Centerfield

He was classified as a military commander, not a terrorist -- that results in radically different treatment under our system (and geneva accords). This must have been the (eventual) determination by the US, otherwise he wouldn't have been released after 8 months. The article uses terminology that seems to confirm this. Once the military classification is made, keeping them very long after the war is not a legal option, unless they are convicted of some vile crime against humanity. You release POWs and that is that.

The Taliban was a government we strongly disagreed with, and which openly harbored terrorist organizations. That doesn't mean we are allowed to treat captive taliban soldiers from their standing army as terrorists.

You say we treat prisoners harshly. Would you say we do so as a rule, or would you say this is the ugly extreme?

I don't know about that, Rick, but I definetely think our policy should be clearer than it is.

Susan,

Do you think the war in Afghanistan is over?

There still seems to be quite a bit of fighting.

I see, Susan. So it's only a problem if we sodomize and torture... oops, I mean abuse... SOME rather than ALL of our prisoners. And as long as we eventually release those prisoners who we had no right to lock up in the first place, then "no harm, no foul?"

I think what Rick is objecting to here is the arbitrary nature of the administration's criteria for holding some prisoners and releasing others. It's lovely of you to speculate on the reason why this particular prisoner was released, but don't you think there should be some objective criteria by which these decisions are made? And don't you think that criteria should be public knowledge, in order to prevent abuse... oops, I mean honest mistakes... of that secrecy to hold those who are innocent.

Those who try to excuse this behavior seem to be of the "ends justify the means" mindset, and seem to have no difficulty giving the administration the benefit of the doubt, as long as it helps prevent some future terrorist attack. Well, of the 5,000 suspects who have been detained for terrorist activity, Ashcroft has managed exactly zero convictions. Now, I'm sure you'd love to chock this one up to liberal "activist" judges, but do you honestly believe that ALL of those 5,000 who were secretly detained and later released were actually guilty. And if they weren't, why is the freedom of those innocents any less valuable than your own? Just because they are swarthy middle eastern men?

Any government which acts in secrecy and refuses to be judged by the rules it imposes on others is an enemy of democracy. And anyone who gives tacit approval to the secret detention of those who have not even been accused of a crime, are not fighting for a free country, but for a police state.

Shouldn't we just keep them locked up in humane conditions until we've destroyed Al Qaeda?

Rick, the very act of locking people up isn't humane. Sometimes it needs to be done, but even in the cushiest conditions leaving a human being behind bars indefinitely is cruel.

Now before everyone starts yelling at me, I'm not saying we shouldn't lock people up (I support life in prision, I even support the death penalty, which I know many people don't). I'm just saying that we should be crystal clear that the act of putting a human being behind bars and denying them their freedom isn't humane, no matter how sweetly you treat that prisoner once they're behind those bars. So basically, my stance is if you need to lock them up fine, but don't kid yourself into thinking you're being humane by doing so.

Oooohhhh..... Amen, Jeremy!

We are at war. Wars often drag on for years. In such cases, it's appropriate to confine POW's for years.

People are not supposed to be held in secret. Their names should be known publicly, possibly after a short delay if immediate disclosure would affect military operations.

I should have added that this would all be clearer if Congress had made a real declaration of war right after 9/11. These various resolutions that politicians feel more comfortable with rather than declaring war lead to vagueness with consequences like this.

Recognizing that Al Qaeda is not a state, I still believe a declaration of war would have been appropriate. If we did this, we'd be clear that the war is not over.

Brian,

I refer you back to my first post:

Now before everyone starts yelling at me, I'm not saying we shouldn't lock people up (I support life in prision, I even support the death penalty...

Of COURSE jail is the best option we have for dealing with wanton criminals. But don't kid yourself. It's NOT humane, period. Is it the best we have? Yeah. Is it humane? No. I'm wagering that if *you* were behind bars yet treated like royalty, your idea about what is humane might shift slightly.

And as far as your "grow up," comment, how about being a little less insulting? I like you, I respect and listen to your thoughts, and I often agree with you. But the personal insults you occassionaly throw out there aren't necessary, are they? We're all intelligent here and can speak to each other on that level, yes?

Sorry, Amy, but I think it's apt. I apologize for being flip, but I stand by what I'm saying. If you can't view distinctions between humane and inhumane in real world contexts, I think you need to grow up a little bit, or maybe wise up.

To believe that all imprisonment is de facto inhumane, then you must assume that there are situations when no options are humane. My countering point is that the idea of being "humane" was constructed for just such instances where the choices are hard and sometimes all not especially pleasant. No one uses the term "humane" in instances when there are only or mostly happy choices. It's only talked about when the choices are all a little bit unhappy. The #1 dictionary definition is "characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion." Think about it! It applies in situtations where you must judge and decide, even though you'd prefer not to do so. Also included is the idea of being motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering. In this latter context, the problem about deciding how to be humane is that everyone's suffering has to be considered, which is what makes the decisions hard.

