I believe in human rights until you take away or infinge upon the rights of others.  Once you have done that, you've voided your rights while in the process of trying to void someone else's.

That is precisely why I have no problem 'taking away' or 'ignoring' the rights of terrorists and combatants against our (U.S.A. and it's allies) interests in the global war on terror.

The people that have taken up arms against us or our allies have opted to sacrifice their rights and as such they are entitled only to what we opt to give them until after we have the time to try them and penalize them.  Until then, they can sit on their duffs, eat the M.R.E.s we have provided to them, and STFU.

This is the nut of the issue, is it not?  For if we then say they must all be free pending a trial - by our laws - then we are violating international laws and treaties.  Would you have wanted the American POWs subject to Iraqi law in the first gulf war?  Then they would have been eligible for execution by the very fact they did not kiss Saddams butt.

So by the nature that they were captured in armed conflict (or plotting there of) against the US means they cannot be subject to OUR laws (again we have not even scratched the issue of Human rights).  And therefore, subjecting them to OUR courts would then be a violation and would open our own soldiers up to the same treatment.  Hence, while it would be nice to PROVE they are guilty of plotting or carrying out terrorist acts - or in armed combat with the US, we cannot do that as we are bound by man made laws.

So in Gitmo must they sit.  Then we can discuss Human Rights.  Of course it is against HUMAN rights to imprison someone against their will.  Should we let them go?  Well, we have prisons full of US citizens that are imprisoned against their will.  Why?  Because many broke man made laws (some having nothing to do with Human rights or natural law, but of laws that society has made to keep society from devolving into an anarchy).

And thus the easy sound bite is broken down into just that - a sound bite.  We cannot try them - that is a violation of law.  We must detain them, or they will (we assume) do their best to deny others of their human rights.

That is the crux of it.  The rest - allegations of abuse torture and nude pictures  - are just that.  Allegations and those can be demonstrated against and argued about (which would go towards the issue of Human rights - but not Law as non-uniformed combatants are the same as spies and according to law, they have no right to any redress).

While some would love to argue that the latest administration loves to grab a bag of popcorn and watch the latest torture techniques done in secret, and have alleged that this is approved all the way up to the white house, the facts are far different.  When routed out, mis-treatment (I will not be so shallow as to call it torture) of POWs and enemy combatants have been investigated and when found to be true, the perpertrators have been punished in accordance with laws.

But when the international media and some here in the US decide that mis-handling a Koran, showing nudy pictures to prisoners, and lying to them is torture, that is where I basically part ways and tell them to get a life.  Those things are not depriving them of any rights - human, natural, or man made - nor is it torture (except those that think subjecting rats to a Ramones concert is torture).

In short, yes, you can argue that depriving them of freedom is against human rights.  But then depriving them of freedom, with or without a trial is that as well (it is a HUMAN right).  Yet I dont hear many (some yes) demanding that.  So we are left with what is prevalent in this world.  Living by man made laws that are imperfect in order to guarantee most the rights they were born with.