Read the FBI report. Keep in mind that these are prisoners who've never been charged with anything, let alone convicted. Each one may be the next Mohammad Atta -- or he may be as innocent as you. If you read the FBI report without knowing what it described, would you say, "That sounds like something they'd do in Cuba," confirming every bad thought you'd ever had about Castro and Communism?
Okay, now tell me the upside of treating people like this.

What part of the phrase "Prisoners of War" are you failing to grasp?

"Q: Why can't the prisoners be given trials?"

"A: Because civil libertarians might injure themselves as they race to defend the "terrorist suspects" and collide in the airport jetways. Because the left seems to think the detainees were arrested for the crime of "being swarthy in Afghanistan," and there are no such specific charges in the U.S. criminal code. Finally, if convicted, the "terrorists" would go into the U.S. federal pens, where the food is worse and they are subject to brutal rape. We reserve that for recidivist marijuana wholesalers."

I fail to see the depth of the mind-set that seems to feel we have to give extra-special treatment to those who have and will kill us without a second thought. It seems to rise up from some sort of deathwish that perfection must rule at home while those "poor unfortunate others" in the vast third world that live to slit the throat of Americans get a free pass. Always.

The "upside" of keeping prisoners of war in prison for the duration (and I really don't care how long that is) is to keep them from going back to the war and killing again.

That's how war works.