So maybe you don't need to grow up, or wise up. But I think you're wrong, and misdefining the idea of what "humane" means. I think it applies in contexts where you must choose from the unpleasant options, and I think you're just defining at as "not being mean."

If I were imprisoned, I'd expect my views to be informed by the reasons WHY I was imprisoned. IF I were imprisoned for theft, part of me might be glad my hands weren't cut off, for example. If I had gone nutty and murdered my wife and then I regained my sanity, I think I'd understand that the world was reluctant to trust me. Yeah, I might come to think my treatment was inhumane, but that'd be egocentric. The people who decided on my treatment are charged with being much less egocentric.

I don't think our grandparents (or in some cases parents) concerned themselves too much about whether or not they were treating those captured on the battlefield humanely or not. They did what had to be done to win the war and defeat fascism. If a German soldier or Japanese soldier had to sit in a cell for three years to keep him from rejoining the enemy at a later date, they did it. And the world is a much better place because of it. The fact that Islamofascists do not wear uniforms complicates this matter even further and therefore justifies stricter measures to defeat a shadowy enemy.

But I will say that the ultimate blame for incidents such as this lay with the Bush Administration for failing to declare war on Islamofascism right after 9-11. Not to mention that their interrogation system is flawed for determining which detaines to release because this is not the first incident of a former detainee turning back up on the battlefield.

My comments are not to be confused with the detention of Japanese Americans. That is a different topic that fortunately is not on the table at this time.

I believe there was a distinction made between captured local Afghan Taliban fighters and foreign fighters and Al-Queyda members.

The regular Taliban fighters were given P.O.W. status (the same as any regular soldier), the Al Quayda guys weren't. Basicaly the Taliban P.O.W's were released and repatrioted once it was clear that their government no longer existed and regular Taliban forces were no longer fighting whereas Al-Quayda personnel are still being held as Al-Quayda is still considered an active participant in hostilities. This treatment of prisoners is pretty consistant with past conflicts. It is inevitable that some of the guys who were regular Taliban millitary will turn around and join the guerillas once they get released. The same thing happaned with Germany and Japan at the end of WWII... there were sporadic guerilla attacks on U.S. troops for years after both governments had surrendered. Yet we didn't hold regular Japanese or German soldiers in prison camps for years after thier governments had surrendered and it is almost a surety that some of those guys once released turned around and participated in guerilla activities.

Note that our treatment of prisoners is NOT inhumane. The U.S. millitary does not condone torture and individuals who are caught abusing prisoners are Court Martialed (like they were in Abu Gharib). This is no different then with regular civil law enforcement all across the country. The police are not allowed to abuse prisoners.... yet we know they sometimes do... including even torture and rape.... when the individuals who do so are caught, they are prosecuted..... this does not mean that police departments should be considered inhumane.

Jeremy, It's no sercret why Taliban prisoners got released while Al-Quayda prisoners haven't. Al-Quayda is still actively engaged in hostilitles.... the Taliban isn't as they have effectively ceased to exist as a government/organization. If you are talking about the people who were detained by the Justice Dept. (as opposed to the millitary) then that is a seperate issue....but ALL the people being held at Gitmo (like the subject of the article) are MILLITARY prisoners. They do NOT fall under the jurisidiction of the Justice Department as Justice only deals with crimes commited on U.S. Territory. All the ones at Gitmo were picked up on foriegn soil....most of them under arms in a combat zone.... they aren't being held on criminal charges, they are being held because they are active belligerents in hostilities against the U.S. The ones who have been released so far are either members of organizations who are no longer fighting us (i.e. the Afghan Taliban government) and are now thier own countries problem or have been determined to have been picked up in error.

Brian,

Thank you, apology accepted, and I appreciate your point.

I don't know that I'm thinking of humane as "not being mean," that *would* be juvenile. I think I'm thinking of it more in terms of being an affront to the human spirit. I believe that prohibiting freedom (whether it be in prision or through a totalitarian regime), hinders the ability of the human spirit to grow and flourish, and I think that is inherently inhumane.

Is it (i.e. prison) sometimes the best option? Yes, and if I thought it was the right choice, I could send a criminal to jail just like that, without a second thought. All I'm saying is, if you're going to do that, then at least be lucid about the fact that you are not doing something that is going to be all wine and roses for the prisoner.

But you're right, I'm not defining "inhumane" the way the dictionary does, so maybe what I need to do is not necessarily grow up, but expand my vocabulary. :-) If anyone can tell me what the proper word I'm searching for is, that would be most helpful.

