1 Well, perhaps if this chap Abdullah Mehsud had been charged with war crimes and afforded his rights under the Geneva Convention and a conviction imposed, he might not have been freed. I dont have sympathy for the Taliban but declaring them "illegal combatants" and then failing to produce any evidence is pretty scandelous really. Give them their due process, release the innocent and convict the guilty. But releasing some in an ad hoc manner is bound to have detrimental consequences. In addition, incarcerating people and leaving them in a legal limbo does not exude much faith in the judicial system.

2 Are you insane? This is WAR,not a freaking court of law. Unbelievable.

3 What do you mean "Unbelievable". What wrong with trying them in a court of law? Atleast give them POW status. What's wrong with that? Afraid that it might be cowering to international pressure? Or something to hide? In the event of a US service man or woman facing capture (God forbid) do you not think that they should be granted basic protection under the Geneva Convention? Or do you think that that is some daft bit of left wing legislation?

4 In addition, by virtue of giving them POW status, they would not have to be released until the fighting has ceased? Then they could be tried in a court of law.

5 No, POWs are not tried. They are detained. If this is a war, then why involve a court of law in any way? Terrorism is not a 'crime', it is an act of War. The key difference being that in a war you are presumed guilty by your very presence on the battlefied---and that means we kill you.

6 James, Show us his uniform. Show us where he took his oath to defend a nation or commission as an officer. Show us his national allegience. When we see those things, then he can have POW status. Until then, he has no rights as a POW and, not being a U.S. citizen, he has no legal standing in a U.S. court outside of our borders.

7 Let's try and think about this logically. Firstly, this is a war on terrorism, is it not? Those captured are prisoners, are they not? Therefore if they have been captured whilst at war, they are prisoners of war? I fail to see how you can refute this. Rusty your assertion that one's guilt is established by one's presence on the battlefield is particularly worrying. Why go to the trouble of detaining these men once they have been interrogated? Surely the money spent on their detention could be better employed, so why not "kill" them? Is this really what you are suggesting? If it is, then the world is a darker and gloomier place than I thought. Whether you believe a person is innocent until proven guilty or vice versa, the right to be tried in a court of law should be afforded to everyone. A failure to recognise this makes you no better than your enemy. Whether you use a dulled knife, bullet or noose the killing of a defenceless person in cold blood is murder, even more worrying, if such actions are carried out by a state. Do not lower yourself to the level of your enemy.

8 James you America hating piece of shit. American prisoners of war are never, never treated by the so called rules of war. They are nearly always murdered and dragged thru the streets. You want a one way ticket for your terrorists friends. I said you were a piece of shit months ago and you still are.

9 Kbiel: Right on, Right on. That terrorist defender james has no idea.

10 Hi my names Harold, Harold Taylor i remember going to the australian gold feilds in 1883, i think. There where many chinese out to get my gold because i had found a HUGE nugget about 4.5 metres by 7.2 metres long. One of the chinese people nearly killed me. The funny thing is that now we are the best of friends. I hope you get this email and i hope you write back about my amazing journey. yours, Harold Taylor

11 I want to thank you again for your kindness in your reply to me about that.