A deadly kindness

[GaryC 7]

September 15, 2006 -- GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA

ON the military plane back from America's most fa mous terrorist holding pen, the in-flight film was "V for Vendetta," a screed that tries to justify terrorism. It was a fitting end to a surreal, military-sponsored trip.

The Pentagon seemed to be hoping to disarm its critics by showing them how well it cares for captured terrorists. The trip was more alarming than disarming. I spent several hours with Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., who heads the joint task force that houses and interrogates the detainees. (The military isn't allowed to call them "prisoners.")

Harris, a distinguished Navy veteran who was born in Japan and educated at Annapolis and Harvard, is a serious man trying to do a politically impossible job. I spoke with him at length, and with a dozen other officers and guards, and visited three different detention blocks.

The high-minded critics who complain about torture are wrong. We are far too soft on these guys - and, as a result, aren't getting the valuable intelligence we need to save American lives.

The politically correct regulations are unbelievable. Detainees are entitled to a full eight hours sleep and can't be woken up for interrogations. They enjoy three meals and five prayers per day, without interruption. They are entitled to a minimum of two hours of outdoor recreation per day.

Interrogations are limited to four hours, usually running two - and (of course) are interrupted for prayers. One interrogator actually bakes cookies for detainees, while another serves them Subway or McDonald's sandwiches. Both are available on base. (Filet o' Fish is an al Qaeda favorite.)

Interrogations are not video or audio taped, perhaps to preserve detainee privacy.

Call it excessive compassion by a nation devoted to therapy, but it's dangerous. Adm. Harris admitted to me that a multi-cell al Qaeda network has developed in the camp. Military intelligence can't yet identify their leaders, but notes that they have cells for monitoring the movements and identities of guards and doctors, cells dedicated to training, others for making weapons and so on.

And they can make weapons from almost anything. Guards have been attacked with springs taken from inside faucets, broken fluorescent light bulbs and fan blades. Some are more elaborate. "These folks are MacGyvers," Harris said.

Other cells pass messages from leaders in one camp to followers in others. How? Detainees use the envelopes sent to them by their attorneys to pass messages. (Some 1,000 lawyers represent 440 prisoners, all on a pro bono basis, with more than 18,500 letters in and out of Gitmo in the past year.) Guards are not allowed to look inside these envelopes because of "attorney-client privilege" - even if they know the document inside is an Arabic-language note written by a prisoner to another prisoner and not a letter to or from a lawyer.

That's right: Accidentally or not, American lawyers are helping al Qaeda prisoners continue to plot.

There is little doubt what this note-passing and weapons-making is used for. The military recorded 3,232 incidents of detainee misconduct from July 2005 to August 2006 - an average of more than eight incidents per day. Some are nonviolent, but the tally includes coordinated attacks involving everything from throwing bodily fluids on guards (432 times) to 90 stabbings with homemade knives.

One detainee slashed a doctor who was trying to save his life; the doctors wear body armor to treat their patients.

The kinder we are to terrorists, the harsher we are to their potential victims.

Striking the balance between these two goods (humane treatment, foreknowledge of deadly attacks) is difficult, but the Bush administration seems to lean too far in the direction of the detainees. No expense spared for al Qaeda health care: Some 5,000 dental operations (including teeth cleanings) and 5,000 vaccinations on a total of 550 detainees have been performed since 2002 - all at taxpayer expense. Eyeglasses? 174 pairs handed out. Twenty two detainees have taxpayer-paid prosthetic limbs. And so on.

What if a detainee confesses a weakness (like fear of the dark) to a doctor that might be useful to interrogators, I asked the doctor in charge, would he share that information with them? "My job is not to make interrogations more efficient," he said firmly. He cited doctor-patient privacy. (He also asked that his name not be printed, citing the potential for al Qaeda retaliation.)

Food is strictly halal and averages 4,200 calories per day. (The guards eat the same chow as the detainees, unless they venture to one of the on-base fast-food joints.) Most prisoners have gained weight.

Much has been written about the elaborate and unprecedented appeal process. Detainees have their cases reviewed once a year and get rights roughly equivalent to criminals held in domestic prisons. I asked a military legal adviser: In what previous war were captured enemy combatants eligible for review before the war ended? None, he said.

America has never faced an enemy who has so ruthlessly broken all of the rules of war - yet never has an enemy been treated so well.

