A Case for the Constitution

In a report based on interviews with 66 released detainees and officials from both American and Afghanistan, McClatchy finds that just 34 of these detainees had some sort of connection with militant groups. Of those, 23 were "Taliban foot-soldiers, conscripts,...adventure-seekers who knew nothing about global terrorism."

Included in the count of innocents are Mr. Khan and Mr. Akthar. Both of these men were falsely accused of being terrorists while, in reality, Akthar had actually fought for the American backed regime in Afghanistan. Khan and Akthar were detained based on faulty intelligence. To be precise, a U.S. intelligence officer explained that Americans captured Akhtiar "because they were given bad information by another Afghan who'd harbored a personal vendetta against [him]" since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Anyone with military experience has the mindset of an omelette maker: some eggs have to be broken. But keep in mind that Akthiar and Khan are just two out of 32 innocent men covered in the report. Some were kept for three years, others for six, but they all have the same story. Their years were commandeered. Their lives were broken. And for what? To be found innocent and to return to a dank, unfamiliar world where once-loved relatives and once-feasible aspirations no longer exist.

Despite the protestations of the Secretary of the Army, a CIA analyst, and officials from the Central Command as early as 2002, these illegal internments continued. In the face of such protest, it's impossible to claim that Guantanamo was ever necessary to enhance America's security. In fact, the interviews revealed that "U.S. detention policies fueled support for extremist Islamist groups." Indeed, "For some detainees who went home far more militant than when they arrived, Guantanamo became a school for jihad, or Islamic holy war."

When presented with all the historical failures of American administrations that jettisoned legal protections (civil liberties and rights explained in the Constitution and legal writs like Habeas corpus) for tough security measures, the security over rights argument has but one advantage: expediency. Granting a terrorist the right to challenge his detention is not only time-consuming but morally repugnant.

However, the report reduces even this time-tested refuge for proponents of aggressive security measures to rubble. Of the 770 detainees held at Guantanamo, just six have been publicly charged by the U.S. military commissions. That's less than one percent. In one case, charges were dropped. Specifically, the "missing hijacker" on September 11th got off because harsh interrogation tactics (waterboarding) rendered him insane and his information to interrogators inaccurate.

By torturing enemies and abandoning our legendary legal protections from tyranny, this administration has reaped a harvest of flawed intelligence and produced a measly six charges against our (actual) enemies. Despite this heap of evidence, Scalia and others will support expedient security measures in favor of obeying the laws that form America's foundation. Let's face the facts instead and realize that theirs is a policy consistently accompanied by failure.

I disagree with Scalia. There is something worse than a dead American soldier. It's a soldier who enlisted to defend America, and died for a country that no longer supports the values he swore to defend.

--Full report: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html