I sure would like to see how Republicans can demonstrate that holding people first in secret jails and then in a territory on an island nation they have trade embargoes with, without trial, for unspecified periods of time, is helping THEM win this "war on terror". Which is a convenient term for keeping the US public terrified of everything now that the Cold War's over. As far as I can see it's just more ways to make the rest of the world view the US administration as paranoid and really pot-calling-the-kettle. Geneva Convention, anyone?

Not that I believe MY government (Australia) is any better than yours. But if you can explain to me how Guantanamo has saved one American life, with PROOF please, I'd love to see it.

Hard argument when posed from the perspective of a party that makes its bones trying to make the world a better place and protect us from ourselves. Prove that other nation's habit of turning suspects loose has saved any lives. Prove that a single life has been saved by warning labels on cigarettes.

Someone on the other side could as easily say prove that Gitmo HASN'T protected us from terrorist attacks. Prove that wearing a rabbit's foot isn't good luck. Would be about as reasonable.

Not that I believe MY government (Australia) is any better than yours. But if you can explain to me how Guantanamo has saved one American life, with PROOF please, I'd love to see it.

You cant prove a negative.  Or more precisely, if the terrorists had not been locked up, would they have killed people?  The answer is hypothetical since they are locked up.  But while no proof is possible, one has to ask oneself the question.  If Jeffrey Dahmer had not been caught, would he have killed and eaten more kids?

Anothermaso..........You can ONLY answer the following question "Yes or NO". Are you still beating your wife? Then, consider thoughtfully the outcome of whichever answer you choose. You see, your posing a "straw man" argument. Hypothetically speaking, we don't know if holding these people saved lives or not. However, do you believe that if the U.S. had been better at the whole terrorism aspect before September 11 it would have made a difference? At what point do you draw the line between "political correctness" and National Security? Is it ever correct to protect our country and citizens? It's obvious that you would rather take the risk than accept the responsibility that there are a group of people in this world that have a great desire to literally destroy your way of life. This can be positively proven, and was on that fateful day in September. As for me, I'm for National Security.

I have definite thoughts on Gitmo. I believe there are men there who pose a threat to security but there may be some who do not. Try them all in a military court or whatever and ship the guilty off to prison. OK, so Gitmo is a prison but it reminds me of a convicts' island in nineteenth century Australia. It is probably the most inhumane prison in the World (I don't go with "they deserve it"). What they deserve is a trial to separate the Mr Bigs from the Mr Smalls.