> My opinion on this matter is that it's about time. The Justice Department has argued that, in releasing the names, it could let terrorist groups know how far the United States is progressing in its investigation. But I have a feeling that if someone has been detained for nearly a year, their contacts would know something was up.

Well yes, a specific (terrorist) agent's handler might know that something happened with their specific charge, and several handlers might realize that something happened to their individual charges, but communications in the terrorist network may not be in place that allows all the handlers to pool their information together. By not releasing the full list of the detained, a rival intelligence organization would have to spend time gathering this information. The ruling would mean that the terrorist organization could just go pick up the list at your local neighborhood web site and devote more of their efforts to planning the next murderous attack.

Besides, how does publishing the list of names help, civil rights wise? Are civil rights organizations going to start parallel investigations of each and every one of the 1200 detainees' cases? According to the article you linked to, the detainees already had legal representation during any questioning by government officials. Or are civil rights groups just attempting to verify the number that the Justice Department has quoted?

>And how many of the detainees were completely innocent? Their lives were forever changed, and they may never be the same again. It's really not so different than when the U.S. government rounded up thousands of Japanese-Americans shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor and put them in camps. Most lost their homes, their possessions, and some also lost family members and their own lives.
>
> I'm not saying the U.S. government should stop investigating the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, and I'm certainly not condoning either those attacks or the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I just think the detainees should be given a bit of a chance. Yes, we don't know exactly why they were detained, but there is a point where they deserve some civil rights. After all, in America one is innocent until proven guilty.

This is a different issue than the release of names into the public arena, but a good question nonetheless. How many were completely innocent? Probably several.

But how are these people being treated -- like common criminals or penned up like Japanese-Americans during WW2? I'm certian that the big question is "Why were they detained in the first place?"

Call me naive, but I would think that of the "147 people still were being [held], including 74 on charges involving immigration infractions", there is some reason why they are being held. I don't think it's because it's because "the guy talks funny" or "he's a towelhead". Are people actually being held without being charged with anything?

Of the 1200 or so arrested after September 11th, "there were 752 arrested or detained in immigration charges. The others were arrested for differing charges." Again, over half of the people detained or arrested were in violation of immigration laws. Perhaps a case can be made for increased enforcement of immigration laws after 9/11/01, but shouldn't people who are in violation of a law be made accountable for violating that law?

Again, I don't see how entering a list of names in the public arena is any better than providing a list of detainees, listed by a code number, and the reason why they are being detained.

> What do you think?
>
> Ell"Maybe it's just a small can of worms?"myruh

-Faux "doesn't really know that much about why or how they can be detained" Pas