Of Gitmo's several camps, military records show that the one with the most lenient rules is the one with the most incidents and vice versa. There is a lesson in this: We should worry less about detainee safety and more about our own.

Some 20 current detainees have direct personal knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and nearly everyone of the current 440 say they would honored to attack America again. Let's take them at their word.

Richard Miniter (richardminiter.com) is a bestselling author and adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolu...ard_miniter.htm

[one...two...tree 2,762]

September 15, 2006 -- GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA

ON the military plane back from America's most fa mous terrorist holding pen, the in-flight film was "V for Vendetta," a screed that tries to justify terrorism. It was a fitting end to a surreal, military-sponsored trip.

The Pentagon seemed to be hoping to disarm its critics by showing them how well it cares for captured terrorists. The trip was more alarming than disarming. I spent several hours with Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., who heads the joint task force that houses and interrogates the detainees. (The military isn't allowed to call them "prisoners.")

Harris, a distinguished Navy veteran who was born in Japan and educated at Annapolis and Harvard, is a serious man trying to do a politically impossible job. I spoke with him at length, and with a dozen other officers and guards, and visited three different detention blocks.

The high-minded critics who complain about torture are wrong. We are far too soft on these guys - and, as a result, aren't getting the valuable intelligence we need to save American lives.

High minded critics -what kind of journalistic garbage is that? Is this the journalist's opinion or the Admiral's because I don't see any quotes around it? How about addressing specific people, such as retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam? Respond to what he has said about interrogation methods.

The politically correct regulations are unbelievable. Detainees are entitled to a full eight hours sleep and can't be woken up for interrogations. They enjoy three meals and five prayers per day, without interruption. They are entitled to a minimum of two hours of outdoor recreation per day.

Politically correct regulations??? What the hell does that mean? Is this journalist saying that the camp's methods of operation are dictated by an outside source? Who's in charge of the camp and who's setting the regulations? Under what jurisdiction of what laws is it governed that requires this kind of treatment for the detainees?

Interrogations are limited to four hours, usually running two - and (of course) are interrupted for prayers. One interrogator actually bakes cookies for detainees, while another serves them Subway or McDonald's sandwiches. Both are available on base. (Filet o' Fish is an al Qaeda favorite.)

Listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Interrogations are not video or audio taped, perhaps to preserve detainee privacy.

They are so concerned about the detainees privacy, they won't video tape it? Poppycock. They SHOULD be documenting each interrogation for evidence at the very least. Holy Cow!

Call it excessive compassion by a nation devoted to therapy, but it's dangerous. Adm. Harris admitted to me that a multi-cell al Qaeda network has developed in the camp. Military intelligence can't yet identify their leaders, but notes that they have cells for monitoring the movements and identities of guards and doctors, cells dedicated to training, others for making weapons and so on.

More journalistic garbage? How can this guy expect to be taken seriously? He loses credibility with his injected opinions and generalizations.

And they can make weapons from almost anything. Guards have been attacked with springs taken from inside faucets, broken fluorescent light bulbs and fan blades. Some are more elaborate. "These folks are MacGyvers," Harris said.

Other cells pass messages from leaders in one camp to followers in others. How? Detainees use the envelopes sent to them by their attorneys to pass messages. (Some 1,000 lawyers represent 440 prisoners, all on a pro bono basis, with more than 18,500 letters in and out of Gitmo in the past year.) Guards are not allowed to look inside these envelopes because of "attorney-client privilege" - even if they know the document inside is an Arabic-language note written by a prisoner to another prisoner and not a letter to or from a lawyer.

That's right: Accidentally or not, American lawyers are helping al Qaeda prisoners continue to plot.

There is little doubt what this note-passing and weapons-making is used for. The military recorded 3,232 incidents of detainee misconduct from July 2005 to August 2006 - an average of more than eight incidents per day. Some are nonviolent, but the tally includes coordinated attacks involving everything from throwing bodily fluids on guards (432 times) to 90 stabbings with homemade knives.

One detainee slashed a doctor who was trying to save his life; the doctors wear body armor to treat their patients.

The kinder we are to terrorists, the harsher we are to their potential victims.

They are detainees, not necessarily Al Qaeda or even Taliban. But that lie keeps getting repeated over and over. Again, who's opinon is this? The journalist? What substance is it based on?

