The Case For Not Releasing Gitmo Detainees

From The Wall Street Journal:

It's a fair bet that no high-powered American law firm will lend a caring hand to the relatives of the seven Iraqis murdered last month by a suicide bomber named Abdullah Salih Al Ajmi and two accomplices. That's too bad, seeing as how Ajmi was himself a beneficiary of some of that high-powered legal help.

Ajmi is a Kuwaiti who was 29 when he blew himself up in the northern city of Mosul in April. But before that he had spent more than three years as an enemy combatant at Guantanamo, where he was known as "Captive 220." He was taken prisoner at Tora Bora, Afghanistan, after the fall of the Taliban, in whose service he had reportedly spent eight months. While in detention, he told interrogators that his intention was "to kill as many Americans" as he possibly could.

Read more ....

My Comment: In the past, combatants who were not dressed in military uniform were always taken to the side of the road and executed, or at best had no Geneva protection as prisoners of war. In todays legal world, we have become a society that is very good at expressing liberal positions and ideals, but in the event that something goes wrong, responsibility for your action is absent. This Wall Street Journal piece accurately covers the "what happens when things go wrong".

We see many people and institutions who wish to have most if not all Gitmo detainees released and/or proceed through a legal system that has no precedent to handle their cases (The Nuremberg trials may be an exception). Worse, when a former Gitmo prisoner commit mass murder, accountability and responsibility are absent. Is this justice. Is this moral and right. I am now doubtful that this is the case.