- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
"...The Bush Administration is certainly to be greatly faulted for its failure to develop a process for separating genuine threats from innocent victims at Gitmo and elsewhere. But are we sure the Court was able to view everything it needed to know these five do not pose a threat? The Wall Street Journal reported that some prisoners released from Gitmo have subsequently been found attempting terrorist acts or fighting against in Iraq. While the WSJ is too extreme in wanting to keep everyone imprisoned, is Greenwald being too easy in wanting more released?..."
RichD, therein lies the dilemma. Throw everyone in confinement during the first throes of a paroxysm of paranoia, and you risk not only staining your nation's tenets but stoking the very fires of terrorism you claim your actions are preventing. What to do? Keep them all in and continue to wreck the very foundation that has made us what we are while fanning the anger and need for retribution from their friends, relatives and countrymen? People who otherwise, apart from the previously committed terrorists and radical Islamists, would hold no brief with us? Or do what appears to be the reasonable thing and adjudicate these questions as fairly and openly as our security would allow to determine whether we've got the mother of all terrorist roundups or, in the main, have swept up a bunch of schlubs caught up, like dolphins in a tuna cache, in a net cast in reactive panic?
