If Europeans truly believe that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are harmless victims of aggressive American force, then surely they would have no problem with them being released on their soil. Jesse Silverman, San Diego

Why close one of the most effective prisons in the world today? Yes, an appeal process is needed to determine which prisoners are not threats to world interests. The thing is, there is currently one in place. The problem to the international community is that it is not open to the public. Prisoners from Guantanamo have actually been released. Why isn't the process public? These people are threats to national security, they can pass messages to the outside world with public hearings. There is also the matter of evidence. If the trial is public, so is the evidence. The evidence unfortunately, must remain classified for interests of national and world security. As long as al-Qaeda exists, these prisoners cannot have public trials. As for the alleged abuses and torture, conditions could be improved slightly. It is not correct, however, to say there is rampant torture occurring there. The conditions are similar to supermax-level prisons across the globe. Name and address withheld

Tom Edwards (see below), your renewed defence of Guantanamo Bay is that it works in preventing and/or deterring terrorism. It is laughable if you believe that US measures send a "clear signal" to terrorists when you consider who these people are. Guantanamo does not deter the terrorists because terrorists couldn't care less about Guantanamo - and you'd be naive if you thought that they did care. I agree that we might be removing some dangerous individuals from their activities, but we have all been here before haven't we? It was also arguable that internment without trial during the Troubles in Northern Ireland removed unsavoury characters from their activities. However, there is ample evidence that the measures simply didn't work if you observed the rising IRA membership and consequent increase in IRA attacks during this period. Internment without trial was highly criticised and was eventually abandoned by the government at the time who realised that it was doing more damage than good. And this is where we stand with Guantanamo Bay at the moment: the secrecy, the allegations of maltreatment, the bad image is doing more damage than good in the fight against terrorism. Jeb Ewing, Emlichheim, Germany

Deaths in US military detention. Abu Ghraib. Torture of prisoners. Guantanamo Bay. Fallujia. 9/11. 7/7. The despair of Palestine. Iran and Afghanistan. Bali. The long, long war. What a wonderful legacy to leave for our children. Isn't it time to change? Mark Russell, Lytham St Annes

Fifty years ago, centres such as Guantanamo Bay were called concentration camps. The horrors of these camps were only truly realised when they were liberated, by the Allied Forces, of which America was an important part. By allowing its existence, America has turned its back on the basic recognition of the humanity of its detainees and is reflecting unpleasant parallels with history. The existence of Guantanamo is morally repugnant and legally questionable. It should not just be questioned by our politicians, but renounced openly and at the highest levels. Having MPs elude to Tony Blair's dislike of Guantanamo is not good enough and should not be accepted. Rob Cort, London

I don't think anyone has a problem with terrorists being brought to justice and facing the punishment deemed appropriate for their crimes. The problem with Guantanamo Bay is that we have no way of knowing if the inmates are terrorists as the US refuses to try them. Furthermore, why is it more of a crime for one side (in a war) to fight for what they believe in and not the other? Rachel Snow, London

"Gitmo" should be shut down or normalised to international law and convention. Is it any wonder the camp is intellectually challenged and rejected, when all we have to explain its legitimacy is vague assertion and false dichotomy? Following the farce of WMD intelligence/policy and its tragic expression in Iraq, we must hope the American people will eventually refuse to grant its government benefit-of-the-doubt over the "War on Terror". Chris Gibney, St Albans

If a case cannot be made against a person within four years of his detention, the probability of a successful conviction is virtually nil. All detainees who have not been charged or brought to trial should be released immediately - the fact that this immoral detention has gone on for so long is disgraceful on the parts of both the US and the international legal community. Does 'innocent until proven guilty' not apply to Arabs? Colin Jacobi, London

There has been some comment and criticism following the posting of my original contribution to this debate (see below). Like many of the people who have responded to the assertions I made in defence of Guantanamo Bay, I hold the value of justice and human rights very close to my heart. I am proud to be an Englishman in a country with a long history of civil rights, freedom and democratic institutions. What my critics fail to realise - in my opinion - is that by adopting terrorist methods, any country, organisation or group (whether there is justification in their cause or not) has stepped outside the boundaries of acceptable behaviour (see contribution from Keith Downer). Taking control of an aircraft and flying a suicide mission into a building full of people or detonating a bomb on a Tube train deep inside an underground tunnel is unacceptable to the point that it distorts any moral perspective that we - as civilised people - may hold. To act in a civilised manner is a privilege; a luxury made possible by living in a secure, stable and peaceful community - the very conditions that the terrorist threatens to destroy. Guantanamo Bay is a clear signal that our response can be tailored to meet the criteria that he, the terrorist, has designated in his attempt to destabilise our international community. When the terrorist is defeated, I will add my voice to the demands that Guantanamo Bay be swept into the sea! Tom Edwards, Bromley

There may well be dangerous people locked up in Guantanamo Bay. However, they are probably only a small percentage of the total. For generations the US has been the symbol of freedom and opportunity for the oppressed everywhere. Nevertheless, by holding these men for years on end with no formal legal charges the US has created an injustice that discredits that country in many eyes and makes it difficult for them to retain the moral high ground. It has created more terrorists - probably more than it currently holds. Post-9/11, the US Government has squandered the good will that 9/11 had so tragically brought it. Instead of making the world safer, they have created an environment where educated middle-class Muslims in the UK are prepared to blow themselves up for the wider Islamic cause. The post-invasion mess in Iraq was largely foreseeable but Bush and his "crusading" right-wing hawks went ahead anyway - without a coherent plan on how to manage the aftermath. Both in the US and here in the UK, we risk destroying what makes us better than the terrorists. The people in Guantanamo Bay must be given justice - that means bringing them to court to face charges or being released. Kevin Miller, Kent

The existence of such an institution is indeed a concern. That people should be incarcerated and subjected to ongoing torturous and degrading treatment without even the realistic prospect of trial for indefinite periods of time under the general heading of "war on terrorism" is utterly unacceptable. It should be well understood now that torturing those who allegedly terrorise will not extinguish the flame of their anger, rather it will feed it. Is this not part of the reason for them waging their terrorist acts in the first place? How foolish and gravely dangerous it may prove to further "justify" their cause. Undoubtedly, the existence of such a large terrorist organisation intent on inflicting pain and suffering on Western democracies is equally concerning. But one cannot but humbly wonder whether the clashing of arms is the weapon needed to effectively "war" against terrorism; has history taught us nothing? Phil Blatchly, Horsham

The issue of Guantanamo Bay is simply diversionary in my candid opinion. Let's spend our time preventing a tyrant who is out to exterminate the human race in his bid to develop and deploy a nuclear weapon. I'm very sure there are worse places in the Middle East than Guantanamo Bay. Name and address withheld

Guantanamo Bay may of course be a necessary evil in the US's 'fight against terror' but Mr Bush must recognise UN power and respond appropriately. He cannot expect Iran to respond to UN pressure in relation to uranium but ignore UN pressure when the tables are turned. We cannot appear to be 'soft' in our punishment of those who threaten western civilisation, but we must be seen as 'fair'. Therefore, Mr Bush should at least be seen to make some kind of compromise to appease the critics if nothing else. The problem when you play the part of liberator is that you must appear infallible and morally superior - this is unfortunately where Mr Bush falls short. Jemma Curnow, Cornwall