I am wondering why US government refused the Chinese government's extradition request? Just because those people are not threat to USA? If they are terrorists against Russia or China, what make them less a terrorist?

Sent by Wei Song | 2:27 PM ET | 07-31-2007

I was under the impression that the "worse of worse" taken away in secret to places like Yemen and Egypt?

Guantanamo needed to be closed yesterday. The damage done by the Bush Administration needs to be undone. The America I remember does not torture people or hold them indefinitely without charges.

Sent by Paul in Chicago | 2:37 PM ET | 07-31-2007

Mr. Ballinger:
Where is the evidence of their guilt? If it was there it would have been produced.

Sent by Bruce Bakie | 2:37 PM ET | 07-31-2007

Isn't it hypocritical of our government to not allow U.S. citizens visit Cuba or to not even recognize their government but we have a military base there?

Sent by Kristine | 2:39 PM ET | 07-31-2007

I feel that the US took them from their homes and put them in jail, stripped them of their rights and freedom, so it's the US responsibility to take care of them. Don't dump them back to their home country and expect their life to be back to normal. Be responsible for your actions. Bush could always put them to work at his ranch or maybe use them to go start another war.

Sent by damein | 2:41 PM ET | 07-31-2007

Your guest who is the lackey of Condaleeza Rice kept pulling out individual cases to make the point that Guantanamo detainees are terrorists.

Sure, there may be a few "terrorists," but after almost five years the military cannot charge the majority with a crime.

So who's the terrorist?

Sent by Roy Fuchs | 2:41 PM ET | 07-31-2007

I was disturbed by the State Department spokesman who seems to have adopted a tactic from the Republican right/President Bush playbook and used it on today's show.

He said more than once that it isn't true that most of these prisoners are innocent, and implied that was the position of the ACLU and others concerned about use of Guantanamo.

I'd guess that very few of us who are critical of Guantanamo would say that most people held are innocent. We are, however, concerned about those who there is a good possibility are innocent. I heard about a man in his 80s who is apparently suffering from demantia who was held for some time. And I believe there is a reasonable possibility that some of the people handed over to the US in exchange for a bounty by various allied Afghan factions may not be guilty. These are the circumstances that require a review to determine the truth of their guilt or innocence.

People captured by American and NATO forces I am less concerned about. There is a record that makes it reasonable to hold these combatants, whether they are 15 or 70.

So NPR, please don't allow guests to get away with mis-stating the positions of those whom they disagree with. Quality reporting requires journalists to challenge these statements instead of letting lies and half-truths influence uninformed viewers positions.

Thanks.

Sent by Robert Pierce | 3:20 PM ET | 07-31-2007

This lady is saying NOTHING, get her off the air. She's just going in circles, I'm getting dizzy and not getting any info from her!

Sent by Mark | 7:02 PM ET | 07-31-2007

Thank you Mr. Pierce for making the point the interviewee was not called on the fact that no one was saying all of the detainees were not bad. Unfortunately, without public trials, we don't know who deserved 4 years of prison and who is being held without cause.

It is very dismaying to see NPR falling into the false good guys/bad guys, your guys/our guys dichotomy that is destroying public discourse.

It is easy to see why political blogs are so popular. If the media cannot no longer be trusted to serve as a gatekeeper - filtering our inaccuracies and calling sources on their untruths - why bother.

Sent by Fay Louise | 8:19 PM ET | 07-31-2007