U.S. foreign policy has hardly supported democratic institutions in Pakistan. The New York Times has finally chosen to pay a nod to these concerns.

When Guantánamo finally does close, it appears that some of its most shameful policies will continue on U.S. soil, potentially reducing the closure to a symbolic gesture.

Some 440,000 immigrants and asylum-seekers are expected to be detained in the U.S. this year. We need to be realistic. We need immigration reform and that has to come from Congress.

If the government intends to incarcerate suspected criminals regardless of the verdict, then the trial is just a show. As the Queen of Hearts said in Alice in Wonderland: "Sentence first -- verdict afterwards."

Whether called "preventive", "indefinite" or "prolonged," prevention detention schemes are essentially lawless, unconstitutional and un-American. At its root, detention without trial threatens democracy.

Lt. Col. Vandeveld said, "I simply could not in good conscience continue to work for an ad-hoc, hastily created apparatus whose evident resort to expediency and ethical compromise were so contrary to my own."

A legal quagmire that lacks legitimacy and maintains key policies of the Bush administration's "War on Terror" is almost too awful to contemplate.

Obama's controversial detention plan for Guantanamo detainees keeps leaking and it is a fundamentally radical, dangerous and potentially unconstitutional approach.

Sadly, our celebrity-obsessed world is unlikely to pay much attention to the International Day in Support of the Victims of Torture, as the death of Michael Jackson dominates headlines.

The Obama administration is rushing towards a unilateral plan to imprison people without trial. The proposal would cut Congress out of the process by using an executive order to essentially bring Gitmo stateside.

Obama's capitulation to the intelligence gurus and the right-wing attack dogs will not only imperil the rule of law; it will actually make us more vulnerable to future acts of terrorism.

What should we do with "detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people"? This question cuts to the very heart of the concept of preventive detention.

Look at the sentence, "Hold[ing] individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war," replace "an act of war" with "any crime," and you will realize why the proposed policy is so terrifying.

Proponents of national security courts claim that these new hybrid courts would eliminate burdensome procedural rules that protect the rights of defendants.