John Yoo

Without territory, it does not even have the resources to provide detention facilities for prisoners, even if it were interested in holding captured POWs.

This means that the U.S. can pursue different interrogation policies in each location. In fact, Abu Ghraib highlights the benefits of Guantanamo.

This is not to condone torture, which is still prohibited by the Torture Convention and federal criminal law.

The naval station's location means the military can base more personnel there and devote more resources to training and supervision.

The Justices are currently considering a case, argued last month, which seeks to extend the writ of habeas corpus to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at Guantanamo.

It has never demonstrated any desire to provide humane treatment to captured Americans. If anything, the murders of Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl declare al Qaeda's intentions to kill even innocent civilian prisoners.

In light of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, critics are arguing that abuses of Iraqi prisoners are being produced by a climate of disregard for the laws of war.

Applying different standards to al Qaeda does not abandon Geneva, but only recognizes that the U.S. faces a stateless enemy never contemplated by the Conventions.

It is important to recognize the differences between the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. The treatment of those detained at Abu Ghraib is governed by the Geneva Conventions, which have been signed by both the U.S. and Iraq.

It's a document that reinforces tradition, ... incremental changes.

American soldiers had to guard prisoners on the inside while receiving mortar and weapons fire from the outside. Guantanamo is distant from any battlefield, making it far more secure.

It is also worth asking whether the strict limitations of Geneva make sense in a war against terrorists.

Former co-clerk Saikrishna Prakash recalls teasing, John, break out the crystal ball and tell us what the framers thought. ... Yes, I consulted the framers. You're all wrong, and I'm right.

Under the Geneva Convention, for example, a POW is required only to provide name, rank, and serial number and cannot receive any benefits for cooperating.

I'm not talking policy. I'm just talking about the law.

The effort to blur the lines between Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib reflects a deep misunderstanding about the different legal regimes that apply to Iraq and the war against al Qaeda.

Human-rights advocates, for example, claim that the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners is of a piece with President Bush's 2002 decision to deny al Qaeda and Taliban fighters the legal status of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

Once the attacks occur, as we learned on Sept. 11, it is too late. It makes little sense to deprive ourselves of an important, and legal, means to detect and prevent terrorist attacks while we are still in the middle of a fight to the death with al Qaeda.

It urges policy makers and the Supreme Court to make the mistake of curing what could prove to be an isolated problem by disarming the government of its principal weapon to stop future terrorist attacks.

A decision by the Supreme Court to subject Guantanamo to judicial review would eliminate these advantages.

If you believe those rules have been changed by the state Supreme Court in this instance, you have the legal right and indeed the constitutional duty at that point to intervene,

Congress's definition of torture in those laws - the infliction of severe mental or physical pain - leaves room for interrogation methods that go beyond polite conversation.

It shows an interest in thinking deeply about the role of the courts in society and the proper interpretation of the Constitution based on its text and history.

I thought of John Roberts as a peace offering. President Bush could have nominated someone much more conservative.

That is because the conflict with al Qaeda is not governed by the Geneva Conventions, which applies only to international conflicts between states that have signed them.