Striking the balance between these two goods (humane treatment, foreknowledge of deadly attacks) is difficult, but the Bush administration seems to lean too far in the direction of the detainees. No expense spared for al Qaeda health care: Some 5,000 dental operations (including teeth cleanings) and 5,000 vaccinations on a total of 550 detainees have been performed since 2002 - all at taxpayer expense. Eyeglasses? 174 pairs handed out. Twenty two detainees have taxpayer-paid prosthetic limbs. And so on.

What if a detainee confesses a weakness (like fear of the dark) to a doctor that might be useful to interrogators, I asked the doctor in charge, would he share that information with them? "My job is not to make interrogations more efficient," he said firmly. He cited doctor-patient privacy. (He also asked that his name not be printed, citing the potential for al Qaeda retaliation.)

Food is strictly halal and averages 4,200 calories per day. (The guards eat the same chow as the detainees, unless they venture to one of the on-base fast-food joints.) Most prisoners have gained weight.

Much has been written about the elaborate and unprecedented appeal process. Detainees have their cases reviewed once a year and get rights roughly equivalent to criminals held in domestic prisons. I asked a military legal adviser: In what previous war were captured enemy combatants eligible for review before the war ended? None, he said.

America has never faced an enemy who has so ruthlessly broken all of the rules of war - yet never has an enemy been treated so well.

Of Gitmo's several camps, military records show that the one with the most lenient rules is the one with the most incidents and vice versa. There is a lesson in this: We should worry less about detainee safety and more about our own.

Some 20 current detainees have direct personal knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and nearly everyone of the current 440 say they would honored to attack America again. Let's take them at their word.

Richard Miniter (richardminiter.com) is a bestselling author and adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolu...ard_miniter.htm

This reads more like PR than a report from an investigative journalist. Where are the hard hitting questions?

This is one person's account who says he visited the camp but no interviews with any of the detainees and only one man, the Admiral who's in charge, that he quotes from. My question to you, Gary, is why will you openly accept this journalist's assessment but discount the numbers of people, including military intelligence officers who contradict what was stated here?

Edited September 18, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[GaryC 7]

This reads more like PR than a report from an investigative journalist. Where are the hard hitting questions?

This one person's account who says he visited the camp but no interviews with any of the detainees and only one man, the Admiral who's in charge, that he quotes from.

Oh Steve, God love ya! There have been many people including congresspeople from both sides that have gone there and said the same things. The truth is this, we treat the detainees with kid gloves at the expense of our own safety. You can't refute it so you try to discredit it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This reads more like PR than a report from an investigative journalist. Where are the hard hitting questions?

This one person's account who says he visited the camp but no interviews with any of the detainees and only one man, the Admiral who's in charge, that he quotes from.

Oh Steve, God love ya! There have been many people including congresspeople from both sides that have gone there and said the same things. The truth is this, we treat the detainees with kid gloves at the expense of our own safety. You can't refute it so you try to discredit it.

I'm scrutinizing this journalist's piece on it's own merit - it's not exactly how an investigative journalist writes, yes? Do you not see that?

Again, you've stated something without substance (treating the detainees with kid gloves at the expense of our own safety). Prove that or at least make a convincing argument. Even if one were to take that statement as factual, then it begs another question - why are they sacrificing our safety and treating these detainees so kindly? In other words, who's in charge and what prevents them from carrying out operations that the Bush Adminstration deems necessary to protect Americans from terrorists?

As for discrediting sources, Gary, I've posted numerous facts and testimony from people such as military intelligence officers who say otherwise, but you don't bother to respond to what they've said. This isn't nor should it be a politically charged argument, but one of fact finding and exposing the truth.

[GaryC 7]

The following information was released by the Office of Tennessee Senator Bill Frist:

Mr. President, on Sunday I visited Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with Senator McConnell and Senator Specter. We received briefings from Admiral Harris and other base administrators, and we toured five of the detainee camps, and the medical facilities.

I was impressed by the care and respect our military affords the detainees kept at Guantanamo. Each detainee receives a copy of the Koran. Arrows in each of their cells point to Mecca so they can practice their faith at prayer time five times per day. They receive nutritious meals on average, they have gained weight. They get regular exercise typically 1 to 2 hours per day. They receive mail from their families. They see their lawyers. And they receive 24/7 medical care better than many Americans.

