The issue of those wanted and the detainees has become more complex, for whereas it was only linked to the security apparatus of the authorities, the issue of those who were abducted by the militant opposition, which took a shape that is similar to detention in some of its aspects, appeared during an advanced phase of the crisis. All in all, however, the “detention” remained linked to an od dossier that is specific to the political regime.
With the start of the Syrian troubles, the numbers of detainees and those wanted for security reasons increased, before the objections develop into an “armed struggle”. Throughout months of the crisis, the issue became more complicated and what can be called as “The chaos of detention” appeared, which coincided with the “Chaos of releasing detainees”, which is a process that takes place under the loos banner of (Those whose hands were not stained with blood), in a way that allows for mixing criteria and, as some say, increases the relation of antagonism and denial between citizens and their state.
The abolishment of the state of emergency did not affect all details of the detention issue and, as a segment of the society believes, people remain fearful of being reprimanded or unlawfully involved in this or that case, later on. This would require institutionalising this issue under stipulations that are transparent and clear for everyone, and on judicial basis.
Some Syrian tendencies find that the entrance of discussing the fate of the detainees is through national reconciliation that has been ignored since the struggle with the Muslim brotherhood at the start of the Eighties. Those who believe as such appreciate reconciliation in preserving the Syrian identity amongst a multi ethnic and multi religious Arabic and Islamic surrounding, which is the identity that would allow any Syrian to feel dignity in his country. The reconciliation, however, does not have a unified concept among all Syrian parties, as some understand it as a procedure after achieving victory while other only see it as meaning the achievement of all their objectives that they could not achieve by arms. This calls for discussing a unified understanding of the national reconciliation issues.
On the other hand, the ending of the detainees issue, controlling detention issues and achieving reconciliation are all linked to a basic procedural state that is related to the “militants”. And the authorities, which issued a repeated amnesty for those who carried weapons and “Whose hands were not stained with blood”, are dealing with the militancy phenomenon and not the “militants” as groups who have their various references. From this angle, some of the opposition movements find it necessary to “involve the militants in the security set-up” as per their areas. This approach carries a confirmation of creating trans-authority mechanisms with regards to appointments in the security administration and in the army, in order to guarantee no overturning any formula for a solution, and guarantee no chaos of arms and militants, should they exit the solution formula.
Some of those who adopt this approach view the need to distinguish between armed groups before taking any measure because some groups, which are strongly present today, belong to Salafi groups and a number of their elements are non-Syrian. At the same time, we cannot wait until the end of the crisis in order to find a solution, for one of the reasons of the continuation of violence is the militants’ fear for their destiny should the violence ends, at the time that a large segment that is dubbed as loyal to the regime (Regime Shabiha) fear for reprisal that the opposition is threatening with, should they win.
