U.S. Said to Overstate Value of Guantánamo Detainees

[zimv20]

link (http://nytimes.com/2004/06/21/politics/21GITM.html?hp)


GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba, June 19 — For nearly two and a half years, American officials have maintained that locked within the steel-mesh cells of the military prison here are some of the world's most dangerous terrorists — "the worst of a very bad lot," Vice President Dick Cheney has called them.

The officials say information gleaned from the detainees has exposed terrorist cells, thwarted planned attacks and revealed vital intelligence about Al Qaeda. The secrets they hold and the threats they pose justify holding them indefinitely without charge, Bush administration officials have said.

But as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on the legal status of the 595 men imprisoned here, an examination by The New York Times has found that government and military officials have repeatedly exaggerated both the danger the detainees posed and the intelligence they have provided.

In interviews, dozens of high-level military, intelligence and law-enforcement officials in the United States, Europe and the Middle East said that contrary to the repeated assertions of senior administration officials, none of the detainees at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay rank as leaders or senior operatives of Al Qaeda. They said only a relative handful — some put the number at about a dozen, others more than two dozen — are sworn Qaeda members or other militants able to elucidate the organization's inner workings.

While some Guantánamo intelligence has aided terrorism investigations, none of of it has enabled intelligence or law-enforcement services to foil imminent attacks, the officials said. Compared with the higher-profile Qaeda operatives held elsewhere by the C.I.A., the Guantánamo detainees have provided only a trickle of intelligence with current value, the officials said. Because nearly all of that intelligence is classified, most of the officials would discuss it only on condition of anonymity.

"When you have the overall mosaic of all the intelligence picked up all over the world, Guantánamo provided a very small piece of that mosaic," said a senior American official who has reviewed the intelligence in detail. "It's been helpful and valuable in certain areas. Was it the mother lode of intelligence? No."

In September 2002, eight months after the detainees began to arrive in Cuba, a top-secret study by the Central Intelligence Agency raised questions about their significance, suggesting that many of the accused terrorists appeared to be low-level recruits who went to Afghanistan to support the Taliban or even innocent men swept up in the chaos of the war, current and former officials who read the assessment said.

Nearly two years later, military officials said, the evidence against many of the detainees is still so sparse that investigators have been able to deliver cases for military prosecution against only 15 of the suspects, 6 of whom have already been designated as eligible for trial by President Bush. Investigators are now preparing between 35 and 40 other cases for the military tribunals, these officials said.

(more)

[Desertrat]

It seemed pretty obvious from the outset that the majority were low-level types. What I've not resolved about holding them is the issue of what they would do if they were repatriated. Would they happily jump right back into shooting? If so, they'd then be killed in combat or recaptured.

Sorta like dealing with wetbacks who return to the US faster than a BP guy can finish his paperwork.

Looking back at the Nurnberg "War Criminal" stuff, it's a bit hard for me to see justification for punishment of any who were not in some sort of administrative control of Al Qaida people. An enemy grunt isn't a war criminal.

'Rat

[skunk]

An enemy grunt isn't a war criminal.

'Rat
Ah, but he's an ILLEGAL grunt. Make up the rules as you go along.

[Desertrat]

"Make up the rules as you go along."

???

If a guy's shooting at me, I can kill him or maybe capture him. If I capture him, and there's reason to believe that turning him loose will merely let him go back to shooting at me, then what? Hug his neck and beg, "Go thou, and sin no more!"?

If I believe an enemy might have useful info, it seems to me to be sensible to hold him for interrogation. At some point, whatever information he has is no longer useful or relevant, so the only issue is his future behavior.

This ain't about rules, it's about gettin' shot at. And I'm talking about Afghanistan and the Taliban, not Iraq.

'Rat

[skunk]

This ain't about rules, it's about gettin' shot at. And I'm talking about Afghanistan and the Taliban, not Iraq.

'Rat
What I MEANT was that since these guys are not classified according to any known internationally agreed system, no doubt the Administration believes they can do as they please. The right thing to do is still either to charge them, try them and sentence them, or to let them go. You can't just leave them in limbo.

[Desertrat]

They're in Gitmo, not Limbo. (Sorry 'bout dat; couldn't resist.)

Look: Yeah, we're not in a formally declared war with an enemy state. My question, there, is, "So what?" There is a spread-out group which has been setting up plans to kill their enemies--which is us and any who side with us--and they've been happily doing so since at least 1993 with WTC I.

And it's not just guns and carbombs in Baghdad; it's economic as well, with the attacks on the infrastructure of the oil business in places like Saudi Arabia.

As a war, it'll do until the lawyers get done nit-picking.

