John B at Shot By Both Sides links to a Torygraph article on the Belmarsh detainees. I don't really want to add to what he says, since I think he's pretty much right. The little thing he didn't say, which I would have said, is IF IT'S SO OBVIOUS THEY'RE DEVIOUS TERRORISTS, CONSPIRING TO KILL PEOPLE, WHICH IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE, WHY CAN'T YOU PROVE IT IN A COURT OF LAW? IF THEY'VE BEEN MAKING POISONS, WHICH IS ALSO A CRIMINAL OFFENCE, WHY CAN'T YOU PROVE IT IN A COURT OF LAW? IF THEY'RE PLOTTING TO OVERTHROW PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY, WHICH IS TREASON, INCIDENTALLY, ALSO A CRIMINAL OFFENCE, WHY CAN'T YOU PROVE IT IN A COURT OF LAW? There. That's better.
Also, on the off-chance that you're interested, I've done a re-write of the first chapter of my dissertation having met with my (new) supervisor for the first time this term yesterday, the upshot of which is that I need to make my arguments clearer and so on, with the aim that an educated layman could understand the structure of my argument. I think I've achieved this. But, you, the hopefully educated layman, are probably the best judge of this. So if you're an educated layman or woman, and would be interested in reading the first chapter of a dissertation on neutrality (not the IR sort, the political theory sort) and perfectionism, say so in the comments below, and I'll email you a copy (if I had any idea how, or access to webspace, I'd try and put it up on the site, but I don't and haven't, so won't).
Update: Pearsall from Pearsall's Books has put it up on some webspace he has elsewhere, for which, thanks, and so you should be able to get it at http://www.pearsallrampage.co.uk/other/first.doc