[carenot]

While guarding against the political use of military justice (i.e., holding the captured because of their views on American politics rather than their terrorist activities), we must not allow the terrorists to pretend they are just "ordinary" accused.

How are we to know if they are even suspected of being terrorists? All we know is these suspects have been detained. But are not charged with anything.

[Whilom]

Civilian leaders of the military rightly know that we hold them accountable for handling of captured terrorists and suspected terrorists. That doesn't mean we should make them announce to the world every Monday morning the identity of everyone held and the content of their interrogations. That doesn't mean we should open these holding and interrogation centers to every undercover PLO lawyer, serving as a conduit to and from the captured. That information figures importantly in the prosecution of the war. In past wars, that information became available when it was no longer critical to the war effort. So should it nowadays. It is very likely that mistakes will be made in the handling of the captured, as they were in previous wars. Those mistakes will be revealed in time, and the public will decide the proper penalty. If a Middle Easterner is picked up and questioned after leaving a paper trail of banking records showing his possible involvement in the flow of money to Al-Qaeda, and that person is held and interrogated for weeks or months isolated from any help from Al-Qaeda and its political supporters, I don't think the public will be outraged when they learn of it. If a Norwegian national is picked up and held and interrogated for weeks or months because he was overheard to say that Bush is all wrong and that he, personally, hopes the voters choose a Democrat in 2004, there'll be hell to pay. The first example is a proper use of authority during war. The second is an egregious excess not to be tolerated.