Glenn:"Is Sen. Shelby not a Washington official?"

SP:" He is.. and thank you for the response."

Perhaps America is different country and they do things differently there. But in our nation elected persons are not known as officials. Officials are non political and un elected career Civil Service staff who facilitate the policies of the elected members. For further information I would refer you to "Yes Minister." Jim Hacker was the hapless minister. Sir Humphrey was the official.

If we don't like the fact that we have to offer this particular group of men political asylum by the terms of our own laws, next time maybe we should think twice about seizing people and flying them to US administered territory for detention.

-- BrianScheetz

A point I brought up in my post. Yet I'm not sure political asylum would apply to these detainees. Let's not forget the Obama administration was not responsible for seizing them either. Yet he is being blamed by Glenn and his followers for the situation her inherited.

...it appears to me that it is deceptive to the reader, giving them the impression that the quote is status quo.. when in fact it is coming from a right-wing idealogue..

-- Stephen Peter

This reader considers a Senator, any U.S. senator, to be a "Washington official". Even the grotesque Joe Lieberman is a "Washington official". There is not any doubt about the fact that US Senators are "Washington officials". Speaking to or down to an audience who is not aware of that fact is generally not what goes on around here.

The circumstances of Wakil's detention and the identification of Wakil's likely accuser paint a chilling portrait of how U.S. policy can go hideously wrong on the ground in an occupied country.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Wakil was detained after (in hindsight, foolishly) addressing criticisms of local U.S. tactics to an American commander at a U.S. base. Wakil says he advised the commander "'Don't take any direct action here. Coordinate your actions with the local forces. You don't understand the local security.'" Sage advice, obviously. But it doesn't take much imagination to see the officer steaming under the implication that Americans 1) don't know best how to conduct their own operations and 2) have an obligation to "coordinate" with local leaders.

The story of the likely accuser is equally telling:

Mohammed Roze, who directs the Afghan government's peace and reconciliation commission in Kunar, said he thought that Malik Zarin, who was then the head of the rival Mushwani tribe, had turned Wakil in because the Mushwani tribe opposed a poppy-eradication program that Wakil had begun in Kunar around the time of his arrest. Zarin had built close ties with American forces in Kunar, Roze said.

Americans in Kunar helping a friendly tribal leader involved in poppy cultivation remove an anti-poppy (but troublesome) elder from a rival tribe?

This sounds like an episode from The Shield: Kabul, not the way a superpower runs an effective ground operation in a country that has resisted foreign occupation successfully since the days of Alexander.

So let's take at face value that "one out of seven" detainees "return to the jihad."

Is that an admission that 6 out of 7 should have been tried, acquitted, and released?

.might be of interest to Bernbart and others who reflexively insist that everyone we have in our overseas gulags are terrorists.

-- Pedinska

Read my posts more closely. You will notice that I do NOT call them terrorist, but detainees. I'm saying it's not a black and white situation and cannot be solved over night, and not all cases are the same. I did not say I approved of the detention of these 'suspects'. I am saying some have unrealistic expectations about their release, and trials and some never acknowledge that many countries will not allow the detainees to be released in their countries.

McClatchy is not known for great journalism either.

So we...decide that -- although he worked against our Enemies -- some alleged "associations" he had reflect an agenda that conflicts with ours and... entitle us to lock him away. -- GG

By that standard, shouldn't Donald Rumsfeld be encaged? Despite his claims to be on "our side", we have photographs of him shaking hands with Saddam Hussein back in the 80's. Hell, we even have videotape of him acting all chummy with the Grand Poo-Bah of WMD's. There's nothing "alleged" about these photos and tapes (our Ministry of Propaganda never got around to destroying them). And when asked about this connection, he gives very evasive responses!

Any reason we shouldn't throw away the proverbial key on him --and on all his known "associates"?

You continue to ignore, the current administration's claims of attempts to release detainees who cannot be released where they were detained because (1) it is not their country of citizenship, and their country where they hold citizenship refuses to take them (2) They will lack any civil rights in their own country. To date I have seen no investigative proof this is not true but instead opinions using one or two cases then applying those situations to broad swath of detainees.

US law already provides for this situation. Persons in US custody who cannot be returned to their country of origin because of the likelihood that they will face persecution there are to be awarded political asylum in the US.

If we don't like the fact that we have to offer this particular group of men political asylum by the terms of our own laws, next time maybe we should think twice about seizing people and flying them to US administered territory for detention.

"Is Sen. Shelby not a Washington official?"

He is.. and thank you for the response. My point is that you make it a practice to be thorough in your reporting.. Why didn't you just attribute it to Senator Shelby. I suspect most your readers know who is is, where he would be in this debate, and would not generally group him with all other "Washington Officials".. Especially given the changeover of the 2008 elections. While you are certainly in your right to characterize him in that manner, it appears to me that it is deceptive to the reader, giving them the impression that the quote is status quo.. when in fact it is coming from a right-wing idealogue..