These guys are prisoners in a war they started that has no discernable end. POWs can legally be kept until the end of a war. We are legally able to keep the hard cases indefinitely, since they enlisted in a war with no end being waged against us. In any case we have released hundreds of others, some of whom have been caught or killed fighting us again. Furthermore all their operations, with very rare exceptions, are unlawful under the Geneva Conventions. I really don’t see the problem with trying them by court martial or military tribunal and applying any penalty the court finds reasonable and is lawful, including death. That was the way Otto Skorzeny’s commandos were treated in 1945 when they were caught out of uniform behind Allied lines during the Battle of the Bulge. They got no habeus corpus rights, nor was there any reason that they should. Neither is there any reason why the scum at Gitmo should. The main difference is that Skorzeny’s boyos were not trying as terrorists to carry out attacks on civilians, like these scum at Gitmo were.

All the protests against Gitmo have been use of law to hamper the US war effort by people who hate and despise America and want to see our defeat, and many more of us killed by terrorists, and by partisan opponents of the Bush Administration who used the issue for their selfish partisan politics while being unconcerned with the good of the country. There are a few more, like John McCain, who seem to me simply confused because this is a war unlike any other we have fought before, so that the catagories of previous wars do not fit very well the circumstances of this one. But confusion is no excuse for advocacy of wrongheaded policies.

(While there is the possibility that they would bond over their mutual Jew hatred, the prison authorities could also cut a deal, letting the gang leader know what killing them would mean to their priviliges. i.e., an improvement after a face-saving period in solitary.)