When the camp first opened, most of the medical care involved treating wounds received on the battlefield for example, the detainees have received 22 prosthetics. But those wounds have healed, so much of the medical care has now shifted to include preventive medicine, full immunizations, and screening for cancer. Sixteen colonoscopies have been performed at the facility. Many of the detainees are receiving dental care for the first time in their lives. The ratio of health personnel to detainees is a remarkably high 1:4. I think it's fair to say that the medical care they receive at Guantanamo is far better than any they received at home.

http://www.paratrooper.net/commo/Topic213220-2-1.aspx

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The following information was released by the Office of Tennessee Senator Bill Frist:

Mr. President, on Sunday I visited Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with Senator McConnell and Senator Specter. We received briefings from Admiral Harris and other base administrators, and we toured five of the detainee camps, and the medical facilities.

I was impressed by the care and respect our military affords the detainees kept at Guantanamo. Each detainee receives a copy of the Koran. Arrows in each of their cells point to Mecca so they can practice their faith at prayer time five times per day. They receive nutritious meals on average, they have gained weight. They get regular exercise typically 1 to 2 hours per day. They receive mail from their families. They see their lawyers. And they receive 24/7 medical care better than many Americans.

When the camp first opened, most of the medical care involved treating wounds received on the battlefield for example, the detainees have received 22 prosthetics. But those wounds have healed, so much of the medical care has now shifted to include preventive medicine, full immunizations, and screening for cancer. Sixteen colonoscopies have been performed at the facility. Many of the detainees are receiving dental care for the first time in their lives. The ratio of health personnel to detainees is a remarkably high 1:4. I think it's fair to say that the medical care they receive at Guantanamo is far better than any they received at home.

http://www.paratrooper.net/commo/Topic213220-2-1.aspx

Gary, you're politicizing the issue. First it's, "We should be able to do with the terrorists what we want" (assuming of course that all detainees are bonafide 'terrorists'), then it was, "it's not torture" and now it's, "See! Gitmo is like the Marriott Hotel." (with the disclaimer that such kind treatment of these terrorists is undermining American safety).

Which is it? Can you find somebody who's not a supporter of the Bush Administration's policies - someone politically neutral who has reported on the facts regarding detainees?

[GaryC 7]

Gary, you're politicizing the issue. First it's, "We should be able to do with the terrorists what we want" (assuming of course that all detainees are bonafide 'terrorists'), then it was, "it's not torture" and now it's, "See! Gitmo is like the Marriott Hotel." (with the disclaimer that such kind treatment of these terrorists is undermining American safety).

Which is it? Can you find somebody who's not a supporter of the Bush Administration's policies - someone politically neutral who has reported on the facts regarding detainees?

I am politicizing the issue? hehe I'd say you are also. Let me ask you the same question. Find me one source that doesn't have a political agenda that has BEEN THERE that disputes the report. Rumors and 3rd hand info don't count. Show ME the facts.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Until anyone can prove that everyone at these detainment camps is supposed to be there, then....

(shakes head)

Assumptions are not facts - keeping a Baghdad shop keeper, for instance, for no other reason than that he was reported to the military as being a "terrorist sympathiser" is a "deadly kindness".

Edited September 18, 2006 by erekose

[GaryC 7]

Until anyone can prove that everyone at these detainment camps is supposed to be there, then....

(shakes head)

Assumptions are not facts - keeping a Baghdad shop keeper, for instance, for no other reason than that he was reported to the military as being a "terrorist sympathiser" is a "deadly kindness".

Mistakes are made from time to time even with the full protection of the constitution and the law. We hear all the time about people that have spent years in US prisons that were falselyconvicted. Does that mean we should shut down the prisons and turn everyone loose just because there may be someone there that shouldn't be? You like to cite that shop keeper a lot. Do you dispute that the rest of the prisoners are real bad guys that should be locked up? Just because a mistake is made from time to time does not mean that the whole thing should be scrapped.

[mmmbop1976 1]

gary gary gary, is that all you can come up with to support your argument is a letter from 3 senators (1 of which, specter, although republican is very independent)? come on man, you know unless you can get some excerpt from a liberal political rag like the washington post it doesn't count. sheeeesh

[Fuzzness 2]

[Ban Hammer 12,830]

gary gary gary, is that all you can come up with to support your argument is a letter from 3 senators (1 of which, specter, although republican is very independent)? come on man, you know unless you can get some excerpt from a liberal political rag like the washington post it doesn't count. sheeeesh

[heishe 2]

All that sounds good and humane. Seems like the right thing to be doing. Go us.

