Again, in all of your following examples you're still conflating two completely different things. You're saying "They were captured in XXX and cleared X years later, meaning they were innocent all along. That's beyond reasonable." You can't apply present knowledge ex post facto on a past situation. That's not how it works, nor is it what this thread is about.
This guy is claiming that the US captured people,
concluded that they were innocent,
and then knowingly kept them in Guantanamo anyways, for no apparent reason. There is no evidence that that happened in any of the cases you mentioned, (beyond the second one, to some degree).
Who were captured in 2001 and cleared four years later (meaning they were innocent all along). That's beyond reasonable. The fact that we can't send innocent men back to their nation is no reason to keep them in custody. You relocate them somewhere outside of Gitmo and work to place them somewhere they can live in poeace to make up for the fact that you took their freedom for four years.
No country on the planet will take them. Albania took 5 of them, but the rest don't have anywhere to go. The fact that they're not classified as enemy combatants doesn't make them the kind of people you'd want as your neighbor. They were all involved in training at Islamic terrorist camps, but they aren't considered enemy combatants because they didn't engage in active hostilities against the US.
Who was captured in April of 2002, information was available within days that a mistake had been made in his capture, yet he was detained for over a year. That's beyond reasonable.
A local politician claims that he told an American official that the guy was innocent shortly afterwards. Assuming that's true, and that he was someone that the US should have believed, then yea, I'd say that's an overly long time, albeit not totally unreasonable. This is the only one that could possibly qualify as anything like what this guy is talking about, but he's obviously not referring to him so the point is moot.
I'm sorry but you are incorrect. He was released because the British government requested his release, just like they did scores of other British nationals being held in Gitmo. The Spanish indictments were dropped. That speaks volumes about just how big of a threat these men were. The fact that they were in U.S. custody from 2002 to 2007 and they were never found to be actual enemy combatants or threats to America is appalling. Five years and no case. You're imprisoned for a half-decade on allegations that you are a terrorist/enemy combatant, then release without charges, sent home, arrested again, and then all charges are dropped. You don't have to say "they're innocent"...if they were guilty they'd still be in custody or at least have gone through and actual trial. That's beyond reasonable.
Again, you're conflating "not enemy combatant" with "innocent" (and "innocent" in the criminal sense with actual innocence). The fact that these people were determined not to be enemy combatants
does not in any way indicate that the US government didn't believe they were involved in terrorist activities. There are simply very strict regulations for who can and cannot be classified an enemy combatant. In these cases they were released for the express purpose of being prosecuted in their home countries. The fact that they were not convicted does not mean they're "innocent." OJ was "innocent" in the criminal sense, but he was a guilty mother****er.
What is prompt about a four year imprisonment of an innocent man in Gitmo? He was captured in 2002 and cleared in 2005 (meaning he was innocent all along), released in 2006. That's beyond reasonable.
Wrong again. He was an innocent man who taken into custody in 2003, was detained for three years, and then released because there was no case against him. That's beyond reasonable.
Again, you keep assuming knowledge ex post facto. It just really doesn't work that way.
Say you're investigating the theft of a watch and come across a person who appears to be guilty as sin. The witness ID's him, his alibi doesn't check out, he's been arrested for the same thing twice previously, and he happens to have the exact same watch in his dresser drawer. You put all this together, arrest the guy, and give it to the DA. The DA presses charges, it goes to trial, and it turns out that the jury believes the guy's story that happens to explain all those coincidences.
Now, were you "beyond reasonable" in arresting and holding that guy, simply because he turned out to be innocent in the end? Or were you acting completely reasonably to the best of your knowledge, which turned out to be mistaken?
There was information early on in many of these cases that the men were innocent, we just didn't move to verify it for one reason or another.
There was also information early on in that the men were terrorists, hence their removal to Guantanamo. I'm not in the best position to second guess the investigatory and interrogatory capabilities of the US military, so I'm operating under the assumption that they acted in good faith, absent evidence to the contrary.
Instead they languished in custody, even after cleared. Once those men were found to be non-combatants/non-terrorists we knew they were innocent and they should have been immediately released from the confinement of that camp. Even if we had to put them up in apartments on the island until we could properly relocate them.
Again, "non-enemy combatant" =/= "innocent"
It's as if you have a special cell block that's only for mass murderers. If a guy being held there on charges of mass murder is only convicted of one of the murders, you may determine that he doesn't belong on that particular block anymore, but you don't release him.
I see merit in your assertion that our folks may not have known, but I simply do not believe we are that poor in our ability to gather evidence and make determinations in an expedient manner. We employ some damn good people in our military and intel services.
So because you think we have good people in the military, you'd rather think that they knowingly decided to interrogate and imprison innocent people than that they simply took longer than you feel comfortable with in determining how to deal with particular individuals?