Every moral tradition has a test for virtue that asks the agent to measure the rightness or wrongness of an option by asking, “What would you have others do unto you?”

I don't think there is much dispute as to whether these soldiers are being treated humanely, as far as anyone knows. The dispute is whether the Iranians had the right to capture them which, pending the release of this 'hard evidence' that Britain has, seems to not be the case.

Let's suppose the Iranians lied.

How does that change the question in comparison with the Bush government?

So you two are suggesting that perhaps rather than question the morality of the imprisonment, we should question the validity of the arrest? Okay. Let's do the same for the Guantanamo detainees.

Okay. In the case of the vast majority of the Guantanamo detainees, we've had a good reason to believe that these people were involved in or connected to terror networks.

Terror networks? a.k.a. people who oppose illegal American Imperialism? Or people who were just in wrong place at wrong time? This talk is only used to terrorize the public with "terror cells" which have never existed in other place than your wild imaginaries and don't have any proof to support them.