The following information was released by the Office of Tennessee Senator Bill Frist:

Mr. President, on Sunday I visited Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with Senator McConnell and Senator Specter. We received briefings from Admiral Harris and other base administrators, and we toured five of the detainee camps, and the medical facilities.

I was impressed by the care and respect our military affords the detainees kept at Guantanamo. Each detainee receives a copy of the Koran. Arrows in each of their cells point to Mecca so they can practice their faith at prayer time five times per day. They receive nutritious meals on average, they have gained weight. They get regular exercise typically 1 to 2 hours per day. They receive mail from their families. They see their lawyers. And they receive 24/7 medical care better than many Americans.

When the camp first opened, most of the medical care involved treating wounds received on the battlefield for example, the detainees have received 22 prosthetics. But those wounds have healed, so much of the medical care has now shifted to include preventive medicine, full immunizations, and screening for cancer. Sixteen colonoscopies have been performed at the facility. Many of the detainees are receiving dental care for the first time in their lives. The ratio of health personnel to detainees is a remarkably high 1:4. I think it's fair to say that the medical care they receive at Guantanamo is far better than any they received at home.

http://www.paratrooper.net/commo/Topic213220-2-1.aspx

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Until anyone can prove that everyone at these detainment camps is supposed to be there, then....

(shakes head)

Assumptions are not facts - keeping a Baghdad shop keeper, for instance, for no other reason than that he was reported to the military as being a "terrorist sympathiser" is a "deadly kindness".

Mistakes are made from time to time even with the full protection of the constitution and the law. We hear all the time about people that have spent years in US prisons that were falselyconvicted. Does that mean we should shut down the prisons and turn everyone loose just because there may be someone there that shouldn't be? You like to cite that shop keeper a lot. Do you dispute that the rest of the prisoners are real bad guys that should be locked up? Just because a mistake is made from time to time does not mean that the whole thing should be scrapped.

Its really very simple - I don't know, and neither of us can say with any degree of authority one way or the other. You can assume, but when you do that you have to deal with the uncomfortable reality that people have, and are being locked up who have no involvement or sympathy with terrorist groups. Without habeas corpus or any legal process outside of closed door military tribunals - there is a the very real risk that people who have no involvement in terrorism can be arrested simply because their neighbour has a grudge against them and not because there is any direct evidence against them.

As I said before, police officers with the time and resources to properly investigate a crime have made mistakes on occasion. Do you think that soldiers serving in the middle-east who don't have such a luxury of time and resources, who are faced with a significant language and cultural barrier are liable to make more or less mistakes of that sort?

[GaryC 7]

gary gary gary, is that all you can come up with to support your argument is a letter from 3 senators (1 of which, specter, although republican is very independent)? come on man, you know unless you can get some excerpt from a liberal political rag like the washington post it doesn't count. sheeeesh

Ok, you want a left leaning Washington post support piece? Here it is.

Gitmo Grovel: Enough Already

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, June 3, 2005; Page A23

The self-flagellation over reports of abuse at Guantanamo Bay has turned into a full-scale panic. There are calls for the United States, with all this worldwide publicity, to simply shut the place down.

A terrible idea. One does not run and hide simply because allegations have been made. If the charges are unverified, as they overwhelmingly are in this case, then they need to be challenged. The United States ought to say what it has and has not done, and not simply surrender to rumor.

Moreover, shutting down Guantanamo will solve nothing. We will capture more terrorists, and we will have to interrogate them, if not at Guantanamo then somewhere else. There will then be reports from that somewhere else that will precisely mirror the charges coming out of Guantanamo. What will we do then? Keep shutting down one detention center after another?

The self-flagellation has gone far enough. We know that al Qaeda operatives are trained to charge torture when they are in detention, and specifically to charge abuse of the Koran to inflame fellow prisoners on the inside and potential sympathizers on the outside.

