It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The first thing that jumps out of the statistics is that a majority of the detainees in both groups are not Afghans -- nor were they picked up in Afghanistan as U.S. troops fought the Taliban and Al Qaeda, nor were they picked up by American troops at all. Most are from Arab countries, and most were arrested in Pakistan by Pakistani authorities.
Seventy-five of the 132 men, or more than half the group, are -- like Farouq Ali Ahmed, the subject of National Journal's accompanying story -- not accused of taking part in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. (The 75 include 10 detainees whom the U.S. government "no longer" considers enemy combatants, although at least eight of the 10 are still being held at Guantanamo.) Typically, documents describe these men as "associated" with the Taliban or with Al Qaeda -- sometimes directly so, and sometimes through only weak or distant connections. Several men worked for charities that had some ties to Al Qaeda; Farouq lived in a house associated with the Taliban....
The government's documents tie only eight of the 132 men directly to plans for terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan.
One of the eight, an Australian fundamentalist Muslim, admitted that he trained several of the 9/11 hijackers and intended to hijack a plane himself; another of the eight, a Briton, is said to have targeted 33 Jewish organizations in New York City. Both men were released to their home governments in January 2005. Neither one is facing charges at home.
...One hundred and fifteen of the files also note where the detainees were captured. Only 35 percent of the 115 were arrested in Afghanistan; 55 percent were captured by Pakistani forces in Pakistan.
"There is no smoking gun," said John Chandler, a partner in the Atlanta office of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan. One of his Guantanamo clients, picked up in Pakistan, is designated an enemy combatant in part because he once traveled on a bus with wounded Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan. The prisoner denies it, saying it was only a public bus. But then there's the prisoner's Casio watch. According to the Defense Department files, his watch is similar to another Casio model that has a circuit board that Al Qaeda has used for making bombs. The United States is using the Qaeda-favored Casio wristwatch as evidence against at least nine other detainees. But the offending model is sold in sidewalk stands around the world and is worn by one National Journal reporter. The primary difference between Chandler's client's watch and the Casio in question is that the detainee's model hasn't been manufactured for years, according to the U.S. military officer who was his personal representative at the tribunal.
Another study (468K PDF) published earlier this month by a professor at Seton Hall and an attorney for two of the detainees came up with similar findings. Looking at the Department of Defense's own analysis of the detainees, prepared for the "enemy combatant" tribunals, they discovered that "Eight percent are detained because they are deemed 'fighters for;' 30 percent considered 'members of;' a large majority -- 60 percent -- are detained merely because they are 'associated with' a group or groups the government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2 percent of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified."
The Seton Hall study also provides some insight into how most of these prisoners were captured -- they were turned over to the military in exchange for cash. Look at this flier, dropped in Afghanistan at the time of the sweeps, and included in the study: "Get wealth and power beyond your dreams ... You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al Qaeda and Taliban murderers. This is enough money to take care of your family, your tribe, your village for the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books."
Who is at Guantanomo anyway?
The Seton Hall study also provides some insight into how most of these prisoners were captured -- they were turned over to the military in exchange for cash. Look at this flier, dropped in Afghanistan at the time of the sweeps, and included in the study: "Get wealth and power beyond your dreams ... You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al Qaeda and Taliban murderers. This is enough money to take care of your family, your tribe, your village for the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books."
Originally posted by Jakomo
Hey, feel totally free to give your own personal opinion, I only put links there because they're pretty.
The question is rhetorical, and is answered in the links. Was looking for people's reactions to the info on the links, what was I thinkin.
I have a difficult time believing that these guys were in the 'wrong place at the wrong time'.
“It's a bunch of documents that put a innocent spin on detainees - he's only there because of his watch.”
"I think the standards for sending someone to Guantanamo in 2002 and early 2003 were not as high as they should have been," said Mark Jacobson, who was an assistant for detainee policy in Rumsfeld's office from November 2002 through August 2003.
By the fall of 2002, it was common knowledge around CIA circles that fewer than 10 percent of Guantanamo's prisoners were high-value terrorist operatives, according to Michael Scheuer who headed the agency's bin Laden unit through 1999 and resigned in 2004. Most of the men were probably foot soldiers at best, he said, who were "going to know absolutely nothing about terrorism."
Rogue combatants who are captured should not be treated as the equivalent of the average U.S citizen.
Originally posted by derdeb
I have a difficult time believing that these guys were in the 'wrong place at the wrong time'. The U.S is quikcly learning their lesson when releasing 'innocent' detainees (they said they were innocent - honest!) and then recapturing the bastards later down the road with a detonator in hands.
Originally posted by infinite
...Pirates?
Originally posted by skippytjc
cut·throat n.
1. A murderer, especially one who cuts throats.
2. An unprincipled, ruthless person.
3. A cutthroat trout.
See definition #2.
Dictionary.com
Originally posted by Jakomo
derdeb:
Rogue combatants who are captured should not be treated as the equivalent of the average U.S citizen.
Beautiful illustration of a racist, self-aggrandizing, cowardly policy. They don't deserve the same freedoms as you because they are not American.
They might want to kill you sometime in the future, possibly, so you figure just to be safe, they should be put away and the key should be thrown away.
Sounds positively yellow, doesn't it? With a splash of fascism.
Of course, this kinda of thing is probably what has a bunch of Al Qaeda guys sitting around in the cave roaring with laughter, realizing that your country is doing more to help Al Qaeda than they are.
jako
Originally posted by derdeb
I'm not going to counter point every damn case. You want to believe that we're torturing innocent foot soldiers? Great for you.
Originally posted by derdeb
Originally posted by Jakomo
derdeb:
Rogue combatants who are captured should not be treated as the equivalent of the average U.S citizen.
Beautiful illustration of a racist, self-aggrandizing, cowardly policy. They don't deserve the same freedoms as you because they are not American.
They might want to kill you sometime in the future, possibly, so you figure just to be safe, they should be put away and the key should be thrown away.
Sounds positively yellow, doesn't it? With a splash of fascism.
Of course, this kinda of thing is probably what has a bunch of Al Qaeda guys sitting around in the cave roaring with laughter, realizing that your country is doing more to help Al Qaeda than they are.
jako
You're bleeding heart is getting all over my keyboard. So I'm a racist because I don't think enemy combantants should be given a Gitmo McDonalds meal.
You're liberally squeeky clean values are destorying the modern world.
In conclusion, take your self-aggrandizing, cowardly policy insults, and whine to someone who really cares.
Perhaps, Tim Robins?