Comments for 1 in 7 Freed Detainees Rejoins Fight, Report Finds »
Posted By gamahuche 7 months, 2 weeks ago in NewsAn unreleased Pentagon report concludes that about one in seven of the 534 prisoners already transferred abroad from the detention center in Guantánamo Bay , Cuba, has returned to terrorism or militant activity, according to administration officials.
The conclusion could strengthen the arguments of critics who have warned against the transfer or release of any more detainees as part of President Obama’s plan to shut down the prison by January. Past Pentagon reports on Guantánamo recidivism have been met with skepticism from civil liberties groups and criticized for their lack of detail.
The Pentagon promised in January that the latest report would be released soon, but Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said this week that the findings were still “under review.”
Two administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said the report was being held up by Defense Department employees fearful of upsetting the White House, at a time when even Congressional Democrats have begun to show misgivings over Mr. Obama’s plan to close Guantánamo.
At the White House on Wednesday, Mr. Obama ran into a different kind of resistance when he met with human rights advocates who told him they would oppose any plan that would hold terrorism suspects without charges.
The White House has said Mr. Obama will provide further details about his plans for Guantánamo detainees in a speech Thursday.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 98
-
96%
gamahuche7 months, 2 weeks ago
-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
100%
gamahuche7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Its rather important to read to the end of the story - the 1 in 7 claim has shrunk to this:
Reply
"In addition to Mr. Shihri and Mr. Rasoul, at least three others among the 29 named have engaged in verifiable terrorist activity or have threatened terrorist acts."-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Verifiable? 3 in 29? If I were held in some legal limbo for many years without being charged with a crime in a prison of any kind....well I think I'd be pretty angry to say the least. Even if there was no previous misgivings, you can BYA there would be after that!
Reply
If these people weren't terrorists before...they have some incentive to be so now.
In the world of civilized nations, it is not acceptable to have the probability that 1/2 the people in prisons are likely innocent. Let alone these kinds of numbers.
Let's assume these people are actually criminals for a moment, charge them and have some reasonable course of justice. It seems to me if the evidence is too flimsy to even have military tribunals...of which there have been only a few in what? 7 years or so.
A solution must be found. The arguments that they are not citizens so they have no civil protections may be true in a broad" Les Miserableness" legal sense, but I wonder how many American citizens would support, say, Columbia; imprisoning them because a one of their neighbors claimed they overheard them plotting to harm Colombians.
I do not labor under the belief these people are all innocent, I will not be fooled into being frightened that a high security prison could not hold them either.
The "straw man" held up by Cheney and others, that these people would be released on the streets in the US, running around with fists in the air if Guantanamo closed was swallowed hook line and sinker by the Senate today. A plan must be advanced in the name of sanity.-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user19 Replies
-
-
-
100%
CrusaderRabbit7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It was never going to be 'easy' to sort out this mess. The first problem is no one properly investigated claims of terrorist activities before the arrests. The M.O. was to grab anyone remotely suspect. Then sort them out later. The problem with that is that witnesses/informants get killed or displaced during all-out war. You end up with a big ******* contest. When frustration sets in then you begin to look for ways to extract information. So now no matter how many true terrorists there are we are the bad guys because of our methods.
Reply
We will probably never know how many were truly guilty when they were captured. We can be certain that we haven't made any friends and most likely assisted in creating many more terrorists than we ever imagined.-
-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user12 Replies
-
-
93%
Jaydee407 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You reap what you sow. After the cold war was over the US military wanted, sorry, that should be needed an enemy to justify the large amounts of money it costs to run them so they lied about the situation in the middle east. Now their just being made into honest people by their own actions.
Reply -
100%
Progressive7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"unreleased" is another way of saying "leaked" report--I found it interesting that this report hit the press right before the vote to deny closing Gitmo.
Reply
It's my understanding that one of the three recidivist terrorists did nothing more threatening than an interview in a documentary film.
It seems the 1 in 7 rate is not much worse than the recidivism rate of the penal system within our borders in general. -
-
-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
100%
Spadecaller7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Since the Bush "government" suspended Habeas Corpus for alleged terrorists, paid bounty hunters to turn in those "suspected" of terrorism and then after years of confinement in concentration camps without fair trials, challenging the safety of their release because it may yield a percentage of repeat offenders is a twist of ethical standards that is barbaric and unjust.
Reply
I would be more surprised if those who were innocent were released after years of imprisonment would not come out hating our government for the gross miscarriage of justice that was inflicted upon them.
The Bush administration's reign of terror broke the most fundamental laws, which date back to the Magna Carta written in 1215.
The one question that no one really wants to address that needs to be addressed is: were legal means used to detain these prisoners. If many of them were "rounded up" as the records indicate and that their guilt was paid for through bounties, Bush and his legal "experts" are guilty of crimes for imprisonment without due cause. -
100%
Charlson7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As with most of the reports about the prisoners released by our government, prior reports had conflicting statistics, confirmation of facts were for the most part non existent, unable to list the names of those released and no program to track the ones released. I just don't believe in the veracity of this leak or any subsequent report unless it can be collaborated and confirmed (which I doubt they can produce).