Either way, I think I've caused us to stray off of Rick's original post. Sorry about that!

I really don't see why this is so hard for people.

Taliban military were released after the Afghan war had succeeded in deposing their government. Taliban is classified as a governmental, not a terrorist organization. Keeping the Taliban military captive any longer was not a legal option. Captive terrorists were not released.

Very different standards apply for treatment of captive military versus captive terrorists.

Perhaps it is cruel to keep terrorists locked up, stopping them from practicing their religion with the detonation of nuclear bombs in each of our infidel cities. Or the butchering of hundreds of children in many of our schools. Or the downing of dozens of passenger planes.

I think it would be far more cruel to let them go.

While the Taliban government has been deposed, we're still fighting Taliban guerrillas. There has never been any surrender document signed by the Taliban. Mullah Omar is still at large.

Once a surrender document is signed, then the fighters for that side are obligated to abide by it.

One thing I don't know if whether the released fighter had signed some form of parole that he would not take up arms again.

Ok, for the last time:

1) I am not opposed to jail senctences for people. Lock them up, throw away the key, put them in the chair, do what needs to be done to protect people, *assuming* guilt has been proven in a court of law.

2) I am not a bleeding heart who suggests that we free all prisoners because the poor dears are suffering. LEAST of all am I advocating freeing people who are known terrorists. How that could even be *construed* from my previous posts is beyond me, but I guess you'll see what you want to see.

There are those of you who seem to be saying, "so what if the human spirit of terrorists is crushed." Yeah, excatly, I agree with you 100 percent. Just don't sit there and tell me that prison has no impact on the human spirit and the human psyche, because it does, and study after study will tell you so.

Putting an intelligent, living creature behind bars is not a natural condition and it has an impact. If you need proof, go look at a tiger in the zoo, for heaven's sake, and tell me that even though all of its needs are met every day, that it's kept healthy and that it's not abused, that there's no impact on that animal. If you're gonna lock criminals up, great, fine, wonderful. Just call a spade a spade and acknowledge that putting a living creature behind bars in itself is cruel. Sometimes it's necessary, even preferable, and as Brian points out, it's the best we've got in a lot of situations. But any way you slice it, taking away a person's freedom and throwing them in a 8' X 10' cell for an indefinite period of time is cruel. They may very well deserve it, but at least acknowlege the rigors of imprisonment on the prisoner. I'm not saying you should *sympathize* with them, but you should be lucid about what imprisonment can do to some individuals and acknowledge what you may be sentencing them to, no matter how well you intend to treat them once they're there.

Rick,

"If we did this, we'd be clear that the war is not over."

That reminds me: do we have a set of criteria to know when the war is over? Seems that this would be step number one: have clearly defined objectives. Isn't the lack of this a danger for a democracy, no matter who lives in the White House?

Well, my husband has informed me that I am making absolutely no sense on this issue. And considering that he is an expert at unravelling my babble (since he has to do it on a daily basis), if *he* can't figure out what the heck I'm trying to say, then obviously my "argument" is nothing more than the ravings of a lunatic. So I apologize for my total lack of coherence on this thread, and I apologize that I was such a huge dork today. I'm really quite embarrassed.

Thanks!

AmyE I understood what you were saying about jail being unnatural and oppressive, it stems from compassion, and that's a good impulse you shouldn't be ashamed of. Every person who embraces an evil ideology deserves compassion in reality. Everyone can reject what bad things they believed in and did, and turn around for good. We shouldn't be too quick to judge people who fall into these things, because the truth is that most everyone can believe and do horrible things, given the right conditions. I could could have, you could to. There is nothing in our genetic makeup or nationality that makes us either immune to these things, or in any way inherently better than them. We could have grown up in different conditions, learning very different values from a totally differen peer group.

That said, at some point we need to hunt these islamic terrorists down like rabid dogs before they eliminate our cities and way of life, because all their innocent future victims deserve compassion too. Let's eliminate this diseased death cult before they try a repeat of Belsan in dozens of our schools.

Jeff -

"ultimate blame for incidents such as this lay with the Bush Administration for failing to declare war on Islamofascism right after 9-11"

Well, it's rather difficult to declare war against anything other than a country, which is probably why the administration is having so much trouble fighting terrorism. Congress can't declare war on an abstract concept. Like the war on drugs, which has turned into an expensive and ineffectual war on drug users, the war on terror has turned into a war on easy targets while the real difficulties and the real targets are being ignored. The administration keeps trying to fight terrorism as though it were a conventional enemy, but wants to use the unique nature of terrorism as an excuse to avoid the responsibilities that fighting a war entails. These include adhering to the Geneva convention in the treatment of captured combatants, and making the detention of those combatants a matter of public knowledge to avoid making mistakes. How many of those being detained are really a danger and how many are not? We have no way of knowing. We only have to take the administration's word for it... and we've seen how well they handle intelligence, haven't we?

