On Taliban's detention

In response to Joseph L. Spartz letter Taliban's detention published in The Jakarta Post on Jan. 23, something Dickensian is appropriate. To wit! Bah! Humbug!

He calls the concern of the I.C.R.C and Amnesty International over the Guantanamo prisoners "premature" and "hypocritical". It seems to have escaped his attention that it has been the brief of the I.C.R.C. for at least a century to monitor the conditions of prisoners of war (never mind, perhaps, that in this case no war was ever declared). Quite how this fits the definition of "hypocritical" is indeed difficult to see.

It also seems to have escaped Mr. Spartz's attention that the closest ally of the Americans, its obedient servant, Britain, has raised concerns, albeit timid and "pro forma" over the treatment of these men held in that old imperial outpost, Guantanamo. Is the British government "premature" and "hypocritical"?

I do not know quite how he arrives at any survey of opinion among the millions of "destitute, hungry and freezing Afghan refugees". However, I imagine they hardly cast an envious eye on the "holiday camp" conditions of Guantanamo but would far rather the big players, the U.S. and Britain, put half as much effort into getting in relief supplies as they have into bombing eight bells out of their country.

You only have to refer to the criticisms of the likes of the World Food Program and Oxfam to get the point. "Premature"? "Hypocritical"?

DAVID JARDINE

Jakarta