"(Anyone who still thinks we haven't committed torture needs to explain the deaths of more than a score of detainees over the last five years.)"

There was a time about five years ago when Abu Ghraib started breaking that someone with brass and ethics could have terminated the process by resigning. No one had either the ethics or as we would crudely state in days of honorable men, "the balls", to do so. So all these good boys from Annapolis, West Point, Colorado Springs and assorted War Colleges; from honor programs and ethical symposiums; from fellowships, scholarship, Rhodes and Fulbrights, just quietly said aye-aye or maybe nothing at all. The Constitution or Geneva Conventions or even a small bit of decency was nothing to stand up for when the gold of rank and position in and out of Government were there for no material risk.

I suspect Senator Webb will shortly be asking why we fill so many flag positions with hollow place holders.

The statement of a young U.S. soldier at the end of an HBO documentary on Abu Ghraib summed up the Bush administration handling of the "worst of the worst" perfectly.

With wonder in his voice he described what happened to the Iraqi prisoner pictured in a famous photo, terrified, chained naked to the wall while vicious dogs snapped at his genitals. "After months of beatings, hooding, sleep deprivation, threats, loud noise, bright lights ,stress positions, freezing cold, broiling heat and snarling dogs we determined he was who he claimed to be all along, a car importer. We opened the gates, shoved him outside and told him to scram".

I don't really know if I can consider indefinite detention morally superior to torture.

Torture = Destroy life quickly
Indefinite detention = Destroy life slowly

Same end; different means.

Why can we not treat them like common criminals? I have a hard time buying the idea that it is easier/cheaper to manage multiple wars, maintain a prison in cuba, attempt to rebuild the middle east, than it is to build a more robust intelligence system that can provide evidence, build a little national security scaffolding on to our current excellent legal system and put terrorists and those who finance them behind bars. Doing the former has cost us a lot of good will and has made it much harder to do the latter because some of our friends do not trust us anymore.

Finally, I disagree with your point about indefinite detention being a useful intelligence gathering tool. The people in Gitmo did face indefinite until they were recently granted habeas corpus by a 5-4 decision in the Supreme court, yet we still felt the need to torture detainees.

Yes, we should have classified them as POWs.

And no, there probably aren't many left who believe we didn't use torture, rather I think the split is those who have read enough US history to know that we've always used torture in every war and in between, and don't really see much difference between the previous policy of outsourcing our torture as Clinton did via rendition to other countries and doing it ourselves.

Another problem with the POW status - under the Hague Convention's Geneva Protocols, detainees with prisoner of war status are not required to answer questions beyond the 'name, rank and serial number' type. The Bush administration probably found this requirement to be too confining when dealing with potential terrorists possibly in possession of information related to on-going or future terrorist operations.

Of course, granting full rights of the accused under US law would have allowed questioning, but with an attorney present and with a myriad of other problems such as habeus corpus and evidentiary rules. That seems a loser from the start.

Faced with these two extremes, and the political considerations mentioned, they chose/created a third option - military commissions - one that did not legally exist and has caused nothing but trouble (unless Ramzi bin al-Shibh really talked...). Its source, the WWII Nazi saboteur cases, is so far removed as to offer little guidance or precedence.

POW status was probably the way to go from the start. But is it still too late? Why not just declare them as such and build a big camp out in the expanse of White Sands? We could keep the nasty ones until the end of the war - whenever that is.

The problem with POW status is ... what war? If it's the GWOT as defined by the current crowd - endless and open-ended - POW status would equate to a life sentence.

GWOT, the Long War, etc. dignify a form of lawlessness and criminal conduct - terrorist acts - as war. Treating it thusly rather than as a law enforcement issue brings in in all sorts of inappropriate and wrong connotations, including wrong rules for those captured committing crimes. The law of war is designed to protect prisoners. Is that what we're seeking: protection for terrorists who have committed crimes?

So, two problems: no end of imprisonment; no justice for crimes. Bad idea.

"Although in control of Afghanistan's capital (Kabul) and much or most of the country for five years, the Taliban regime, or "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan," gained diplomatic recognition from only three states: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates."

It appears that only three governments on this planet recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government worthy of a regular army. I don't remember ever seeing a definite insignia or other sign in media released from the conflict that might be a qualification (a uniform) under the Conventions. I also don't recall any inclination by the Taliban to recognize any law/convention outside of Islam. They showed no desire to live by the rule of (international) Law. In fact, the term "Outlaw regime" was used pretty much in unity by the United Nations--cemented in place by the heavy ransom and explosive destruction of a World Heritage Site.

Forgive me, I have no experience at high levels of policy. I have only a humble field experience in a period between wars. A Cold War experience. If we treated the Taliban fighters as equal, as legitimate combatants, who would be an illegitimate one? How would that co-exist with the conditions of the embassy in Tehran, the crew of the Mayaguez and/or the Pueblo, of POWs never returned from Viet Nam, or of decapitations on TV? Hey, are there any US prisoners still held (informally) by Taliban?