In March the Navy inspector general reported that, out of about 24,000 interrogations at Guantanamo, there were seven confirmed cases of abuse, "all of which were relatively minor." In the eyes of history, compared to any other camp in any other war, this is an astonishingly small number. Two of the documented offenses involved "female interrogators who, on their own initiative, touched and spoke to detainees in a sexually suggestive manner." Not exactly the gulag.

The most inflammatory allegations have been not about people but about mishandling the Koran. What do we know here? The Pentagon reports (Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, May 26) -- all these breathless "scoops" come from the U.S. government's own investigations of itself -- that of 13 allegations of Koran abuse, five were substantiated, of which two were most likely accidental.

Let's understand what mishandling means. Under the rules the Pentagon later instituted at Guantanamo, proper handling of the Koran means using two hands and wearing gloves when touching it. Which means that if any guard held the Koran with one hand or had neglected to put on gloves, this would be considered mishandling.

On the scale of human crimes, where, say, 10 is the killing of 2,973 innocent people in one day and 0 is jaywalking, this ranks as perhaps a 0.01.

Moreover, what were the Korans doing there in the first place? The very possibility of mishandling Korans arose because we gave them to each prisoner. What kind of crazy tolerance is this? Is there any other country that would give a prisoner precisely the religious text that that prisoner and those affiliated with him invoke to justify the slaughter of innocents? If the prisoners had to have reading material, I would have given them the book "Portraits 9/11/01" -- vignettes of the lives of those massacred on Sept. 11.

Why this abjectness on our part? On the very day the braying mob in Pakistan demonstrated over the false Koran report in Newsweek, a suicide bomber blew up an Islamic shrine in Islamabad, destroying not just innocent men, women and children, but undoubtedly many Korans as well. Not a word of condemnation. No demonstrations.

Even greater hypocrisy is to be found here at home. Civil libertarians, who have been dogged in making sure that FBI-collected Guantanamo allegations are released to the world, seem exquisitely sensitive to mistreatment of the Koran. A rather selective scrupulousness. When an American puts a crucifix in a jar of urine and places it in a museum, civil libertarians rise immediately to defend it as free speech. And when someone makes a painting of the Virgin Mary, smears it with elephant dung and adorns it with porn, not only is that free speech, it is art -- deserving of taxpayer funding and an ACLU brief supporting the Brooklyn Museum when the mayor freezes its taxpayer subsidy.

Does the Koran deserve special respect? Of course it does. As do the Bibles destroyed by the religious police in Saudi Arabia and the Torahs blown up in various synagogues from Tunisia to Turkey.

Should the United States apologize? If there were mishandlings of the Koran, we should say so and express regret. And that should be in the context of our remarkably humane and tolerant treatment of the Guantanamo prisoners, and in the context of a global war on terrorism (for example, the campaign in Afghanistan) conducted with a discrimination and a concern for civilian safety rarely seen in the annals of warfare.

Then we should get over it, stop whimpering and start defending ourselves.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5060201750.html

Until anyone can prove that everyone at these detainment camps is supposed to be there, then....

(shakes head)

Assumptions are not facts - keeping a Baghdad shop keeper, for instance, for no other reason than that he was reported to the military as being a "terrorist sympathiser" is a "deadly kindness".

Mistakes are made from time to time even with the full protection of the constitution and the law. We hear all the time about people that have spent years in US prisons that were falselyconvicted. Does that mean we should shut down the prisons and turn everyone loose just because there may be someone there that shouldn't be? You like to cite that shop keeper a lot. Do you dispute that the rest of the prisoners are real bad guys that should be locked up? Just because a mistake is made from time to time does not mean that the whole thing should be scrapped.

Its really very simple - I don't know, and neither of us can say with any degree of authority one way or the other. You can assume, but when you do that you have to deal with the uncomfortable reality that people have, and are being locked up who have no involvement or sympathy with terrorist groups. Without habeas corpus or any legal process outside of closed door military tribunals - there is a the very real risk that people who have no involvement in terrorism can be arrested simply because their neighbour has a grudge against them and not because there is any direct evidence against them.

As I said before, police officers with the time and resources to properly investigate a crime have made mistakes on occasion. Do you think that soldiers serving in the middle-east who don't have such a luxury of time and resources, who are faced with a significant language and cultural barrier are liable to make more or less mistakes of that sort?

So your point is that we should give them full constitutional protections or let them go? Since they are not Americans and they aren't in America that would be a mistake. Barring that I guess you think we should just give up and surrender?