The prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

That is a decision to be made by our government.

1 Peter 2

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,

14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

As Christians we are to pray for our enemies.

But if I were in the military and in charge of interrogations, I would not torture, but they would be incacerated in not very nice conditions until they spoke up.

Pray that they receive the Gospel and are saved while they can.

I believe simply that the US should abide by the tenets set out in the Geneva Convention, which they signed and claim to cherish. It is a simple matter of going back on your word, which is what the US is doing right now.

We are to love our enemies, to do good things for those who hatefully use us, to be kind to those who would harm us, according to the Bible.

So how could we justify torture?

Under what conditions would Jesus torture someone?

The US is by its own admission "at war with terrorism", and thus any terrorists captured would be prisoners of said war with terrorism, and thus are (or should be) POW's. And simply calling them detainees does not change what they really are. The Korean War was labelled a "police action", but we all know it was a war.
Regardless, the US is involved in a military action in Afghanistan, and anyone taken captive in this action should be considered a prisoner of war.

Yes, that's right. That's how the US can justify ignoring the Geneva Convention, since they are "detainees" and not POW's. They needed a way to interrogate/detain/potentially torture/whatever those captured during the "war on terrorism", and historically the US is excellent at finding ways to get around international agreements.

"By the way, the U.S. has long been involved in the 'War on Drugs' and the 'War on Poverty'. Does the Geneva Convention apply here as well? "

Both of those are primarily internal policies, so I hardly think it likely that the US will hold it's own citizens as POW's.
In any case, the US has engaged in a military action in Afghanistan, and the "detainees" in Guantanamo were taken in this military action, which is significantly different than the "war" on poverty or drugs.

I think that the "my country right or wrong" attitude of Americans is showing through again. Virtually every nation on earth has begun to question the actions of the US in Guantanamo Bay, so my opinions are hardly unique. You didn't argue any of my points, and presented no facts yourself to defend your point of view. How does this constitute a reasonable argument in your favour? I have no squabble with you personally, so please don't turn this into a personal matter by attacking me.

"Virtually every nation on earth has begun to question the actions of the US " i don't think that thought is anything new, or anymore prevalent than it was 10 years ago... it's a state that i imagine the US will have to deal with for as long as their government IS so dominant (in a good way, happy neigbor )
And for as much as our government in Canada might not like the prisoner issue, we ain't nearly suited for offering any options. Even our defense minister acknowledged that ALL prisoners or detainee's WILL and HAVE been handed over to the US troops who are leading the action

we also live in a society that intrinsicly loves the david and goliath complex... little defeats big, and the US is big, so it is very very pervasive and easy to root for the other guy, in almost every situation...

i think if i were a paint brush, i wouldn't want to ever be a broad-brush because they get such a bad rap
i wonder if strathy is looking up the geneva convention, because it never ceases to amaze me what i can learn on this forum over and beyond the obvious!

Alright, I've been reading over the Geneva Convention relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, of which both the United States and Afghanistan are signatories. Take a look here for the full text: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

1. The Convention is applicable to the conflict, since "the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. "

2. Those in Guantanamo Bay are undoubtedly POW's under the definition given in Part 1, Article 4. It is very long, so I won't paste it here. For this reason alone, the US is technically in violation of the Convention, but simply calling them something different is hardly cause for alarm.

3. The provisions that have to be made for POW's are given in Part 1, Article 3. Thus the debate now becomes, has the US done what is required under this Article for those detained in Guantanamo Bay. I do not know, since I haven't been there. But the simple fact that the "detainees" are being detained in Cuba and are not given POW status is extremely suspicious.