I would like to thank you for your great articles. I learned of your site through a poem sent to me by a friend: "Live A Life That Matters". Needless to say, it is in my favorites and wish the leaders of our country would listen to it. Thank you again.

I am upset that the United States needs to take what amounts to prisoners of war and give them rights that are for United States citizens. We never gave Germans, who we captured during World War Two, habeas corpus. Why should we give others, who are captured duing the War on Terror, the same privilege? They are prisoners of war, and until the war is over, they will remain so. Let us solve the problem first, then worry about them. There is no ethical issue. There is security.

Dear Mr. Josephson,

I'm an avid follower of Character Counts!, having embraced many of the lessons on moral clarity that your writings teach. As a father and business owner, I've forwarded many of your writings on to my family and staff because much of what you write resonates with me.

However, you missed the mark with this commentary. First, the unwarranted imprisonment of 100,000 Japanese citizens after the Pearl Harbor attack gives no context to and is unrelated to the imprisonment of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay. Here is why:
1. The Japanese people imprisoned during WWII were US citizens with all the rights and protections of our Constitution.
2. None had committed hostile acts against the United States.
3. None had been picked up on the battlefield.
4. Citizens of German and Italian descent were not rounded up and imprisoned.

It shocked me that you, as one who is so clearly able to differentiate between good and evil, right and wrong, would not see the clear differences here.
Please show us where in our Constitution it says we are to give these rights to non-citizens, never mind enemy combatants. Please show us where in our Constitution it says we are to give these rights to those out to destroy us. Please show us where in our Constitution it says we are to commit suicide as a nation by granting rights to those who deny us ours.

How is it, sir, you are so clear on the moral issues of our time and yet so unable to see that the evil represented by these people must be confronted and defeated by good, decent people?

Are you aware that 30 individuals, previously released from Guantanamo Bay, have been picked up again on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq? Have you any idea what type of burden your idea puts on the men and women in our armed forces? Not only would our servicemen and women be fighting for their lives against these people, they would now be required to collect evidence every time they capture an enemy combatant for fear that not doing so would result in that combatant's release.

If, as you write and say daily, character counts, then certainly judgment counts and the ability to differentiate between good and evil counts. And on this issue, Mr. Josephson, you are dangerously wrong.

I have great respect for your effort with Character Counts!
But I am so disappointed that you compared the situation with the detainees at Guantanamo with the unjustified "internment" of the 100,000 citizens of Japanese ancestry along with their American children of Japanese ancestry imprisoned during WWII. My grandparents, parents and almost all of my relatives were in that group.
Just to remind you and others, most of them were not citizens of Japan but were Americans of Japanese descent. If they had dual citizenship, they were declared dead in Japan.
They had to sign a paper to swear loyalty to the United States, even though they were already loyal, law-abiding and contributing members of the United States. They had established farms and businesses and cared for their own families and saw to it that their children attended school and learned to speak English!
Instead of going to their ancestors' country to fight, they fought for the United States military and were among the bravest and most decorated soldiers in the war. They were considered expendable by some American generals and were deployed into some places that were considered hopeless and many were killed but they succeeded in liberating Jewish prisoners of war. Many of their achievements were not recognized until as recently as last year. They fought for the United States while their families were under armed guard, "relocated" into god forbidden areas after being removed from their beautiful, fertile and land-rich areas of the West Coast of California and other such states.
So please do not equate them with those people in Guantanamo who are not Americans and probably never wanted to be. If some are unjustly held, that is a different situation which should be resolved, but it does not equate with the injustice to the Japanese-Americans during WWII.
Also, after all they went through, my parents and their siblings and offspring went on to be exemplary citizens and we are proud to be Americans.

I think some of you may be misinformed. Those prisoners being held at Guantanamo are very much like the Japanese Americans and Japanese resident aliens during World War II. The so-called combatants at Guantanamo are not just people plucked from the battlefields and sent to Guantanamo; many are suspected of "terrorism." Some are US citizens, others legal residents of the United States with no more ties to Al Queda than being from the same part of the world. The government can arrest you if they suspect you might know someone on their watch list. Some of these may be legitimate combatants but many are not. Without the rights we claim to believe in, we would be a nation controlled by the government, not a nation governed by its people. Gee, isn't that why we dislike and are willing to fight other nations that are dictatorships because we believe in personal freedom and liberty for all? Mr Josephson is right. We cannot have situational ethics. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and it is wrong to hold people indefinitely when no one knows if they should even be in the prison there.

Are you people crazy? Michael’s comparison of the Japanese American internment during WWII is a perfect example of the danger we face today. If we approve of immoral/unethical acts under the guise of security, what is the difference? In case you don’t know, the government has not even allowed so-called “terrorist” prisoners to challenge their imprisonment. Many of these people have not even been proven to be terrorists – they are only suspected of such. How can this be ethical? To say that our laws don’t apply to them because they are not citizens is just plain foolish and illogical. Are we to say that our laws don’t apply to the millions of non-citizen tourists that visit the US each year? Or that they only apply to the English-speaking ones? Or only those who don’t look like a terrorist might look? You can’t have it both ways; either our laws apply to all who are here or they don’t. The Constitution purposely uses the term “persons” instead of “citizens” in many sections – why do you think this is?

To state that their rights should be ignored because they are suspected terrorists in a time of war is the same excuse used during WWII. Shame on Karen for not learning from her relatives’ experiences. It seems their sacrifices were in vain. If she and her siblings support the denial of the prisoners’ basic right to counsel, they have not become “exemplary citizens” – they have become enemies of the US Constitution. They are just another generation that has forgotten the lessons of the past and think their situation is somehow different, i.e. excusable or justifiable. These people are far more dangerous than any terrorist could ever be.

Travis says “Let us solve the problem first, then worry about them.” This is exactly what was said during the WWII internment. In case Travis doesn’t know it, the Patriot Act gives the government the right to suspend anyone’s rights in the interest of national security. If Travis were viewed as a “problem” by the CIA and imprisoned, would he be as adamant about surrendering his own rights as those of others? After all, we’d eventually get things straightened out later, wouldn’t we?

Now, this doesn’t mean I don’t support incarceration of proven terrorists. They are prisoners of war and should be treated per the Geneva Convention rules. But shouldn’t we give them the right to at least prove their innocence? And shouldn’t we be careful of falling down that slippery ethical slope again by avoiding unquestioned incarcerations?