Report: In 2002 CIA Warned 1/3 of Gitmo Prisoners Were Innocent
Jane Mayer also reveals that the Bush administration ignored warnings from the CIA six years ago that up to a third of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay may have been imprisoned by mistake. In 2002, a CIA analyst concluded that many of the prisoners were essentially bystanders who had been swept up in dragnets or turned over to the US military by bounty hunters. Mayer also reveals that the CIA is investigating whether its agents kidnapped at least six innocent men and held them in secret prisons as part of the agency’s extraordinary rendition program. Only one of the cases—that of Khalid El-Masri—has ever come to light.

In a related story...

Seventh-day Adventist missionary, Eric B. Hare, perhaps the greatest children's storyteller in the history of Adventism, was taken captive by the Japanese Army and held as a prisoner against his will. Pastor Hare was not a member of any Allied military force. He was 100% innocent. He was all about peace and love. Yet despite all the good he was doing in the world Japan captured him and held him prisoner.


The wicked, evil, hate-filled and war mongering United States of America dropped not one but TWO atomic bombs on Japan in order to secure the release of Pastor Hare because President Trueman wanted to force the religion on the entire globe and make every single last man, woman, child and household cat into a Christian. After all Jesus rules with an iron rod and if the USA is to be like Christ they must drop atomic bombs on all nations that hold innocent Seventh-day Adventist missionaries prisoner.

... Back to regular scheduled programming.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I think it is well established that in every war in history innocent people have been taken prisoner. That shouldn't be a newsflash to anyone. It is sad but as Pastor Eric B. Hare knew, a true fact of war.

But I thought Gitmo was for the "worst of the worst," the ones who are undoubtedly the greatest threats to world security. They have been held and tortured for years. And a third of them are innocent?!!!

We don't know that 1/3 of them were innocent any more than we know 2/3 of them were guilty. There are a lot of people that want to write reports and books and make a lot of money. There are a lot of prisoners taken that never went Gitmo. We don't know what the screening process was. There is a lot we don't know so I am very hesitant to jump on some ideologue's bandwagon and either support or criticize what was done or is being done.

Why don't we know? Because they weren't tried. If the rule of law had been followed and trials instituted immediately, we would know.

So, let me get this straight chronicologically....

These guys were taken by US military to Gitmo. They have been held for over 5 years. They have been interogated many times during those 5 years, and the military probably aquired all the useful information within the first year of thier imprisionment. They military KNEW who was innocent and who had useful information and who did not. The military persists in declaring that all these men, whether innocent or not, are guilty by association that they were in the same country as Saddam....And yet, this persistant CIA report says that 1/3 of those prisoners were innocent bystanders.....

What a smear on American sense of justice....So much for the "American way" of truth justice and the American way....

PS- I expected better of MY American military.....

I don't know because I wasn't there and I hear conflicting reports from different sources with various levels of credibility. My honest opinion is that liberals believe their liberal sources because they want to. Conservatives believe their conservative sources because they want to. I try to be honest with myself. I listen to sources on both side and admit I don't know. I am certainly not going to jump on anyone's bandwagon.



I don't think Pastor Eric B. Hare was ever tried either. The problem is that we are in a conflict that as not been defined in history like wars between two established nations have been. So we don't have presidents or international agreements that we are bound to.

One of the reasons I like to listen to Democracy Now is because so much of what they investigate and bring to light eventually makes it to the mainstream news as fact. I think they try to be very accurate in their reporting. And they don't hesitate to question or criticize either major party or any candidate on issues.

No Iraqis are in Gitmo.



We don't know what the military knew and what they didn't.



We are talking about a book written by liberal Jane Mayer. She cites an alleged CIA report. Everything we know about this report is according to her. I don't suspect that she is making things up but given her known bias I certainly am not going to place much confidence in her perspective. That would be like trusting Rush Limbaugh's interpretation of a report on Clinton that only Rush Limbaugh has seen.



Please don't spit on these men and women when they come home and call them baby-killers or terrorist torturers.

I agree Neil. This is not be good.

Shane quotes me:
And responds:
You excised my own answer to my own rhetorical question: we don't know because there was no trial. This is not about multiple sources of news, and it's not about liberal and conservative. Natural justice says prisoners have the right to hear and respond to the charges against them in a timely manner, and those proceedings should be public so that justice is seen to be done. If there had been open trials we would know.

And we never knew how many of the German POWS were actually Nazis, because they were enemy combatants. If they were combatants but were not wearing uniforms, they could be summarily shot as spies. And all under the "Geneva Convention."

Oh, and we didn't grant them trials either.

Since Al Qaeda abjures uniforms as a tactic, it would be an option to execute them all. No one, of course, is advocating that.

