Abdul Ramajadan, 26, was caught up in a military sweep near the town of Tikrit at the beginning of the Iraq war. Ramajadan was subsequently sent to Guantanamo Bay (GB), where he has been confined for five years. When he was captured, Ramajadan was unarmed and hauling a large load of fertilizer to his home. He claimed to be a farmer merely returning home to his wife and family. However, the military officials processing Ramajadan viewed his proximity to other captured insurgents to be too much of a coincidence to conclude anything other than that he was an insurgent. They defined him as a terrorist. They concluded that the fertilizer was going to be used to make a large bomb to be used against U.S. forces. During the five years he has been at GB, Ramajadan has been tortured repeatedly, made to sit naked in his cell, deprived of any telephone calls to his family or friends, denied access to an attorney, and generally kept away from other prisoners. Although military officials have been unable to extract any useful information from Ramajadan, they still refuse to release him or permit him to have any due process privileges. During the last few months, Ramajadan has contracted tuberculosis, and his captors have decided to send him home. When he returns to Tikrit, he discovers that an improvised explosive device killed his wife and children two years ago. He has friends in the area, but they shun him because of his prolonged detention in GB.

Do you believe that grounds existed at the time for Ramajadan to be defined as a terrorist and deprived of his liberty at GB for five years? What ethical issues are raised by this scenario? (reference required)