Reply -
100%
jordan117 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have to ask; if they were released, does that mean there was no evidence of their involvement in terrorist activity in the first place? Hard to believe they were released if there were. And if there were, why were they released? So next comes the question; if they weren't, and then engaged in terrorist activity after release, why? The way they were treated while incarcerated, perhaps?
Reply-
100%
Desdamona7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You make a good point. Either the government is failing when it comes to interrogating dettainee's and they release the terroist as well as the innocent ... or formerly innocent men are being driven to extreemist behavior after suffering long imprisonment and torture. Waterboarding did not win the US any support and likely created more danger.
Reply
Also 1 in 7 is around 15% - If only 15% of the people in US prisons were guilty of any crime and 85% were innocent the nation would be in outrage - instead the 1 in 7 chance strikes frear in the minds of people and is being offered to draw support for the detentions. People need some perspective - you cant lock everyone up just because someone might be planning to do harm...-
-
100%
Desdamona7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I cannot argue in favor of putting non-violent personal drug users behind bars (treatment is a better option)... but at least even the non-violent offenders in US prisons have more then a 15% chance of being guilty of the crime they were arrested and tried for... Also we protect US citizens and immigrants from forced confessions.
Reply-
100%
willottica7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To some extent... but the practice of offering "deals" when faced with multiple or extremely serious charges is actually a way of encouraging confessions when guilt is uncertain and hard to prove.
Reply
Faced with the prospect of a handful of different charges, each with a possibility of conviction (high, by what the police tell you when offering you the "deal") a fearful suspect could in many cases be convinced to plead guilty to a single charge. As with the story of the GTMO prisoner posted elsewhere today, the certainty of a limit to the punishment (deserved or not) could be quite tempting.-
100%
Desdamona7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree to an extent. However, those facing the "deal or no deal" delima in the US have defense lawyers who are charged with the duty of protecting the best interest of thier client - even the public defenders. They have the benefit of advice of people who can guess the probability of a guilty verdict on the varying charges - either advising for or against a deal. This is much less coercive then the system the detainees face.
Reply-
100%
willottica7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For sure.
Reply
But if I were innocent and my defense lawyer (who's supposed to be my chief advocate) were to tell me that I should take a deal based on the probability of a wrongful conviction, I would be livid. That innocent people can be faced with this choice - that according to statistical analysis, they should admit to wrongdoing because they're unlikely to get a fair trial (one which, if fair, should uncover the truth or at least result in reasonable doubt) - is an admission of failure of the system.
That public defenders offer this choice seems more like expediency than real defense. They have a conflict of interest in that there is pressure on them to wrap up the case quickly, and a trial is often a lengthy process.
Then again, if the court system weren't so bogged down with non-violent drug cases, it's possible that there would be no need to avoid trial.
I think that faced with the prospect of jail time for a "guilty" plea deal, there's no way I would accept such a deal. What would I have to lose from going to trial -- time that would otherwise be spent in jail? So there would have to be some pretty heavy intimidation going on for such a deal to seem appealing. I think that that intimidation is used as a tool by law enforcement and lawyers, not in the interests of justice, but in the interest of time/money.-
100%
Desdamona7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think the argument is that innocent people should take deals because they are unlikely to get a fair trial - but more likely because the evidence against them is more or less likely to convience a jury of guilt. Lawyers rarely ask if their client is actually guilty (that has little influence on the advice and sometimes it is better not to know) then all the possibilities can be laid out based on the facts and evidence available. Sometimes the evidence points to the wrong person - in those cases they have the option of going to trial - rremember in the US judicial system the burden is on the prosecution to prove that they are in fact guilty.
Reply
No system can be perfect - people complain all the time about the large numbers of guilty people who go free in the US because the burdens cannot be met. There will always be things our country can do to improve the system as it will never be perfect and innocent people do go to jail - project innocence would not exist if otherwise.
This is still markidly different from the system that detainee's face.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Klarissa7 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
0%
Klarissa7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
quack - a roadside bomber not part of the military or government could be caught on the battlefield and sent to a holding area, and then to prison.
Reply
Or, since we have all of our rights in any country we choose to visit, there will probably not be any survivors to capture.
-
-
100%
jordan117 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sometimes they were caught in battle, but there wasn't any documentation sent along with the prisoner.>>>>
Reply
That makes no sense. If they were 'caught in battle', then there was documentation, otherwise, how would you know they were caught in battle? -
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
100%
tehranchik7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1. How many of these men were 'extraordinary renditioned'? Picked up on the word of an informant?
Reply
2. How many lies has the pentagon told over the past several years? This report does come from the pentagon.
3. Names can't be revealed due to national security?????? give me break
4. The slight of hand 'rejoined'. Most of these men had no charges pending. We held them because we could. Many of the men were never on the battle field. So 'rejoin' is incorrect. It's purpose is to keep you believing the guilt of the released. Why would we release guilty terrorists?