In the meantime, we have people sequestered who have shot at us and who might well again take up arms if released. Thus, they're in the same status as the POWs of WW II who were held for the years needed to end that war. If that be Limbo, well, IMO, that's just too bad.

Treatment is a different matter. They should be treated as humanely as we did the WW II POWs, which was reasonably decently.

Governments try to deal with governments, rather than NGOs or individuals. Question: What do you think would happen to these members of the Taliban if they were returned to the Afghani government?

'Rat

[skunk]

They're in Gitmo, not Limbo. (Sorry 'bout dat; couldn't resist.)
Time for a Jimmy Cliff cover... :)

In the meantime, we have people sequestered who have shot at us and who might well again take up arms if released. Thus, they're in the same status as the POWs of WW II who were held for the years needed to end that war. If that be Limbo, well, IMO, that's just too bad.
It's complicated of course by the fact that you were invading another country at the time. How many years are "needed" to end the war? Who decides? What are the criteria? How can you tell if it's over? It's not as if the Muslim world is going to surrender en masse.

Governments try to deal with governments, rather than NGOs or individuals. Question: What do you think would happen to these members of the Taliban if they were returned to the Afghani government?

'Rat
What about the Brits and other nationalities? Indefinite detention without charge is indefensible. The Brits they already sent home had no charges to answer. Half the people in Guantanamo - I refuse to call it Gitmo, it's too cozy - may be innocent. Some were traded in by warlords or rival factions, some were just caught up in the wrong place, some (the actual Taleban) were fighting for their legitimate government against foreign invaders, so their position is anomalous as well. The "war" in Afghanistan is over.

[Desertrat]

"Half the people in Guantanamo - I refuse to call it Gitmo, it's too cozy - may be innocent. Some were traded in by warlords or rival factions, some were just caught up in the wrong place, some (the actual Taleban) were fighting for their legitimate government against foreign invaders, so their position is anomalous as well. The "war" in Afghanistan is over."

I won't argue against the idea that at least some in Cuba (:)) are innocent and should be sent home. Caught up in the wrong place? Maybe, but doubtful. As to the Taliban, they were open and obvious about supporting Al Qaida. Too bad, how sad. Shame on their sorry buts. Zero sympathy out of me.

Guantanamo has been called Gitmo by sailors and marines since way, way back. Long, long before Castro. If Gitmo is good enough for those guys, it's good enough for me.

:), 'Rat

[Frohickey]

I think that we should have a sponsor system, whereby concerned citizens are allowed to sponsor a terrori... err... Guantanamo detainee, and agree to clothe, house, and feed him. If the ex-Guantanamo detainee commits any crime, then the sponsor has to answer to the victims, and the law. ;)

I would extend this sponsor system to convicted murderers and rapists as well. Mumia Abu-Jamal can be sponsored by Madonna. I bet Susan Sarandon can sponsor a few of her own as well.

[blackfox]

This might be a little off-topic, but I am reminded of a question posited several years ago about the vagueries of new types of warfare. The example given (roughly) was if say an Italian hacker brought down US Financial Networks, how would the US respond? Would it be an act of War? Who would be held accountable? The individual or the Nation? It would seem the US, since Bush has resolved this issue...for simplicity, the Nation is now responsible for the actions of it's citizens (or residents), even if the government is unconnected, unaware of the person(s) responsible, and any individuals caught are conveniently kept in a legal no-man's land as policy has not caught up to these new developments...seems that the US gets to have its' cake and eat it too...I would hope that the International Community would update Laws on these matters, including amending the Geneva Convention, to properly address these loopholes, so that Nations so inclined cannot abuse them. There are still an astonishingly large number of treaties and laws that have not been updated since there inception during Cold War times, and subsequently they have often become either irrelevant, counterproductive or dangerous...is any country attempting to address this?

On another side note, I watched the "Great Escape" the other day, and was reminded of the POW oath to try to escape, harass, or otherwise disrupt their captors...oh, of more civilised times(even in War).

[zimv20]

i'm not sure why this is so hard to understand, but...

my concern for any rights of any individuals in captivity being violated is far less than my concern for the ramifications of what it means for the US -- my country -- to feel free to both trample individual rights and ignore international law.

i don't want to sponsor a detainee, i want a ****ing responsible government that doesn't place itself above the law -- for whatever reason.

[Frohickey]

i'm not sure why this is so hard to understand, but...

my concern for any rights of any individuals in captivity being violated is far less than my concern for the ramifications of what it means for the US -- my country -- to feel free to both trample individual rights and ignore international law.

i don't want to sponsor a detainee, i want a ****ing responsible government that doesn't place itself above the law -- for whatever reason.

We are so far away from that... read about requiring showing identification to the police.

I say that the detainees are drained of all possible information that we can, and then we deport them.

