Eric Takabayashi wrote:

> > We're still waiting to see for what
> > purpose the military and US government are holding other foreigners
> > and citizens of Middle Eastern descent.

Kevin Gowan quipped:

> Name one of them.

Perhaps that's more a comment on the scant attention this has received in
the US press and other media than on the realities of the situation.

Here's a name for you: Salaiman (or Sulaiman) Shah, one of a group of 18
Afghans released from the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay "after being
kept in tiny cages and subjected to interrogations for more than a year to
prove their innocence". He denies all involvement with the Taliban. Fellow
prisoner Murtaza admitted he was with the Taliban at the time, but claimed
he had been forced to join them. A third prisoner, Bismillah, claimed he had
been arrested because of a misunderstanding arising from the fact that he is
deaf (http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=6619&TagID=2, and
if you don't like that source, try
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2886245.stm or http://tinyurl.com/do3h
= the Daily Telegraph, a right-wing British newspaper).

But the US press did not entirely overlook the incident. The Washington Post
carries a different version of the story,  with one of the released
prisoners (named Sarajudim) saying the US military paid cash to a warlord to
hand him over as a so-called terrorist, and another (Ehsannullah) tells of
his treatment by US soldiers on his arrest in Afghanistan - they beat him
and other prisoners up and taunted them by throwing the Koran down a
lavatory (http://tinyurl.com/do3y). The charge that the US military were
offering money for "terrorists" is repeated from other sources. $5,000 for a
Taliban fighter and $20,000 for an Al Qaeda operative appears to have been
the going rate, and it's highly unlikely Bismillah was the only one grabbed
off the streets and handed over by warlords eager for easy cash

The 18 released Afghans are only one of several similar incidents where
prisoners have been released after months (sometimes a year or more) of
intensive interrogation and being cooped up in cages. Pakistani officials,
after visiting Guantanamo, estimated that perhaps 8 out of 58 Pakistani
detainees were in any way guilty. Kuwait claims that 12 Kuwaiti detainees
were relief workers in Afghanistan. These claims were made months ago. Some
of the detainees have since been freed. There have been no formal charges,
no trials, no explanations.

Here's a report (October 2002, modified December 2002) from the Centre for
International Human Rights that summarises the situation fairly well:
http://tinyurl.com/do4q.

Nor is Guantanamo the only cause for concern. Sheik Mohamed Abdirahman
Kariye is one of scores of Muslims arrested by the Joint Terrorism Task
Force on charges unrelated to terrorism. In his case, tests showing there
was explosive residue in his bags were citied as cause to keep him in
detention pending trial, but the tests were later shown to be false. Last
week he was found guilty of trying to obtain health insurance on false
pretences and put on probation. He doesn't appear to be guilty of anything
the Joint Terrorism Task Force have any legitimate interest in.

Then there's the case of Rabbih Haddad. He has been imprisoned since
December 14 on charges of overstaying his visa, although he had entered the
US legally and was apparently in the process of applying for permanent
residency at the time of his arrest. The underlying reason appears to be
that Haddad's charity, Global Relief, had links with Makhtab-al-Khidamat.
His lawyers have pointed out that the US government was also supporting the
same organisation Makhtab-al-Khidamat at the time and his community is
adamant that he is not sympathetic towards terrorism.
The case continues.

In cases like this the authorities have to be just a little bit more careful
than with the prisoners of war (oh, sorry, they're *not* prisoners of war -
that's why they don't have to be careful with them!), but a close look at
what's going on seems to be worrying quite a few people who know far more
about US law than I do. I guess if, ultimately, these people turn out to be
guilty of involvement in terrorism it will be judged that the ends justify
the means, but that goes against Kevin's arguments about a universal
morality, in which the ends can never justify the means (long thread on
philosophy about a year ago), so it would mean that, if the actions of the
authorities are not illegal, then the law is immoral.

> > As an aspiring attorney, who appears to put the law over personal
> > feelings, I believed you might take an interest in such as that. Or
> > are the government's claims good enough for you?
>
> What law has been violated?

You tell us. You're the lawyer.

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com