n 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 and all Americans willing to trade rights for "security." 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