[zimv20]

We are so far away from that
are we? changes to search and seizure laws, surveillence laws, the ability to hold american citizens indefinitely w/o access to counsel or even alert their family...

is all this okay? or only okay so long as it doesn't directly affect you?

[Desertrat]

Why, zim! You don't like the War on Drugs? You don't want all our children to be safer from the various evils of modern society? You don't want us to use the latest technology to make them and their mothers and fathers safer from the common criminal as well as the Evil Drug Dealer?

Isn't that why we justify all that tax money? To make our world safer? Ralph Nader says so, so it must be so.

HEW, EPA, DEA and Guantanamo: Just different facets of the same fake diamond.

'Rat

[zimv20]

Why, zim! You don't like the War on Drugs?
a collosal waste of resources misapplied in a way that makes it impossible to "win". just like the "War on Terror", the effort is misdirected at symptoms, not causes.

how long until we apply the WOT rules to drug dealers -- and users -- to be held incommunicado until the WOD is "won"?

[mactastic]

Why, zim! You don't like the War on Drugs? You don't want all our children to be safer from the various evils of modern society? You don't want us to use the latest technology to make them and their mothers and fathers safer from the common criminal as well as the Evil Drug Dealer?

Isn't that why we justify all that tax money? To make our world safer? Ralph Nader says so, so it must be so.

HEW, EPA, DEA and Guantanamo: Just different facets of the same fake diamond.

'Rat

Various evils? Are you suggesting that we disband the police and FBI? Child pornography should become a state issue? Let those gun laws continue to go unenforced?

Besides, we justify all that tax money with things like NMD and Faith-Based-Initiatives. :D

[diamond geezer]

I think that we should have a sponsor system, whereby concerned citizens are allowed to sponsor a terrori... err... Guantanamo detainee, and agree to clothe, house, and feed him. If the ex-Guantanamo detainee commits any crime, then the sponsor has to answer to the victims, and the law. ;)

I would extend this sponsor system to convicted murderers and rapists as well. Mumia Abu-Jamal can be sponsored by Madonna. I bet Susan Sarandon can sponsor a few of her own as well.

Perhaps Nancy Reagan could sponsor Saddam, just like her dead hubby did?

[skunk]

There are still an astonishingly large number of treaties and laws that have not been updated since there inception during Cold War times, and subsequently they have often become either irrelevant, counterproductive or dangerous...is any country attempting to address this?

I like old treaties, they're like old place-names. A bit of living history. One treaty which has never been updated:
Britain and Portugal have had a Treaty of Alliance since 1373 when the English fought alongside the Portuguese Royal House of Avis at the battle of Aljubarrota against Spain. The two nations signed the Treaty of Windsor in May 1386 formally confirming the alliance which has been the cornerstone of their bilateral foreign policy for more than 600 years. The final seal on that alliance was the royal marriage in 1387 between Philippa of Lancaster, daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and João I of Portugal.*

[Thanatoast]

Even assuming GW is right, and he does have absolute power in this situation, and he hasn't done anything *technically* illegal, he's still gone about this in a very poorly thought out fashion.

First off, "inventing" a new classification was a poor decision. It smacks of corruption and deceit. If some other tinpot dictator "invented" a new class of prisoner to hold American soldiers, you can damn well bet he'd be denounced by us, just as we are today by everyone. Also, his assertion that he holds ultimate authority over these prisoners, even to the point of deciding whether they have civil rights, should, and does, scare a great many people. When he invented his new class of prisoner, he conveniently left all of the old rules behind and didn't institute any new ones.

His assertion that this is a "new type of war" does not remove his obligations to treat human beings as such. The fact that he has toppled two nations while not demanding or even asking for a war resolution from the congress, yet still continues to refer to himself as a "war president" is... distasteful at best. It is convenient though, since in a declared war you have to follow certain established rules.

Then there's his basic obligation to defend the constitution, which he has actually fought against with his detention of Americans, and has violated the spirit of numerous times. Anyone who is willing to play so fast and loose with our defining document should not be trusted with the presidency, much less the supreme power he is claiming for himself.

In summation, Bush is dangerous, his policies are dangerous and disgusting, if not out right illegal, and he needs to go.

[skunk]

In summation, Bush is dangerous, his policies are dangerous and disgusting, if not out right illegal, and he needs to go.
No argument there. :)

[Frohickey]

are we? changes to search and seizure laws, surveillence laws, the ability to hold american citizens indefinitely w/o access to counsel or even alert their family...

is all this okay? or only okay so long as it doesn't directly affect you?

Lets see...
Change to search and seizure laws... a byproduct of the War on Drugs
Change in surveillance laws... a byproduct of the War on Drugs and Terror
Indefinitely hold US citizens ... a byproduct of the War on Terror

All of these have been affecting all of us. If we weren't so involved in other countries except for trade agreements and outright land purchases, like we did in 1800 Louisiana and 1870s Alaska.

