Perhaps this story got some attention as it is from the AP, but I didn't see anything about it. Stars and Stripes, having no local news to report aside from a two page sweep of the country (my hometown made it last week for a prostituion sting!), carries more international and national news than my hometown paper, so maybe this wasn't widely read in the States.
In the October 3 Mideast edition of the Stars and Stripes there is an AP article about the prisoners in Bagram. The piece is titled "Bagram detainees lost in rights debate" and focuses on a man named Capt. Amanullah who was a mujhadeen fighter against the Soviets. Aparently this man was taken prisoner in 04 and has now been released 14 months later, 11 of which were in solitary confinement. The piece describes the living conditions as not great but getting better, but makes the point that the real issue is how these people ended up in this prison and what their rights are now that they are in. The guys doesn't seem to know why he was detained. He figures he got blown in by some rivals and the Americans took them at their word.
I tend to glance or ignore most torture and detainment stories and diaries because they are usually either full of legal technicalities or just human interest "oh look at the suffering" stories. What really concerns me, at least what I think is most relevant, is how lowering the standards for detention and retention of prisoners will impact events on the ground. When I hear low level intel guys in the infantry units I work with talk about detaining someone, they always talk about multiple source reporting. They can't just roll up a guys because someone said "He's bad." They need specifics and corroboration. The burden isn't as high as for an American policeman, but they can't just hold people indefinately on a hunch or because they don't like the guy. That will undoubtedly change if the Adminsitration's ideas take hold at the top.
I don't think the adverse effects of rather small numbers of illegal detentions can compare to what would happen if the attitude of "lock em up cause I said so" permeates all levels of our security apparatus. If we were allowed, the guys I work with would probably be arresting half the male population in our AO. "You didn't assist me in finding the 'terrorists' so I'm going to lock you up. Oh, and I don't trust your brother now either because he's gonna be pissed at me, so he's coming too." I can see this sort of scenario playing out without stretching my imagination too much.
I've rambled here, but my point is, we in the military, even those of us deployed to a war zone, are told about the misdeeds of our government everyday and some of us pay attention. We see CNN, FOX, and MSNBC in the chow halls, I even saw Gwen Iffel interview Bob Woodward today (until some asshole put hockey on. Who gives a fuck about hockey in October?). Stars and Stripes has plenty of political coverage and the normal conservative/liberal battles on the LTE page. I just read one guys who said we shouldn't let illegal immigrants in because they are diseased and we should shoot to kill on the border. Today there was a letter from a Specialist about how unAmerican the new torture bill is. Diversity of opinion, if not as wide spread as in civilian life, is strong in the military.
WE ARE NOT ROBOTS <beep>