"Worst of the Worst?" It is to laugh...

[Insp. Clue!So?]

One of the great lies of the 21st Century, that the majority of Gitmo "detainees" were vicious Al queda killers, takes a few more hits. Any such comments
by the administration should've drawn horse-laughs from reporters for years now based on widespread evidence. For this reason alone the whole war-mongering White House gang belongs in prison...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AP: Some Gitmo detainees freed elsewhere By ANDREW O. SELSKY,
Associated Press Writer
Sat Dec 16, 4:37 AM ET


The Pentagon called them "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth," sweeping them up after Sept. 11 and hauling them
in chains to a U.S. military prison in southeastern Cuba. Since then, hundreds of the men have been transferred from Guantanamo Bay to other countries, many of them for
"continueddetention." And then set free.

Decisions by more than a dozen countries in the Middle East, Europe and South Asia to release the former Guantanamo detainees raise questions about whether
they were really as dangerous as the United States claimed, or whether some of America's staunchest allies
have set terrorists and militants free.

<snip>

full article at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061216/...ter_guantanamo

[Smasharoo]

One of the great lies of the 21st Century, that the majority of Gitmo "detainees" were vicious Al queda killers, takes a few more hits.

Decisions by more than a dozen countries in the Middle East, Europe and South Asia to release the former Guantanamo detainees raise questions about whether
they were really as dangerous as the United States claimed, or whether some of America's staunchest allies
have set terrorists and militants free.


I don't think Gitmo or ignoring the GC made any sense at all, but having 1% of the detainees released in no way has anything to do with the majority of them being ruthless killers or not.

[Insp. Clue!So?]

Well I'd really suggest actually reading the article before "thinking" and commenting, since your bizarre "1 percent" is grossly incorrect. The story mentions over 300 men released to their home countries, some 26 nations, and found that around 80 percent of those men were immediately or fairly quickly released (these are people frequently described by the Administration as practically one tiny step below Mohamed Atta). Note that these 26 countries include some of the most strident allies of the US, as well as many who aren't known for giving two [censored] on a shingle for human rights or the need for evidence of guilt to incarcerate criminals. Nevertheless these disparate nations all seem to have reached the same conclusion about the great majority of the people in their direct custody.

In other words, since this evidently has to be spelled out for many people, the Administrations claims are fraudulent, unless one holds the laughable in light of current events view that somehow Britain, Spain, France and many other countries are suddenly somehow happy to inject hundreds of crazed Islamic militants into their body publics. The sad reality is that the US has acted criminally in kidnapping many innocent people.

I suppose it passed under the radar of many poorly informed folks that among the first people released from Gitmo were addle-brained, senile, cane-ridden old men, something it took over a year of incarceration at Gitmo for the US military to find out. If that's considered effective fighting of the "War on Terror" then some people have a very strange (and very brutal) definition of "effective".

There is of course the further issue that we have no particular reason to believe judgements made by the US military authorities in the general matter of detainee circumstances, as they have many potential reasons and tremendous incentive to disemble or simply outright lie concerning the remaining detainees (who continue to be released as above). There is no independent oversight, after all, for any Pentagon claims in the matter, so there is no need to take any such claims at face value given their obvious conflicts of interest in the whole embarrassing affair.

There have on the other hand been claims by detainee lawyers, ex-military men stationed at the base, human rights officials etc. that the vast majority of those held were either completely innocent (sold in effect by Pakistani intelligence in many cases) or otherwise very marginally involved. There being little legal reason (or so they claim) for US military officials to seriously vet a detainees individual circumstances, I'm sure you'll accept the other side's claims just as readily as you seem to the military's.