It would be nice to bear in mind that as of VE Day in 1945 there were 400,000 Germans imprisoned on U.S. soil.  Many of them claimed to be innocent bystanders, forced to work for German army units and captured along with them.  None of them was ever charged with anything.  None of them had a right to any hearing before any tribunal to determine whether they should be held.  At Guantanamo, every detainee has had such a hearing, and every one has access to the courts of the United States on a habeas corpus petition.  Save your tears.

"PARMA, Ohio -- The former imam of Ohio's largest mosque became a man without a country after being convicted of concealing his ties to terrorist groups.

"Fawaz Damra was rejected by 72 countries and left with no choice but to be deported to his native West Bank, leading to his arrest by Israeli authorities on Jan. 4."

It is time to close down the prison and release the people to safe countries that will not torture them.

There's gotta be at least one.. maybe even two... countries still left in the world where successive US administrations over the past century haven't undermined, usurped, overthrow or destabilized their governments or set up corrupt and oppressive client states, pillaged natural resources, killed innocent citizens with aerial attacks, or otherwise turned into evil insane America hatin' terrists.

Y'all 'll think of somewhere, I'm sure. How about... Texas?

I have talked about this before here at TalkLeft. For your edification, I will explain the laws that govern our actions with regard to the Guantanamo prisoners once more. The reason I do this (repeatedly) is because international law explicitly prohibits prosecuting prisoners for the act of making war for their countries.

Because you obviously are not aware of international law, you demand that the prisoners be charged with something or released. Unfortunately, such an act with respect to POWs is explicitly prohibited. Futhermore, with respect to unlawful combatants, they also cannot be prosecuted for making war for their countries. Unlike POWs, however, they can be prosecuted for the acts which make their combatancy unlawful.

That pretty much sums up our duties with regard to the Guantanamo detainees. Those that are POWs cannot be charged with a crime. They can only be held until the end of hostilities (which is why we're seeing more and more of them released back to their countries). The unlawful combatants can be charged for the acts which made their combatancy unlawful. That's what all the hubub about the MCA 2006 was about. Those trials will be starting soon.

However, for those who are interested in a more in-depth discussion about the laws we are bound to follow, continue reading:

First, international law places certain obligations on countries that take prisoners. The most important of these laws is the Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. The United States is a party to the convention and it therefore has a duty to abide by its text.

It is important to note that the convention applies regardless of whether an "official" war has been declared. Furthermore, POWs are entitled to their rights regardless of whether the detaining power even recognizes the sovereignty of their country.

But this brings up a new issue: just who is protected under the convention? Article 3 provides minimum protections that apply for members of the following groups: (1) persons taking no part in hostilities; (2) those members of the armed forces who have surrendered or been put out of the fight because of illness, wounds, or detention.

But the Geneve protections do not stop there. Some combatants are entitled to special protection. These combatants, when detained, are called "Prisoners of War", a term of art in international law.

Prisoner of war status under international law (Article 4(A) of the Geneva Convention (III)) is conferred on the the following:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces;
(2) Members of militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organzied resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict...provided that such fulfil the following (cumulative) conditions:
     (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his suboardinates;
     (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recongizable at a distance;
     (c) that of carrying arms openly;
     (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany armed forces without being members thereof (e.g. journalists, non-military medics, etc.)
(5) Members of the merchant marine and crews of civil aircrafts.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist. (Levee en masse.)

It should be noted that though the cumulative conditions binding irregular forces under (2) are not listed for regular armed forces, those forces are not absolved from fulfilling the same conditions. Under the Geneva Conventions, the only time the cumulative conditions are eased is in the case of levee en masse.

So, some detainees, but not all, will have extra protections. However, for the purposes of determining whether charging them with something is mandated, it is mostly unnecessary to categorize them. Both POWs and unlawful combatants can be held until cessation of hostilities, but it is entirely at the discretion of the detaining power whether they will be tried for any crimes.

Note once again, that while no one can be prosecuted for the act of making war for one's country, unlawful combatants are treated differently than POWs. Ex parte Quirin, a Supreme Court case decided in 1942, outlines the difference:

By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.

It is possible and legal for detaining powers to put unlawful combatants to trial. But it is not a command of international law in the sense that it is required of a detaining power.

It sounds like you're doing a pretty good job of hating America in your own right.  The characterization of American actions over the past century seems, to be polite about it, quite hysterical.  No nation in history has done more to advance and support the notion of democracy and individual liberty than the US has done in that period, and the billion-plus people in Europe and Asia who have benefited from the use and the threat of US military force are well aware of it--and grateful for it.