It’s the difference between shooting a mad dog or electrocuting the animal for two weeks. You’ll have the same result in the end, but the first scenario is obviously the lesser evil.

The problem here is that our soldiers who pick these guys up are being asked to act not just as soldiers, but as professionally trained detectives to the standard of the RCMP. Military courts are criticized for not requiring the same burden of proof or giving those captured the same legal protections they would have in civilian court.

I expect that this criticism has politicized military justice in an unprecedented manner. Presidential speeches and international calls to shut down Guantanamo have certainly forced those running these institutions to look at ways of reducing the number of prisoners. Hence, they’re letting some people go (likely including those who were never charged for lack of forensic evidence, five witnesses and a love letter in their pocket from their local Taliban commander) who probably ought to be chilling out in a prison cell.

Regarding your last question, I assume you mean, what would I do if I were an ISAF infantryman or military policeman in charge of handling those captured during operations? As a soldier, I would conduct myself according to ISAF rules of engagement, which treats drooling brigands with pretty much the same rights a Canadian citizen might get if picked up by the cops for some infraction at the corner of Granville and Broadway. As a civilian… well, I wouldn’t really be in charge of handling detainees.

@Kursk I took the figure from the article Jonathon cited, so do with that what you will.

Incidentally, we’re not talking about “a few hundred” enemy combatants. This exhaustively referenced Wikipedia article (http://bit.ly/aeyD5y) suggests that the number might be around 50 or so. This second Wikipedia article (http://bit.ly/aeyD5y) indicates that “Since October 7, 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo”. So that also suggests that the number released would be under 80.

More than 400 of those prisoners were released without being charged. Would you have had them all shot on sight, despite a lack of charge?

1% is too many.

No thank you..shoot on site .

But it’s an intolerably high rate for people whose concept of battlefield targets includes female teachers and students, UN aid workers, commercial airplane passengers and any Jew, Christian or Hindu they can get to with a pair of pliers.

I would also take issue with the definition of the Gauntanamo detainees as “Prisoners of War” — given that they in no way meet the standard of the Geneva Convention. They don’t wear uniforms or even belong to the armed forces of any particular nation. They are unlawful combatants.

In conflicts akin to the Second World War, most of the sort of people picked up in Afghanistan and elsewhere would have been executed on-site as “spies”. I suspect the only reason this did not take place is that enough officers have figured out it is hard to extract actionable intelligence from a corpse.

I mean, considering that, 20% seems like a happily low rate of recidivism. And I don’t really think it’s fair to say that “many” return to the battlefield. Particularly when, according to the linked article, the Whitehouse is only certain about the recidivism of 9.6% of detainees.