It was the second day of a round of pretrial hearings in the 9/11 case, and Ramzi Binalshibh, one of five accused al-Qaida operatives, was in an angry mood. He didn't seem upset about facing the death penalty; in a previous round of hearings he had declared that he would embrace martyrdom. What bothered him were his lawyers' efforts to save his life.

The Afghan government should immediately relinquish 11-year-old Ahmed Siddiqui to the custody of his family, Human Rights Watch said today. Siddiqui, a US citizen, is believed to be the son of Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani woman held on US federal charges in New York.

What must the next United States president do to reclaim Washington's standing to promote human rights around the globe? Many aspects of President George Bush's administration's human rights policy have caused American moral authority to plummet, including its penchant for cosying-up to favoured dictators, equating democracy promotion with regime change, and undermining international standards such as the new treaty banning cluster munitions. But probably nothing has done more to tarnish Washington's reputation in this area than the administration's decision to combat terrorism without regard to US obligations under international human rights law.

The trial of Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni who has admitted to serving as Osama bin Laden’s driver and mechanic, exposed fundamental flaws of the US military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. The six-member panel of military officers today found Hamdan guilty of providing material support to terrorism, but acquitted him of a conspiracy charge after two days of deliberations.

When Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, the 39-year-old Saudi alleged to have been al-Qaida’s financial manager, appeared before the military commissions at Guantánamo Bay last month, his lawyer, Major Jon S. Jackson, intended to defend him on multiple charges. Al-Hawsawi is accused, in a group indictment with four others, of planning the 9/11 attacks. Jackson, a lumbering 6-foot-4 Army lawyer from Memphis, Tenn., had met repeatedly with al-Hawsawi and built a rapport with him.

New revelations of the U.S. government's systematic use of torture in the "global war on terror," including communist Chinese "brainwashing" methods from the 1950s, have brought renewed calls from lawmakers and human rights advocates for the prosecution of senior Bush administration officials. While the legal and political obstacles to such prosecutions are steep, those implicated will not want to leave the enjoyment of their retirement years to the mercy of the federal judiciary.

From Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib, the history of the United States's handling of combatants in the Global War on Terrorism is filled with episodes that have diminished its reputation and influence in the world. Most military and intelligence professionals now agree that presenting a more positive vision of American values is critical to success over terrorist organizations like al Qaeda. Developing a coherent and effective human rights policy raises important questions: about the efficacy and legality of torture and extraordinary rendition, the use of military instead of civilian courts to prosecute suspected terrorists, and whether some prisoners can be held indefinitely without charge or trial. Considering both morality and strategy, the next president should issue an executive order that categorically forbids torture, end the use of secret detention, close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, and seek to release or transfer to home countries detainees who cannot be prosecuted by the United States.

It should have been a great day for justice. The alleged perpetrators of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were finally appearing in court. This was their arraignment, at which they were to be formally charged of conspiring to cause the death of 2,973 people in the United States. But this was no ordinary court at all: It was a military commission, taking place more than six years after the terrorist attacks. And the quality of justice that the defendants were due to receive was in serious doubt.