I wrote:
You wrote: "Can you go kidnap your neighbor, hold him in your basement for two years, release him and excuse yourself because some group bombed a train in Europe?"

We did not pick these people up at random from the streets of a neutral country. We captured them in the course of fighting a war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Perhaps some were detained in error, but it was in the middle of a war. They either were combattants, or were closely associated with combattants, which is why they were seized.

You replied:If what you are saying is true, why are there no charges? Why were they released twice, once by the US and once by the Brits?
Because these particular persons were arrested in error as I clearly specified above. During a war, there are lots of mistakes. At least they were not killed.

And if what you are saying is true, why aren't they all being released?
Not ALL of these prisoners were seized in error. Most were part of the Taliban + Al Qaeda alliance and therefore legitmate targets. By supporting Al Qaeda and refusing to surrender them, the Taliban Government effectively provided them with letters of marqe and reprisal which made them agents of the Taliban, and made the attacks by Al Qaeda acts of war by the Taliban Government.

Everything seems to point to these folks being more or less bystanders.
Some, yes, but not all, not even the majority. Those that are determined to be innocent bystanders are being released.

After all, we know that at least one 11 and 12 year old kids were "captured" and released years later, and we know that some absolutely, completely harmless mentally ill folks were "captured" and released much later.
Yes, mistakes will happen. Also, there were12 year old boys fighting alongside the Taliban. These are legitmate prisoners of war regardless of age.

Why is it not a crime to kidnap people, blindfold and shackle them, fly them around the world, hold them in cages for a couple of years and then turn them loose?
It is not a crime because it was an accident of war. During warfare, acts that would be considered criminal under other circumstances are not criminal acts. For example: killing innocents accidently while pursuing armed enemy soldiers. Manslaughter in the civilian world, but mere accidents during warfare. Read the Geneva Conventions.

Doesn't that sort of shoot the US idea it's a champion of Human Rights in the butt?

Arf

Not at all. It means that the USA makes mistakes during wartime. What country doesn't?

David F Mayer