If you worry about street graffitti in Italy, the land of El Duce and Red Brigades, what can I do about Che t-shirts in Idaho? :-)/:-(

Kind of missing the point here. The Geneva Convention is not a reciprocal agreement. The signatories bind only themselves to it's terms and can only hold other signatories to it's obligations. The reason the U.S. would do this is because up until the Bush Administration we had taken enormous pride in setting the gold standard for human rights. We were able to use our moral superiority to advance causes, even commercial arrangements, that while in the interest of ourselves also benefited all of humanity.

We may not have always lived up to our ideals but never before have we so consciously repudiated them.

...VT day is. Had we (or if we still do) declare AQ and Taliban prisoners to be POWs, then we abide by the Geneva Accords. As soon as "Victory over Terror Day" is declared, we release the POWs back to where we captured them. Sure its a catch-22...declaring them POWs keeps them incarcerated for life buuuuutttt keeps things clearer in the international community.

While all they are required to give is "name rank and service number" we can ask as many questions as we want. While we may not get relevant information to prevent immediate or planned terrorist attacks, but you've removed threats while maintaining the overall integrity of our standing with regards to the rules of war.

Our actions at that U.S. military prison have cost us a lot, more than the Bush Administration seems to understand, and not just overseas. I never thought I would live in a country whose government would embrace the use of torture. (Anyone who still thinks we haven't committed torture needs to explain the deaths of more than a score of detainees over the last five years.)

Sir,

First, I appreciate your work. I have read much of what you have written over the years and I admire your dedication to the American soldier (or sailor, Marine, etc.). With that said...

Shame on you. As a soldier who served in Guantanamo I have been absolutely horrified by the coverage GTMO has received by the media. For example, a few months ago my soldiers and I were basically blamed for troop deaths in Iraq by Matthew Alexander-- his contention is that what is alleged to have occurred in GTMO led to a more virulent insurgency in Iraq and thus more soldier's deaths.

Now you're claiming that the detainee deaths in GTMO were the result of abuse and torture? Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Any detainee deaths in GTMO were the direct result of the detainee choosing to take their own life and there has not been one documented case of abuse leading to serious physical impairment to this date. Please read that sentence again. Not ONE case. In fact, our soldiers in GTMO do their utmost to ensure that detainees do not take their own lives. Random detention block checks, psychiatric counseling and physician services all serve to ensure that detainees are well cared for and do not harm either themselves or others. Further, to claim that there have been "scores" of detainee deaths is an outright misstatement. There have been a total of three detainee deaths in GTMO. Again, all were suicides.

As an additional insult we're constantly reminded that the "world" abhors our service and that we're a constant source of shame for the United States. Let's clear one thing up initially-- the rest of the world has ZERO standing to make such an accusation when. For those that participate in the mission in Afghanistan (e.g., Italy), this is especially true. Are you aware of the detention policy for ISAF forces? Any and all militants/insurgents captured by ISAF forces are turned over to the Afghan authorities and detained in Afghan prisons. Do I really need to describe the decrepit facilities and the inhumane treatment to be found in Afghan prisons? While the world sits back and clucks over our "sleep deprivation" practices in GTMO they are also tacitly condemning their "prisoners" to much worse treatment at the hands of Afghani jailers. So tell me, what sort of moral high ground does anyone in Italy have to criticize our actions when all their government is doing is turning a blind eye to the actual abuse in places like Kandahar's Sarposa Prison.

I understand and appreciate the political arguments about the detention policies in GTMO even if I don't agree with them. There were certainly some questionable decisions made in how to classify these detainees and those decisions are bearing a bitter fruit at this moment. However, that does not excuse, and will never excuse, throwing US soldiers under the bus because it is politically expedient.

My soldiers and I served our nation honorably and proudly. We were given a mission to perform and we performed in professionally and admirably. To have politically motivated attacks focus an unfair and utterly false spotlight on our service is unacceptable and I'm tired of it. Please reconsider your opening paragraph and focus your argument on what the actual problems are surrounding GTMO-- unfair press coverage, political sniping and outright lies.

Respectfully,

Maydayog
JTF-160/GTMO

Maydayog, history shows that if there is to be any throwing under the bus it will be done by the Colonels and Generals who gave the orders at Gitmo. It's you "bad apple" grunts who are going to take the fall if or when that becomes necessary.

There's really a unifying theme to the mismanagement and fumbling we've seen here and abroad during the Bush regime. And that would be a total disregard for laws: international laws that our ancestors fought for in wars, laws of capitalism that reward success and actually punish failure, and any other law that inconvenienced loyal friends of Bush.

Adhering to the "rules" would have put artificial limits on what we could do. And, we were at war, so only a wimp would follow rules. If that line didn't strike a nerve, how about the one asking if our enemies were following rules? Those who espoused such war talk probably convinced themselves that tough times called for tough measures. But, those measures were not implemented as a response to attack, but as an excuse for lawlessness.

Maybe that IS the point - Great Satan is unpredictable and kinda crazy in war - raise your hand against her and who can say what will become of you?