The Guantanamo Files...

The NYTimes “Guantanamo Files”[1] published a piece on how the US government decides who is ‘dangerous’ and who isn’t at Gitmo.

According to leaked and un-redacted documents obtained by the NYTimes via Wikileaks, one Mohammed Alam Shah convinced the authorities at Gitmo that he was an Al Qaida conscript who was just trying to save his brother from the Taliban. Mr. Shah was described as being cooperative and non-threatening to the US during his incarceration. So, they let him go.

Mr. Shah turned out to be Abdullah Mehsud. Mehsud subsequently killed 31 people in an attack on the Pakistani Foreign Minister. Then killed himself in the course of a suicide bombing. Apparently, there are some flaws in the procedure for assessing the risk of recidivism of men detained at Gitmo.

The records obtained via Wikileaks described the rational that formed the basis for 704 assessments of future risk posed by men detained at Gitmo. In 55% of those assessments the conclusions reached described those men as “possibly” dangerous. Another 26% of the men assessed posed an “unknown” threat to the US. 

The evidence relied up on to make these assessments was largely hearsay from other men who were also detained. In other words, we are keeping people locked up on the word of other people we have locked up, because we think they are a threat to the US, world peace and the continued domination of the middle east by an ascendant American military. But, lacking any evidence to be considered against men who have been tortured and held for years without trial, the US government finds these same dangerous men to be credible witnesses to justify the massive denial of the basic human rights of themselves and others.

Somewhat understandably, in a perverted, lack of due process, human rights denying, subjective kind of way, authorities at Gitmo became more cautious about who they let go after Mr. Meshud turned out to be more than he appeared. Despite the fact quite a few other, formerly high risk prisoners had been released without incident, the government became more cautious about who they released.

Given their difficulties in determining who was who, a 17 page ‘guide’ was prepared to help determine the amount of risk a detained man posed. 

Much of the guide relied on the detained man's history of association with certain other persons the US considered to be terrorists. It, also, relied on certain physical evidence - for instance, if a man had a particular brand of wristwatch, it was speculated he may have been  at an Al Qaeda bomb making class were that type of watch[2] was handed out.

The guide also said that “refusal to cooperate” was considered to be indicative of the man being a terrorist. (Did they really believe that anyone would be naturally pre-disposed to cooperating with people who captured him, flew him thousands of miles from his family, friends and home in the middle of the night and deposited him in a prison where they kept him, in clear violation of his human rights, for an indefinite period without being charged or tried? Are they complete fucking idiots? Don’t answer that question…)

The leaked records show the government used informants to gather “evidence” as to the motives of other men. Yasim Muhammed Basardah was one of those informants considered to be a credible source of information against other man on 30 occasions - even after several judges questioned Basardah’s[3] credibility due to a history of serious psychiatric illnesses.

Incentives were also used to get men to inform on their fellow man. Sometimes falsely.

Another factor the guide considered in deciding who to release was the man's country of origin. Europeans and Saudi’s got released. Men from Yemen didn't.

Despite the help of the guide, some men were detained for non-sensical reasons.

A man with the same name as someone the government was looking for was arrested and held for 2 years. Even after analysts realized they had mistaken him for someone else.

Another man was found to be in possession of an ‘Al Qaeda training manual’ when he was caught. It took the government 6 years to realize the documents were in Arabic and the man didn’t speak Arabic.

In another instance, in a hearing to decide whether a particular inmate was dangerous, the witness the feds relied on was found to have been psychotic. The government described the witness as being in ‘good health’.

The same judge who presided over the hearing with the psychotic witness, said this about considering the threat a man would pose if they were released: “...candor obliges me to admit that one can not help but be conscious of the infinitely greater downside risk to our country, and its people, of an order releasing a detainee who is likely to return to terrorism.”

In other words, screw the facts, screw reasonable doubt, screw probable cause. None of that counts when the judge considers what a man might do if he were to be released. MIGHT DO. I wonder where he read that in the constitution.

One man, Omar Hamzayavich Abdulayey, was accused of having been trained in the use of poisons and explosives, as well as meeting with top Al Qaeda operatives. Only the Kuwaiti accusing him was later found to lack credibility, because he was too vague and contradictory.