5. If I had been 'extraordinarily renditioned' AND tortured AND held without charge for several years without charges, I might, just might, be looking for a group to fight with. -
-
100%
frctm57 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This debate strikes me as a propaganda coup for Al Qaeda. Americans are so afraid of 200 unarmed men that we can't trust our maximum security system to hold them or our legal system to process them.
Reply
I guess Al Qaeda has successfully transformed the land of the brave into the land of the crippled by fear. If anything, I would think that these detainees would have more to fear from their fellow inmates in our maximum security prisons than the guards at Gitmo.
But no. Lets keep broadcasting everyday to Al Qaida how afraid we are of them. Lets remind them of how successful they have been in destroying our values and altering our culture. Let's walk down the Neocon path of fear that is disguised as toughness but promoted by aging draft dodgers who refuse to fight the war on terror with anything other than words but have no qualms about sending others to die for this and enriching themselves in the process.-
100%
gamahuche7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I guess Al Qaeda has successfully transformed the land of the brave into the land of the crippled by fear."
Reply
They definitely did far more psychic damage to the US than they did physical damage.
I mourn the loss of the US as a haven of freedom and optimism.
I can't tell you how MARVELLOUS it was to discover it in 1967, for the first time and what a wonderful it was to get out of stodgy old Europe.
That America has ceased to exist except in the spirit of a small minority of people who, perhaps, are those who are able to think in terms of the big picture and who can still envision that freedom will return again one day.
There are still many Americans that I love dearly.-
100%
frctm57 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree with you. America has been castrated by consumerism and fear. Happiness is reduced to watching American idol while eating bag of Doritos. This is why I don't own a television.
Reply
That being said, America is not one thing but a manifold expression. Furthermore the principles of freedom and self expression remain sound. I am hopeful for the future because the young people are less wound up in the arguments of the baby boom generation. Ultimately we will rise again. By that I don't mean the economy or that we will defeat our enemies overseas. GDP does not measure happiness or well being. I mean we will become the dynamic country where new things are embraced and people feel happy, connected, and loved. These are the only things that really matter in life and they don't come from running your credit card up to the limit or buying into the culture of fear. The real test of our defeating Al Qaida is when they are no longer in the forefront of the public conscious. If a fear of terror remains central to our national discourse, the attack of 9/11 are yielding generous dividends for Al Qaida. We need to move. We can protect ourselves without being neurotic or obsessive. That is for the drama queen party, aka, the Republicans.
-
-
-
100%
Markdistinction7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We need to stop trying to turn "terrorists" into super villains. Each year, in this country, we release thousands of common criminals who have served their terms or accused criminals where there is not enough evidence to convict. A high percentage of these return to crime. That does not mean that all prison sentences need to be for life or that we should suspend the rules of evidence and start convicting all who are accused.
Reply
Yes the crimes of terrorists have the potential to be very serious, but they are still crimes. We must follow the rules of law. If they are accused criminals then we must put them on trial. If they are prisoners of war we must follow the Geneva Convention. We cannot make up a new category. We kept prisoners of war in this country during W.W.II. There is, in this case, a problem in knowing when the war is actually over, but remember it was the Bush Administration that called it a war. If we had kept it as the actions or a bunch of really bad organized criminals then the rules would be clear. (1). The really bad ones get convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Our prison guards and police are well-equipped to guard them and it is an insult to them to suggest otherwise. (2). The lesser criminals serve their time and are released, mostly deported to their home countries. Perhaps if we treated them fairly, they will not return to criminal activities. If they do, we arrest and try them again. (3) Those we do not convict we release into their home countries (4) Some we can release after persuading them to become informants or spies to bring us the information we need to prevent future terrorists acts.
If we are fighting a war, it is not against the terrorists. We fought a war against Iraq that had nothing to do with 9-11. We are fighting a war against the Taliban who are extremists who supported the 9-11 terrorists, but did not themselves engage in terror in this country. El Quida are the criminals, not an opposition army. They wear no uniforms, have no real national loyalty, pervert their own religion, have a very loose organizational structure and want to do really bad things for a cause they have trouble defining. Sounds a bit like our own Mafia.
We can handle the terrorists through our laws. Right now some in this country are using them as a weapon--a weapon of fear to support their own perverted causes. This has to stop-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
100%
mrlecher7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wasn't this the same organization that stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? And that Saddam was working with Al Qaeda and was involved in 911?
Reply
Did they finish their report with "And this time, we are telling the truth! Honest Injun"-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
100%
dxxy4u7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This doesn't mean (s)hit. If Iran held you and treated you like we treated the detainees, then freed you, what would you do toward Iran? Give them Roses? Like Omaba said, we have created a mess there that will be with us for a long time. Obama is trying to use what option he has to try and bring this to an end. There is no good way. Only a BAD or WORST way.
Reply -
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
-
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned
-
100%
FrankHummel7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm sorry --- why on Earth would anyone find that even remarkable (much less outrageous)?? If YOU had been subjected to the torture / dehumanization tactics evidently experienced by many of these "detainees" at the hands of "our" marvelous people-dominators, would not YOU do LIKEWISE? And if NOT, then WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU??
Reply -
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.