I'd like to have a tax refund when we cut out all the foreign aid payments to Israel, Columbia, Nigeria, Egypt, Jordan. I'd like to have a tax refund when we evacute our bases in Germany, South Korea, and Japan.

Then, when we think that some country wants to sell its territory, we can increase tax rates and buy a chunk of Iraq and give all the Kurds, American citizenship. :p

Plus, then, we can have US bases there, and we won't have to pay anyone rent.

[Frohickey]

His assertion that this is a "new type of war" does not remove his obligations to treat human beings as such. The fact that he has toppled two nations while not demanding or even asking for a war resolution from the congress, yet still continues to refer to himself as a "war president" is... distasteful at best. It is convenient though, since in a declared war you have to follow certain established rules.

Then there's his basic obligation to defend the constitution, which he has actually fought against with his detention of Americans, and has violated the spirit of numerous times. Anyone who is willing to play so fast and loose with our defining document should not be trusted with the presidency, much less the supreme power he is claiming for himself.


S.J.Res. 23 & H.J.Res. 64: "Authorization of Use of Military Force" (http://www.c-span.org/congress/useforce.asp)
I see as Congress giving him the authority to use military force against "against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Just because Congress is filled with cowards who do not know how to do a proper Declaration of War anymore...

As to GWBush and his duty and obligation to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution", I think that his signing of CFR is more heinous than the Gitmo detainees. Most of the Gitmo detainees are not US citizens. Most of the Gitmo detainees actually shot at us. Most of the Gitmo detainees will shoot and kill you AND me if they have the chance.

[begin_sarcasm]Maybe we should arm the Gitmo detainees and set them loose in the middle of your home town. That way, we can solve the issue of the Gitmo detainees once and for all. So what, they might get little Billy and Sally in the crossfire... [end_sarcasm]

Remember where and when and in what circumstances Johnny "Taliban" Walker Lindh was captured.

[Thanatoast]

[begin_sarcasm]Maybe we should arm the Gitmo detainees and set them loose in the middle of your home town. That way, we can solve the issue of the Gitmo detainees once and for all. So what, they might get little Billy and Sally in the crossfire... [end_sarcasm]i would be satisfied with merely charging them with a crime and bringing them to trial. Or treating them in accordance with the Geneva conventions. Or not deliberately skirting/abusing US law in order to claim that the courts have no authority over them.

Nobody said they were nice people, but we have standards in this country which require us to treat everyone with the same amount respect. I am demanding no more for these detainees than I would demand for myself in the same situation. The fact that they are not US citizens is a disgusting excuse, not a valid reason, to deny them rights garaunteed to everyone. Either we believe in our principles of equality before the law, or we're the hypocrits Osama says we are.

Oh yeah, and you're right, the Congress *is* a bunch of cowards. Not to mention just as gullible as the general American public.

[Frohickey]

i would be satisfied with merely charging them with a crime and bringing them to trial. Or treating them in accordance with the Geneva conventions. Or not deliberately skirting/abusing US law in order to claim that the courts have no authority over them.

Nobody said they were nice people, but we have standards in this country which require us to treat everyone with the same amount respect. I am demanding no more for these detainees than I would demand for myself in the same situation. The fact that they are not US citizens is a disgusting excuse, not a valid reason, to deny them rights garaunteed to everyone. Either we believe in our principles of equality before the law, or we're the hypocrits Osama says we are.

Oh yeah, and you're right, the Congress *is* a bunch of cowards. Not to mention just as gullible as the general American public.

I think that we ought to repatriate them already. I'm tired of paying for their Club Fed treatment. They can go and scrounge for their own food and sleep in their own beds. Maybe a surrepticiously placed RFID chip, or just the rumor that they are bugged would keep them away from any terrorist group that would rather not risk the chance that these 'typhoid Taliban' terrorists might inadvertently expose them.

They are not subject to the Geneva convention. That much is fact. Geneva convention rules are only if BOTH warring countries have signed it.

[zimv20]

Geneva convention rules are only if BOTH warring countries have signed it.
according to whom?

[takao]

according to whom?

when not protection applies for them there is still that rule in the convention:

"In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."



yeah and the US still has to treat their enemys according to the geneva convention if the opponents didn't sign it:
"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations."

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

[Frohickey]

according to whom?

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. (http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/convention3.html)

The Gitmo detainees are classifed as illegal combatants (http://www.fact-index.com/i/il/illegal_combatant.html).

There is SCOTUS precedent as indicated in the above link.

[zimv20]

and how does that square w/ the section of the GC, as takao quoted, that any signatory is bound by its rules?

edit: got confused