In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:08:24 +0100, Peter Wiley
said:

We have locked up confirmed enemy terrorist captured in the act, men
without a country.

Bull****. You have one of our (Australian) citizens locked up. You
can't seem to charge him with anything but you don't let him go.

This is fairly typical of the muddled thinking one sees in some quarters.
And that on both sides of the argument. The rationale for locking those
folks up is not that they're "terrorists." Although they don't abide by the
rules of war by wearing uniforms, etc., they're being locked up not for
crimes but because we don't want to release them so they can fight against
us again--just as we would keep any POW under lock and key. So the issue is
not whether they should be "charged" with anything. It's whether they were
engaged in combat for the side opposing us, and whether the hostilities
continue. If your Australian citizens were not engaged in combat against us,
or hostilities are over, they should be released. Otherwise, they should
not.

................ except that your Govt has *specifically* denied that
these people are POW's.

Now, where does that leave your argument?

PDW