(i) You ought to ask yourself a question: here we are, at war with people who've declared they want to kill or enslave us all and destroy our civilization,

When exactly did Afghan taxi-drivers declare they wanted to kill or enslave us all and destroy our civilization, Stirling? New York cab drivers, okay, but Afghanis?

ii, -- that's individual persons, as I said. It simply doesn't apply in this instance.

Why - because you say so?

They're held as individuals. The Third Convention is quite clear: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." That's in article 5 of the one signed, by the US in 1949 (or possibly 1950).

iii, It's interesting to watch who reflexively tries to handicap the side of good and empower that of evil.

It's interesting to watch people who use terms such as "good " and "evil" without regard for actually demonstrating an undrestanding of which side their tactics put them on.

iv, Law, in the sense of binding, enforceable edicts, is the product of sovereign power.

Can you tell us what the first power of the President mentioned in the second paragraph of Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution is?

v, When they think it's in their interests to disregard treaties (or customary methods), they do so. Eg., we simply renounced our nonproliferation treaty with the USSR some time ago.

And when exactly did the US renounce the Charter of the United Nations, Stirling? Date, please. States have a right to renounce treaties - when they ignore them or disregard them, this is regarded as dishonourable.

vi, In the current situation, the _entire organization_ we are fighting is in violation, and hence _none_ of its personnel have any protection.(*)

Really? I refer you to the Third Convention, Article 4, Section 1, the sixth category of "Prisoners of War" mentioned. We also note that the US treated with the Taliban prior to Sept. 11th, suggesting that it considered it the de facto government of Afghanistan, which was logical based on its control of the country.

And before you go on about them all being "terrorists", that determination is left by the Conventions to a competant tribunal - which you are not.

And, of course, your country is also torturing Iraqis. That is to say, people who have taken up arms against an occupying army after an illegal invasion. Insurgents. Resistance fighters. "Red Dawn" style patriots.