Whatever happened to the rights of man?

The Obama administration is considering establishing a national security court that would be utilized to try, convict and imprison terrorists, even though the available evidence would be insufficient to obtain a conviction in a federal court or even in the military commissions program.
Yet, why should we seek to detain someone, if there is insufficient evidence to do so?
Either there is solid, reliable evidence to prosecute someone, or there is not.
If there is, then judge the suspect, if there is not, then he or she should be released…
On what possible grounds can we still detain them?
Because the President claims they are enemies of the state?
Should that be sufficient in a democracy?
According to Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration justice department official, the federal court system is quite suitable to try Guantanamo detainees:
Shortly after 9/11, Michael Chertoff, then head of the Criminal Division of DOJ, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Article III federal courts have performed brilliantly in the trials of terrorism cases assisted by the Classified Information Procedures Act of 1980 (CIPA).
CIPA preserves the rights of the accused, while at the same time preventing classified information from being disclosed…
Are some individuals, therefore, inherently unworthy of being treated fairly, like the rest of us?
Why can’t the conventional court system apply to suspected terrorists?
Others have successfully been tried there in the past ( Zacarias Moussaoui, for example).
Must we devise special rules for those we may have impetuously branded terrorists?
One participant in a meeting the President held yesterday with representatives of human rights organizations said afterwards:
He was almost ruminating over the need for statutory change to the laws so that we can deal with individuals who we can’t charge and detain. We’ve known this is on the horizon for many years, but we were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning.
If we cannot charge or detain them, then what are these people doing in prison?
Since when do democracies lock people up without justification?
The situation is paradoxical for the following reasons:
So many of these detainees having been abused, the evidence obtained, however credible it may be, is tainted , and thus inadmissible in court…
Even those who were later interrogated in more conventional ways were not advised of their rights against self-incrimination!!
Because of these shortcuts, of these shortcomings, they will have to settle for a second rate judicial system, based on this national security court, or the military commissions system that Obama has decided to preserve, albeit with a few modifications, that is incompatible with the very concept of justice.
They will be judged by standards we would consider disgraceful were they to be
applied to us…
We would demand justice for ourselves, but will tolerate a parody of justice for them.
Is that really our conception of freedom and democracy?
What ever happened to the rights of man…?