These aren't criminal suspects plucked randomly from civil society. They are people captured in military operations. "Lack of evidence" means not enough to sustain a conviction in a court, but enough to have moral certainty about the need to detain them. What is it about "being at war" that leftist morons have such a hard time comprehending?
The key there would be to look at Rall's opening complaint: Obama's unwillingness to "acknowledge the Armenian genocide."
Well, OK, it was genocide, and very few people would disagree with that.
The problem is that Mr. Rall's thinking stops there. Genocide is horrible and wrong and thus we must condemn it, even if it happened 80-90 years ago. The mindset seems to be that calling something "wrong" is enough -- that we need not think beyond that.
Like much of leftist rhetoric, his views are childish -- not necessarily wrong, but incomplete; lacking in both context and perspective.
In this particular instance, the problem is that this is not a matter of what "people" will do, it's a question of relations between to countries, in a world where actions must be balanced against their consequences. Where international relations are concerned, very few things can be considered as black and white. In the case of Turkey, we must balance "acknowledging genocide" against the very real negative strategic consequences of doing so.
What's really ironic is that Rall is upbraiding Obama because he said all the right childish things, but has failed to act childishly as well.
I would not call Obama a grown-up, by any stretch of the imagination. But I would say that Obama has been learning some pretty unpleasant lessons about the difference between saying and doing.