Actually, not one of the articles says anything like that.
Balderdash! :mrgreen:
-The first article is talking about the Uighurs
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.
-The second article is referring to a guy who was released in May 2003.
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.
-The people in the third article were released to be prosecuted abroad, not because the US concluded they were innocent.
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.
-The guy in the fourth article was determined not to classify as an enemy combatant in 2006 and was promptly sent back to Saudi Arabia.
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.
-The guy in the fifth article was determined not to qualify as an enemy combatant in 2006 and was sent back to Afghanistan within 30 days.
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.
-The guys in the sixth article were sent back to Morocco to be prosecuted in 2004, but were later acquitted on many of the charges.
Three of those men were legitimate captures, just to be clear because I didn't clarify that, my concern is with the two who were innocent.
In none of those situations did the government knowingly keep innocent people at Guantanamo without reason.
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. 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.
The fact that we had innocent men in prison for years, being interrogated, is what is so troubling here. Either we are just very poor investigators or we knew and didn't care. I don't like either indictment.
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.
