Your chain of reasoning is based on the unspoken, and probably false, assumption that the U.S. military authorities actually know whether they are terrorists or not.
…quote me the part that says that a terrorist is defined as someone engages in acts of combat without internationally recognized uniforms only.
…from the Denbeaux report:
…the evidence that this detainee was in combat was that he ran away from a bombed camp. Does running away fit your definition of “combat” or of a “hostile act” or “participating in military operations against the United States”? Your citation showed the transcript of somebody who claimed he never fired a shot. He may well be lying, but no proof is presented in your cited transcript to show that the detainee engaged in any hostilities.
…but the circumstances of the detainees capture are not thoroughly investigated-that should be clear as mud from the linked transcripts. It is clear from the testimony of most of the released prisoners that many got handed over to the US for reasons that were clearly bollocks. Abassin Sayed was a taxi driver who got pulled over at a checkpoint and handed over to US troops because a rival taxi driver allegedly wanted his business. The Badr brothers were detained for three years for making a funny Clinton joke in 1998 and pissing off a political rival. Five detainees were shipped without permission from Bosnia, after a Bosnian court had found there wasn’t enough evidence to convict. Two British residents were ‘abducted’ from Gambia and shipped to Guantanemo. Half-head Bob, a detainee described by interrogators as…
…had a year at Guantanemo. One British detainee was found locked up in a Taliban prison, he was freed by US forces before being shipped to Gitmo. And of course, there is this:
And from my reading of the transcripts and from the Denbeaux Report, I believe cases like these (and many others) to be the rule, not the exception. I have no faith in the honesty of the detaining authorities: from the start we have been told the detainees are the “badest of the bad.” President Bush said “Let me just say, these were illegal combatants. They were picked up off the battlefield aiding and abetting the Taliban” The evidece to support the President’s assertions are pathetic. The real high value detainees are kept at other prisons around the world, like Camp Cropper or left to escape places like Bagram. Guantanemo is populated by “everyone else.”
I know your not trying to defend Guantanemo Bay. But your arguements lend legitimacy to the US administrations position where no such legitimacy exists. So some of the detainees may fit into the narrow definition of “illegal combatant.” So what? Many of the detainees were virtually kidnapped, or “sold” to the US, or detained because of paperwork mistakes, or detained because junior officers did not want to upset senior ones. Guantanemo is a comedy of errors hidden beneath a veil of lies that is kept open at the moment because the US is too afraid that “the big one might get away.”
Since when has the Bush admin or their base cared about what the ACLU or Amnesty International says?
I’d say that indefinite custody makes the most since to Bush/Cheney/Rove. Ignorance of their condition is strength.
Since when has the Bush admin or their base cared about what the ACLU or Amnesty International says?
I’d say that indefinite custody makes the most since to Bush/Cheney/Rove. Ignorance of their condition is strength.
Of course, from the POV of the detainees, “indefinite custody” does not necessarily mean for life. It just means, until we have a new Administration, one willing to release them.
Which might or might not take a lot longer than three more years . . .
Perhaps an uninformed question: but why would the US military transport, keep, and hold hundreds of men unless there was considerable evidence that such detainees were in fact terrorists?
Because of reluctance to admit even the possibility of a mistake?
That’s the 24 million dollar question; but there is no answer (beyond assumptions and guesses). Something to keep in mind is we only have access to the unclassified testimony (mostly unsworn), not the full story. There may be things we don’t know; then again there may not.
Why would they be holding them in the first place?
- actually believe they had enough evidence, later found they were wrong.
- “better safe than sorry” - we don’t have enough evidence, but these people are clearly terrorists.
- cynical view; let’s grab some random people, say they’re terrorists, and lock them up to make ourselves look good.
- “bought” from other nations, who assured them they were indeed terrorists.
To release them would;
- send the message that anti-terrorism measures are not as effective as claimed.
- show the administration and armed forces to have made mistakes.
- show the administration and armed foces to have tried to hide those mistakes.
- give an opening to the Democrats (not that they’d take it or probably even* see * it) “The Bush administration started this and screwed it up. Only we can sort out of this mess”.
Oh, and the above are just *some * possibilities - like EEMan says, we don’t have enough evidence one way or another to say we know for certain what’s going on.
Gosh. Have a look at history.
Why does any Government lock up hundreds of people without trial?
Because there isn’t any evidence, and it suits their political purposes.
Bush was terrified the US voters would reject him because he hadn’t done anything about Al-Queda (after 9/11). So he invented a bunch of ‘terrorists’ and locks them up for life without trial.
Remember the US invading Iraq over WMD’s?
Did you believe there were WMD’s in Iraq?
Did you vote for Bush because he was fighting a ‘war’ in Iraq against terrorism?
Do you believe there were WMD’s in Iraq?
Do you think the Northern Alliance captured a bunch of Al-Queda terrorists - or just decided to make a lot of money settling old scores?
Well we do know that Guantanamo detainees have been locked up for years then released because they were innocent. See the ‘Badr brothers’ and the ‘Tipton 3’.
We do know that this administration got the question of WMD’s in Iraq completely wrong.
Do you feel comfortable saying there is no published evidence, yet the US will lock up people for life without trial?
We don’t know they were innocent, we know they could not be proven guilty; not exactly the same thing, though significant.
As did every major intelligence group in the world (yes here was a small minority in some groups who believed the ‘intel’ was wrong; but the groups themselves did not hold that to be the fact).
There are many cases of ‘no published evidence’ in criminal cases (many cases are sealed, and some of which are ‘convictions’), but no; I am not confortable with locking someone up (at all) without a trial.
That said, we don’t know why they are there (we can guess, but that is all it would be); nor why they are STILL there (again we can guess, but don’t know).
evidence that this detainee was in combat was that he ran away from a bombed camp.
Well, that right there shows us that the man in question had a “consciousnes of guilt”
Everyone knows that bombs explode without effect upon the innocent and pure of heart .
Fair question, some reasonable answers have been given.
Here’s another: if 10% of the prisoners take arms against the US after they are released, the administration would look bad. Sure, the existance of Guantanamo helps Al Qaeda’s recruitment efforts. But the latter effect is far less visible --or tangible or newsworthy-- than the former.
Smart strategists like Karl Rove would not approve.
So the plan is to just hold them until they’re proven innocent? How does that work, exactly?
Can you come up with any specific examples? How about just one?
-Joe
perhaps they act in justified reliance upon the uninformed naivety and pusillanimous addiction to “security” pervading the shaky mental health of the electorate, as well demonstrated by your post.
‘Significant’ enough to lock them up for life without trial?
‘Significant’ enough to never let them see their families again?
Do you have a cite for this amazing claim?
Here’s the UK Foreign Minister, resigning before the war:
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam’s ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm
You really don’t know the difference between a judge examining unpublished evidence in a trial (where the defence has a lawyer) and sticking innocent people in jail for life? 
Of course we know why they are there.
Bush needed to pretend he was doing something about terrorism to get re-elected.
Of course we know why they are still there.
Bush would look like a desperate despot if they were all released.
Why has this Administration fought so hard to keep these prisoners from having all of the rights afforded to POWs by the Geneva Conventions?
At the same time, why has this Administration made every effort to keep these prisoners out of civil courts?
Is it possible that either of these situations can be changed by Executive Order in January of 2009?
Is it possible that Gitmo can be closed altogether with a new Administration?
That is my point, you can’t prove ANYONE is innocent (you can make a strong case for it, but you can’t prove a negative). It is SIGNIFICANT that they could not be found GUILTY, not that they weren’t proven innocent.