This is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about. This reader objects to my statement that “Terrorists are not dissidents” and then writes:

Nor are all – or even MOST – of the people who were in Abu Ghraib (for
instance), terrorists. In fact, if we’re going to make a moral argument
against torture, one of our starting points ought to be “innocent until
proven guilty”, part of the bedrock of America due process. From that
starting point, NO ONE in our (network of secret CIA) “terrorist” prisons
is a terrorist, because not a single one of them has been tried by an
impartial court of law of any kind.
Likewise, there is no moral relativism in saying that accused mass
murderers should be accorded due process and human rights: indeed, that’s
a form of moral absolutism. It is the belief that some people – because
they are Iraqis, say – are less entitled to basic human rights that is a
form of relativism.
“Whatever you think of the torture issue, we should not lose sight of
these very, very important distinctions.” right back at you.
Also, you misspelled “glibly” as “gliby”. Unless the latter is a word I
am unfamiliar with.

Me Touché on the typo. Beyond that, are people seriously thinking that every single terrorist we capture has to be called a terrorist before he’s tried by an impartial jury?

As for insisting on a trial for everybody being a form of “moral absolutism” I don’t buy that either. It’s certainly a form of absolutism, whether it qualifies as moral absolutism is another argument altogether.