Whatever happened to the "worst of the worst"? When the military started bringing captives to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in January 2002, it claimed that the detainees were dedicated to killing millions of Americans, and so suicidal that they would "gnaw through the hydraulic lines" of their transport plane to bring it down. Yet in recent weeks, the military has released eighteen detainees from Guantánamo, bringing to thirty-six the total number it has permitted to check out of Camp Delta since it opened. If they were the "worst of the worst," why have thirty-six now been allowed to go free?

Unless we are to believe that the military is intentionally setting loose suicidal killers bent on murdering us, the only conclusion one can draw is that the military's initial assessment of a significant number of detainees was mistaken. Other reports confirm that conclusion. Military officials have admitted that there are in fact no "big fish" on Guantánamo and that many of the detainees may be there by mistake. Some were brought in for rewards by bounty-hunters. One of the men released claimed to be over 100 years old. And in recent weeks, the military has confirmed that among the detainees still held are juveniles as young as 13. The worst of the worst?

These developments only underscore the legal and moral bankruptcy of the government's position on the Guantánamo detainees. From the outset the Bush Administration has invoked the law of war to justify their detention but has refused to comply with the most basic obligations of that law. It is true, as the Administration argues, that the law of war permits detention of "enemy combatants" for the duration of a conflict and that those who violate the laws of war are "unprivileged" combatants not entitled to prisoner-of-war status. But where there is any doubt about a detainee's status, the Geneva Conventions require a hearing before a competent tribunal--hearings we have routinely held in prior conflicts.

Subscriber Login

User Name

Password

Subscribe Now!

The only way to read this article and the full contents of each week's issue of The Nation online is by subscribing to the magazine. Subscribe now and read this article -- and every article published since for the past five years -- right now.

There's no obligation -- try The Nation for four weeks free.

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.