to treat them like animals?
>
> Quite simply, it's been established that different rules have to apply in war. If a Taliban soldier on the battlefield is trying to kill American troops, we don't grant him the right to live. The freedoms of people who are attempting to harm others have to be restricted.
>
> Rights are mutual obligations between society and individuals. Enemy soldiers, spies, and terrorists don't fall inside our legal framework, and so long as they are trying to destroy that framework itself, don't have the same protections.
>
> Things like the Geneva Convention apply to enemy soldiers who surrender themselves, to avoid needless brutality. It also requires that the soldiers in question conduct their operations according to the laws and customs of war to have POW status-and the Taliban hasn't come anywhere close to respecting their captives.
>
> It's understandable that regardless of their legal status we do not want to resort to inhumane tactics ourselves. The prisoners there, in some of the more publicized photos wore gas masks for their safety, and have to wear shackles when outside to prevent an escape or murder. Several of them received medical treatment for malaria, and as far as I can tell, their religious rights are being respected.
>
> They are better off than they could hope to be in Afghanistan, and better than they treated those they hoped to harm. Any form of incarceration certainly is unpleasant, but necessary to maintain civil order.
>
> MarkN

Well said, Mark.

Another thing to consider (with regards to those held at Camp X-ray) is when it was reported that Amnesty International and the other civil rights groups were complaining about the conditions of the prisoners, these groups had not actually seen the conditions the prisoners were being kept in and they were already scheduled to visit the camp later that week.

-Faux Pas