Unwilling to release Mr, Abdulayey, the government found a list of supposed miscreants that included one “Abdallah al-Uzbeki”. The government postulated that Abdallah might be another way of saying Abdallaahyey. And, so, Mr. Abdallaahyiv has remained a guest of the US at Gitmo - for a total of nine years as of 25APR11.

Now for more commentary:

It seems pretty clear to me that no one really knows what they are talking about. That they seem to be making things up as they go along, in blatant violation of the constitutional and human rights of the men being held. 

In reality, I doubt there is a good way to determine who these men are and what might happen if they are released. Fortunately, in our system of justice, you can't be punished for something you might do. Unfortunately, for the remaining men held at Gitmo and for us, Americans who actually expect the government to follow the constitution they swore to uphold, reality, apparently, holds no sway at Guantanamo.

Despite what the government doesn’t know, it is more than clear they do, know one thing - if they release one man who goes on to bomb or shoot an America[4] or a European, the person who authorized the release of that man is going to get barbecued and lose his cushy job with the DOJ or the CIA.

So, endless reasons are devised to keep the men  who are still there imprisoned indefinitely. What’s the freedom of another human being to a man who is afraid of losing his job if he decides to act in a humane manner consistent with the constitution he swore to uphold?

Then there is the 'monetary reality'. Gitmo has become institutionalized. There are no plans for it to ever close. Obama wanted to close the prison, without changing anything but the location. However, even he has concluded that it will be necessary to keep some men forever. FOREVER. So, the existence of the facility and the people who are making money off it depend upon their being men to detain.

This is really bad news for the men still in prison. Now, they have a financial value. If we were to do the right, correct and constitutional thing, a lot of people would lose out on a lot of money. And, in the military-industrial complex, the national security state and the emerging police state, money trumps everything else. Particularly constitutional and human rights.

So, now Obama has decided that the remaining men are too dangerous to ever be released. FOREVER. (There’s that word, again, FOREVER. Just keep reading it until the reality of forever soaks in.).

The US government, though Barack Obama - who promised to close Gitmo when he was elected and failed to do so - has decided the remaining 47 men, (reports of the number of men still held at Gitmo range as high as 172),  are so dangerous to the US and the rest of the world they can never be released.[5]

47 seven men can render a 250+ year history of the rule of law moot, because the federal government is more afraid of doing the wrong thing than they are afraid of destroying the basic, inalienable rights this country was founded on.

At this point, I could get all sarcastic. But, I don’t feel sarcastic. I feel really, really, sad. I grew up and spent the majority of my life in country that was governed by the rule of law. A country where you didn’t have to worry that the government was going to engage in the wholesale denial of constitutional and human rights of anyone they didn’t like.

Now, I live in a country that only pretends the constitution and the rule of law applies. A country that has set aside a place, on an American military base, where there is a ‘constitutional rights’ free zone. A place where they, routinely, trample the document that made this country what it was - a bastion of justice in a sea of injustice.

Now, I can only believe in the America I have loved all my life by closing my eyes and covering my ears to avoid being aware of what my country is doing in the name of a false security.

And I am very, very sad to see what America has become.

[1] The NYTimes sources the information in the “Guantanamo Files” to Wikileaks.com

[2] If you want to avoid being thrown in jail by DHS or FBI when you are out styling, trade in your Casio F91W watch for a more patriotic Timex. 

And, yes, the Casio F91W can still be had from a wide variety of vendors around the world for about $9 – including through Google Shopping. However, buying one can lead to some real problems if you are, or appear to be, of middle eastern descent.

[3] Basardah was transferred to Spain in 2010. He was no longer considered a threat, because it was felt his collaboration with the US ruled out his return to Al Qaeda.

[4] We don’t really care if they kill each other or other Arabs. When they do, it saves us from having to pay to have a Predator UAV fly over their house and destroy it with Hellfire Missiles, killing the alleged terrorist and everyone else in the building.

[5] I am not sure whether this was before or after he decided he could order the state sanctioned murder of an American citizen without due process of law.