"The Pentagon said yesterday that 61 former detainees who were released, quote, 'returned to the fight against the US' meaning that they had returned to some form of terrorism." So for those detainees who are deemed dangerous, but for whom no clear evidence exists for prosecution, what should be done with the prisoners that fall in that category?"That is quite a statement. Notice how broad the label of terrorism has become for NPR: anyone who is in "the fight against the US" is now engaged in "some form of terrorism." That is precisely the twisted line of thinking that permeates the US armed forces. Consider this very typical DOD article from the American Forces Press Service back in March 30, 2008 regarding the Iraqi insurgents:
"An American aircrew killed 12 insurgents today after they attacked a U.S. infantry patrol in northern Baghdad. Soldiers assigned to the 4th Infantry Division’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team pursued the insurgents after they had broken off their attack. U.S. military aircraft arrived to provide air-to-ground support. After positively identifying the attackers, the air weapons team engaged and killed the 12 terrorists. "It's a pretty nifty trick to turn a guerrilla band of 12 fighters who are willing to attack a US infantry patrol into "terrorists." What civilians were they attacking? What civilian targets had they engaged?
Returning to Norris' statement, one can ask the same questions regarding the 61 victims of the US torture camp at Guantanamo Bay. What form of terrorism? What acts of terrorism did they engage in? Do you have ANY evidence to back up your dramatic charge that they "returned to some form of terrorism"? Oops, did I just request "evidence"? (How quaint of me.) Regarding evidence, Norris has some very modern ideas about that: she wonders about "those detainees who are deemed dangerous, but for whom no clear evidence exists for prosecution, what should be done...?" Yes, indeed - what should be done?