This is shocking! They just let him go free - but he'd been in Guantanamo for six years. Guantanamo holds "the worst of the worst" so he must have done something to deserve that. True, he was never actually charged with anything, but there must have been some reason to hold him there incommunicado for so long.
Lucky he's emaciated and stretcher-ridden, or he'd no doubt be running berserk blowing things up.
Interesting. As the article implies, I guess much depends on one's definition of "wartime". But - setting aside legal, moral and constitutional issues - has imprisoning Sami al-Haj made the US any safer?
There seems to be a fair case against the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War Two simply on pragmatic grounds. There's surely a much stronger case against the imprisonment of Sami al-Haj in terms of 'realpolitik'. What damage to the US had he done, or could he possibly have done, versus what damage has been done by treating him so unfairly?