Lots of prisoners in Guantanamo aren't terrorists! Imagine that!

[zulu9812]

This is an interesting read, from Seton Hall University.

THE GUANTANAMO DETAINEES: THE GOVERNMENT’S STORY
Professor Mark Denbeaux* and Joshua Denbeaux*

An interim report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The media and public fascination with who is detained at Guantanamo and why has been fueled in large measure by the refusal of the Government, on the grounds of national security, to provide much information about the individuals and the charges against them. The information available to date has been anecdotal and erratic, drawn largely from interviews with the few detainees who have been released or from statements or court filings by their attorneys in the pending habeas corpus proceedings that the Government has not declared “classified.”

This Report is the first effort to provide a more detailed picture of who the Guantanamo detainees are, how they ended up there, and the purported bases for their enemy combatant designation. The data in this Report is based entirely upon the United States Government’s own documents.[1] This Report provides a window into the Government’s success detaining only those that the President has called “the worst of the worst.”

Among the data revealed by this Report:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any
hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining
detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive
affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a
large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist
watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably.
Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a
large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the
Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist
group is unidentified.

4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the
detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States
custody.

* The authors are counsel for two detainees in Guantanamo.

[1] See, Combatant Status Review Board Letters, Release date January 2005, February 2005, March 2005,
April 2005 and the Final Release available at the Seton Hall Law School library, Newark, NJ.

Pretty interesting stuff. The same people also did a follow-up study:

SECOND REPORT ON THE GUANTANAMO DETAINEES:
Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy

By
Mark P. Denbeaux
Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law and
Counsel to two Guantanamo detainees
&
Joshua Denbeaux, Esq.
Denbeaux & Denbeaux
&
David Gratz, John Gregorek, Matthew Darby, Shana Edwards,
Shane Hartman, Daniel Mann, and Helen Skinner
Students, Seton Hall University School of Law

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The Department of Defense identified 72 terrorist organizations in the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (“CSRT&#8221. The Defense Department considers affiliation with any one of these groups sufficient to establish that a Guantanamo detainee is an “enemy combatant” for the purpose of his continued detention. This report refers to these 72 terrorist organizations
as the “Defense Department List.”

2. Fifty-two of those groups, 72% of the total, are not on either the Patriot Act Terrorist Exclusion List or on two separate State Department Designated and Other Foreign Terrorist Organizations lists (jointly referred to as the State Department Other Lists). These lists are compiled for the purposes of enabling the government to protect our borders from terrorists entering the United States.

3. Twelve of the organizations, 18% of the total, are on either the State Department Other Lists or the Patriot Act Terrorist Exclusion List, but not on both.

4. Members of 64 of the 72 groups the Defense Department believes to be terrorist organizations, 89% of the total, would be permitted in the United States by either the State Department Other Lists or the Patriot Act Terrorist Exclusion List.

5. In addition to being inconsistent with the Defense Department list, the State Department lists are inconsistent with each other. That is, 46 organizations that the State Department represented to Congress as terrorist organizations on the State Department Other Lists do not appear on the Patriot Act Terrorist Exclusion List.

6. The inconsistency between the State Department Other Lists and the Patriot Act Terrorist Exclusion List raises serious questions about the security of our borders.

7. The Defense Department justifies holding many detainees indefinitely due to their nexus with a group that neither the State Department Other Lists nor the Patriot Act Terrorist Exclusion List recognizes as a terrorist organization.

8. This inconsistency leads to one of two equally alarming conclusions: either the State Department is allowing persons who are members of terrorist groups into the country or the Defense Department bases the continuing detention of the alleged enemy combatants on a false premise.

Note that these are just summaries. By all means, read the rest of the reports. Of particular interest is the plight of the Uighers ethnic group (bold emphasis is mine):

The United States promised (and apparently paid) large sums of money for the capture of persons identified as enemy combatants in Afghanistan and Pakistan. One representative flyer, distributed in Afghanistan, states:

Get wealth and power beyond your dreams....You can receive millions of
dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al-Qaida and Taliban murders.
This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for
the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books and
housing for all your people.

Bounty hunters or reward-seekers handed people over to American or Northern Alliance soldiers in the field, often soon after disappearing; as a result, there was little opportunity on the field to verify the story of an individual who presented the detainee in response to the bounty award. Where that story constitutes the sole basis for an individual’s detention in Guantanamo, there would be little ability either for the Government to corroborate or a detainee to refute such an allegation. As shall be seen in consideration of the Uighers, the Government has found detainees to be enemy combatants based upon the information provided by the bounty hunters. As to the Uighers, at least, there is no doubt that bounties were paid for the capture and detainment of individuals who were not enemy combatants. The Uigher have yet to be released.

IV. CONTINUED DETENTION OF NON-COMBATANTS

The most well recognized group of individuals who were held to be enemy combatants and for whom summaries of evidence are available are the Uighers [35] These individuals are now recognized to be Chinese Muslims who fled persecution in China to neighboring countries. The detainees then fled to Pakistan when Afghanistan came under attack by the United States after September 11, 2001. The Uighers were arrested in Pakistan and turned over to the United States. At least two dozen Uighurs found in Afghanistan and Pakistan has been detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Government originally determined that these men were enemy combatants, just as the Government so determined for all of the other detainees. The Government has now decided that many of the Uighur detainees in Guantanamo Bay are not enemy combatants and should no longer be detained. They have not yet been released.

The Government has publicly conceded that many of the Uighers were wrongly found to be enemy combatants. The question is how many more of the detainees were wrongly found to be enemy combatants. The evidence that satisfied the Government that the Uighers were enemy combatants parallel’s the evidence against the other detainees --but the evidence against the Uighers is actually sometimes stronger.

