This issue strikes right at the heart of the age-old question of whether we want safety or freedom. On this issue I’ve always been uncompromisingly on the side of Thomas Jefferson. I would rather be killed in a terrorist attack than see the authorities imprisoning people without public trial in off-shore military facilities, and using questionable interrogation tactics to elicit information from them. Today it might be a dangerous terrorist, but tomorrow it could be someone who just said the wrong thing about the wrong person. There is no sure defence against compact suicide cells, which are the biggest terrorist threat at the moment, so at best the reward for maintaining prisons like Guantanamo is the illusion of security. Is that really worth the price?

Moreover, if a person constitutes a genuine threat there must be evidence that proves this to be the case. I can understand the necessity of preserving the security of intelligence sources, but surely it is possible to present the basic facts in a public court. If we are to abandon the right to a fair, open and timely trial because it becomes inconvenient or dangerous, do we have the moral authority to preach human rights to other countries? I think not.