Cengel -

"they are being held because they are active belligerents in hostilities against the U.S"

Wrong. They are being held because they are SUSPECTED of being active belligerents in hostilities against the U.S. That is the key distinction. If we declare them prisoners of war, we have certain obligations towards them, which include making their detention known to the international community. By holding them secretly, we are making ourselves the only authority to which we are beholden, and that is despotism.

All of the arguments I am hearing here make the assumption that all those being held are being held with good reason. What in god's name lets you make that assumption. No one is asking that dangerous terrorists be released. But the low profile release of many of those who had been detained should make us wonder what those people did to warrant detention in the first place? And if there was no basis for their detention, then by what authority did we detain them? Simple force of arms?

Even those who are willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt in these detentions must recognize that the administration is far from infallible. But by acting in secret, it is denying any other authority the right to question its actions. When it occurs within our own country and to our citizens, it is a violation of our own Constitution, and when it happens internationally, it is a violation of the international agreements into which we entered (and frequently pushed forward ourselves) for the SOLE purpose of protecting our own soldiers from similar abuse.

Before someone points to the recent spate of beheadings and cries out "They're not playing by the rules, so why should we?" I want to stress that these terrorists are fair game. It's the assumption you are making that all those who are being held as "enemy combatants" are indeed guilty that is the problem.

"All of the arguments I am hearing here make the assumption that all those being held are being held with good reason. What in god's name lets you make that assumption. "

Jeremy, in WWII what would make you assume that some-one wearing a German uniform and firing a rifle at Allied troops was taken and held for good reason? It's the same assumption why most of the people in Gitmo are being held there. Al-Quayda doesn't wear uniforms but MOST of the people being held there were taken under arms in a combat zone while actively participating in combat activities.

Now it's true that some of the people held there were taken under more dubious circumstances.....and some of those people were taken mistakenly and were later released upon investigation of the facts. Some people who are truely innocent might still in fact be interned there just as certainly as some of the people serving jail sentances after being convicted in U.S. courts ARE actualy innocent and some of the people who are fired upon in combat zones because we think they are enemy fighters turn out to be completely innocent (or even our own troops). It is an imperfect world, people make mistakes....the best anyone can do is act in good faith on what they believe is the fact. There is no other way that a nation CAN wage war.

Furthermore, I DO assume that the government is generaly acting under the good faith belief that the people it detains as enemy combatants or agents are in fact enemy agents or combatants. What possible reason could the government have to expend all the time and resources to capture and detain these people if it DOESN'T in good faith believe they are enemy agents? Answer me that, do you think the government is just doing this to get it's jollies?

-----

"If we declare them prisoners of war, we have certain obligations towards them, which include making their detention known to the international community. "

We declared regular Taliban soldiers as Prisoners of War because they qualified as persons entitled to such status under the Rules of the Geneva Convetion (although an arguement could be made that such qualifications were somewhat dubious). We haven't declared Al-Quayda as P.O.W. because they don't qualify as P.O.W.s under the rules of the Convention. This is patently obvious to anyone who actualy bothers to read the rules of the Geneva Convention governing the qualifications for P.O.W. status. It is not like we can arbitrarly grant or deny P.O.W. status to anyone we choose you know. There are rules governing who qualifies for P.O.W. status and who does not. Have you even bothered to read the 4th Geneva Convetion? That doesn't neccesarly dictate how you have to treat people who don't qualify for P.O.W. status.... and if you want to debate the merits of how to treat prisoners who don't qualify for P.O.W. status that's fine.....but you can't declare some-one is ENTITLED to P.O.W. status simply because you want them to be regardless of their actual affiliations or behavior.

The people being held in Gitmo are (according to the Convention) entitled to a regularly constituted millitary tribunal to determine if they have been classified correctly. Recently, SCOTUS issued a ruling declaring that the Administration needs to follow that procedure. So where is your problem?

------

"And if there was no basis for their detention, then by what authority did we detain them? Simple force of arms?"

By what basis did we detain Wermacht soldiers in WWII? Clue ... it was "simple force of arms". Simple force of arms is ALWAYS the basis under which combatants in hostilities in foreign territories are detained. We don't have legal jurisdiction over Al-Quayda combatants in Afghanistan anymore then we had legal jurisdiction over German soldiers in the Battle of the Bulge.

These 'prisoners' should only be kept until they are strong enough to fight again. Then they should be registered to vote as democrats, given $100,000 in compensation, and returned to the wild in a 21st century catch and release program.