The Uigher evidence parallels the evidence against the other detainees in that they were:

1. Muslims,
2. in Afghanistan,
3. associated with unidentified individuals and/or groups
4. possessed Kalishnikov rifles
5. stayed in guest houses
6. captured in Pakistan
7. by bounty hunters.

If such evidence is deemed insufficient to detain these persons as enemy combatants, the data analyzed by this Report would suggest that many other detainees should likewise not be classified as enemy combatants.

[35] Uighurs, a Turkic ethnic minority of 8 to 12 million people primarily located in the northwestern region of China and in some parts of Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, face political and religious oppression at the hands of the Chinese Government. The Congressional Human Rights Caucus of the United States House of Representatives has received several briefings on these issues, including the information that the People's Republic of China "continues to brutally suppress any peaceful political, religious, and cultural activities of Uighurs, and enforce a birth control policy that compels minority Uighur women to undergo forced abortions and sterilizations." (United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, World Uighur Network) In response to oppression by the Chinese Government, many Uighurs flee to surrounding countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. Wright, Robin. Chinese Detainees are Men Without a Country. (2005, August 24) Washington Post, p. A01.

 

[Peri]

They arent terrorists, they are very naughty boys.

 

[skadistic]

I think the gaurds who are under constant threat and at times attack by the muslim jihadis prisoners would disagree.

 

[woody60707]

They are defence attorney's for two people in getmo. This is what they do and say to ensure their people get off.

I am not saying i don't believe it, it wouldn't surprise me at to see we had a policy of just thorwing almost any one in getmo. But this study loses credibility when the people doing the study are the same people who are the counsel for the defence

 

[Erik Mesoy]

[...] this study loses credibility when the people doing the study are the same people who are the counsel for the defence

The problem is: who else can do such a study? The prosecutors would never be interested, and information about the detainees isn't really getting out.

 

[zulu9812]

They are defence attorney's for two people in getmo. This is what they do and say to ensure their people get off.

I am not saying i don't believe it, it wouldn't surprise me at to see we had a policy of just thorwing almost any one in getmo. But this study loses credibility when the people doing the study are the same people who are the counsel for the defence

For ****'s sake, I am going to try and explain this one last time.

Publishers don't publish just anything - universities especially. With their academic reputation on the line, anything that is likely to get published is scrutinised and vetted. So, the people writing the report do have a vested interest. But the university does not, and they subject the report to scrutiny and that is why it is both plausible and legitimate.

 

[skadistic]

For ****'s sake, I am going to try and explain this one last time.

Publishers don't publish just anything - universities especially. With their academic reputation on the line, anything that is likely to get published is scrutinised and vetted. So, the people writing the report do have a vested interest. But the university does not, and they subject the report to scrutiny and that is why it is both plausible and legitimate.

Sure they do.

 

[zulu9812]

Sure they do.

Yes, that's a logical and reasoned argument backed up with evidence

 

[skadistic]

Publishers will pulish anything that can make them money or get them publisity. If you want evidence scroll up. I don't have time to find all the other BS thats out there.

 

[Speedo]

I think the gaurds who are under constant threat and at times attack by the muslim jihadis prisoners would disagree.

Hypothetical question:

You've been captured and moved halfway around the world from your home. So far you've been held for 5 years, and the people holding you have no plans at all for your release. Ever.
Are you going to just sit there and be a good boy?

 

[zulu9812]

Publishers will pulish anything that can make them money or get them publisity. If you want evidence scroll up. I don't have time to find all the other BS thats out there.

Once again, academic publishing isn't like that.

 

[Masquerouge]

I think the gaurds who are under constant threat and at times attack by the muslim jihadis prisoners would disagree.

I believe it's in these guards' interest to paint the detainees as dangerous terrorists, so their statements would lose credibility

 

[zulu9812]

I think the gaurds who are under constant threat and at times attack by the muslim jihadis prisoners would disagree.

Continuing the theme of "Imagine That!"...

Prisoners don't like their guards! Shock! Horror!

 

[skadistic]

Hypothetical question:

You've been captured and moved halfway around the world from your home. So far you've been held for 5 years, and the people holding you have no plans at all for your release. Ever.considering many have been released.............
Are you going to just sit there and be a good boy?

I would not try to kill gaurds but then again I'm not a raving lunatic.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Moderator Action: If people don't want to be 'bothered' with disputing something then don't post in the first place.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[zulu9812]

Moderator Action: If people don't want to be 'bothered' with disputing something then don't post in the first place.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Who are you referring to?

 

[skadistic]

Who are you referring to?

I'd say me.

 

[woody60707]

The problem is: who else can do such a study? The prosecutors would never be interested, and information about the detainees isn't really getting out.

When you ask who else can, I would say anyone. All the infromation they are useing is public. Why wouldn't someone do a independent study?

Publishers don't publish just anything - universities especially. With their academic reputation on the line, anything that is likely to get published is scrutinised and vetted. So, the people writing the report do have a vested interest. But the university does not, and they subject the report to scrutiny and that is why it is both plausible and legitimate.

Well I have read many published papers form Professors and such about 9/11 and all those crazies. So I would say that that it does happen where a Professor will put out a paper that may not be credible as is the normal.

Now, I ask, was this peer reviewed or published in a peer reviewed journal? That’s what is really needed to give credibility to this report.

 

[Xanikk999]

This isnt a suprise to me. But that doesnt make it right.

In fact this isnt news at all. Somebodys abusing thier power.

 

[Captain Planet]

With the daily revelations of Conservative corruption and fear-mongering, it's somewhat disturbing that people still have faith in certain governments. Of course, in a certain country people have been influenced to pick one side or the other and have effectively denied themselves choice, opinion, and self-determination.