The line between who does and does not qualify for "protection" before being *accuesed of anythign* is a fine one. I thought our constitution translated into "you can't be yanked off the street because someone thinks you're on the wrong side and imprisoned without being accused of anything and refused outside contact with legal help" but the detaining of "terrorists" means exactly that. And INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY has NO PLACE in our current treatment of enemy combatants or anyone labelled "terrorist". Basically, once you get called a terrorist, that's the end of your rights as you know them and that is so Anti-American as to mean to me that if we continue down this path that we will no longer be the land of the free and the home of the brave, but the land of the detained and the home of the scared.
The reason that people who are accused of doing bad, evil, hateful things need protections is because not everyone who is accused has done bad, evil, hateful things.
BTW, I heard yesterday from a woman who has been doing extensive research on prisoner abuse within the American prison system, that the man in charge of Abu Ghraib was under investigation for the death of a prisoner at the prison under his civilian leadership. This prisoner had been strapped in 4 point restraints and left for days to die in his own feces. Abu Graib is not an anomaly. Treating prisoners humanely is NOT aiding and abetting the enemy.
ok now, I'm worked up.