Can't very well send Uighars training as terrorists home- that would be China where, if they are really lucky, they will get a bullet in the back of the head when they step off the plane. Nobody else wants them for fear of annoying China; just as the US can't release them into the general population for much the same reason.

The problem with Gitmo is that the detainees were held as non-national combatants so that they could be put on trial. Had they been held as POWs then there would have only been a requirement for Red Cross Inspections. Once the lawyers got hold of the evidence for the trials it proved insufficient for anything more than a prima facie case in most instances. To simplify- the US officials thought it sufficient that if it looks like a terrorist and acts like a terrorist then it must be a terrorist; unfortunately people asked them to prove it. That is the hard part; there is a big difference between Not Guilty and Innocent. As Duncan pointed out, a number of released detainees have been recaptured in arms against Western forces. I would hasten to point out that I am not advocating a change in evidentiary standards in these cases- the US made a play for propaganda purposes (show trials) and it bit them in the arse.

The other problem, of course, was a definition of torture. We are told that waterboarding was the 'worst' device used at Gitmo- if so, then Australian SAS endure harsher techniques in their training. For legal purposes any information gathered is inadmissable as it is made under duress, but was it unethical to use these techniques to gather information to prevent another 9-11 or Bali Bomb? Would standard police techniques have worked? Ultimately it becomes a question of life or human rights.

A 16 year old is not a child soldier. There is no legal definition for a child soldier in international law; American federal law allows for the trial of 12years (from memory) and up on adult charges; Cambodia uses 14 years as its standard- Uganda 15 years (these are the two nations with recent legal history of prosecutions involving child soldiers).

As for the decade being bad for America's reputation it depends on how you want to look at it. If you are a rabid anti-American then obviously nothing is going to change your mind. But consider that opposition to Bush was allowed to speak out freely; in the end it resulted in a peaceful change of government. I would have thought that that was a tribute to the American system and people and a positive example for the world.