In war, it can be difficult to distinguish the perpetrators from the accessories. When the combatants refuse to wear uniforms, or worse, disguise themselves as civilians, this makes matters worse. But any confusion is the fault of those who choose to hide among the civilians. They intend it, they choose it, they use it.



Natural justice? Well, it wasn't natural for thousands of years of Earth's history. Or perhaps you're an advocate of 'natural law,' as are Justices Scalia and Thmoas.

The idea of natural justice coincides with the Declaration of Independence where rights are endowed by the Creator, NOT by governments, and that governments are responsible to "Nature, and Nature's God."

But that strikes socialism at its heart.

Here's an interesting interview from today. Some of it sounds more reassuring, while other things remain concerns. Keep in mind that this is the former chief prosecutor - not a defense attorney.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/16/fmr_chief_guantanamo_prosecutor_says_military

Interesting. Bravus says:



And what does this fellow "DemocracyNow" finds so interesting have to say:



Since the Gitmo detainees were in fact detained because they were found in battlefields, the U.S. has "an inherent right, that goes back to the Treaty of Westphalia, to detain" them. The only reason for them to get any sort of trial is if they are charged with a violation of the law of war.

That throws Bravus' assertion out the window. They were detained in a war zone. No further charges are necessary to keep them "from causing harm today and tomorrow."

And thus, the title of this thread is invalidated. Whether or not they are 'innocent' of war crimes has nothing to do with whether they can be detained. In most past wars, the vast majority of combatants were not guilty of war crimes--but their detention was quite lawful.

Don't know what you are talkin' about, Shane...No one here in my neck of the woods, and there are a lot of rednecks around here, and peaceniks, who are NOT saying anything of what you are claiming. Maybe in YOUR neck of the country, but not here. We appreciate what the military is doing....But we also know that there are oppertunities for bad apples to come to fruition in the military....

That is why I hold MY American military to a higher standard. They play fair, even to thier detriment. They get the job done, and if they need to do it ruthlessly, they do so according to the Geneva convention, and other principles that apply to the rules of war.

But if they are out to maim and murder people, then they are out to harm mankind, and as far as I am concerned, they can be tried as war criminals....

What exactly is the "battlefield"? The entire country of Iraq? The entire Middle East? The entire world?

Anyway, it seemed to me that the main point of the interview was showing that even the chief prosecutor (not a defense attorney) felt so strongly that the detainees will not get a fair trial, that he resigned over the issue:

AMY GOODMAN: Except the CIA is saying that perhaps up to a third have been held mistakenly, not even enemy combatants, as Bush has defined it.
COL. MORRIS DAVIS: Right. And that, I’ll agree with. I mean, I—I guess I drank the Kool-Aid on that one, as well, believing that the CSRT process and the administrative review boards were a robust process where the individuals did get, you know, a significant look at whether they were being properly detained. And I think that’s what the Supreme Court has done in Boumediene, is say there’s some doubt about the validity of that process and that these individuals are entitled to some meaningful review. But I think if a person gets meaningful review and they’re determined to be an enemy combatant and we’re engaged in armed conflict, that we have the right to detain them and keep them off the battlefield.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think they got meaningful review at Guantanamo?
COL. MORRIS DAVIS: Well, it certainly appears that that’s doubtful in many cases.

Oh, let me quote it again.



Please show me, tell me, amaze me with stories of other nations with military in combat situations that has acted more ethical and more just than the American men and women in uniform.

Prisoner abuse takes place in nearly every prison, civilian and military, that I am aware of. That is not to excuse it. That is not to say it is acceptable. But if it takes place in county jails and state prisons, why would we expect it not to take place in military prisons? Why would anyone "expect" more from "their" military than they get from their state and federal civilian prisons?

These extremist websites and blogs are not going to offer a balanced perspective. That is not to say I like what is going on in Gitmo. But going to extremist blogs is kind of like going to the candy store owner for dental advice.

Oh, plUeeeze....don't take me out of context. Your reference was this-




While you MAY have a point that there is some abuse happening somewhere's in the prison system, it does not have to be the norm. You make it sound like it is the norm, even in our civilian prisions. I am sorry, but I have a cilvian cousin in the california penal system...He reports to me, that there is no abusive behavior in a timely systematic fashion....at least on his watch and in his prison. That does not mean that there is not some ruff stuff that results when a prisoner freaks out and starts swinging, but that is an equal response for equal threat. It is NOT abuse. The guards do not abuse the prisoners, nor taunt the prisoners. So where you are getting this "abuse takes place in nearly every prison, civilian and military" standard, is beyond me. I stand by my statment and will clarify it somewhat...I expect better behavor from MY American Military ....

It is! I have been sitting in A.A. meetings for over 20 years. I have known many many people that have served in prison and anyone that doesn't think abuse in civilian prisons is the norm has no place in a discussion about prisons. The reason we don't have prison reform is because felons can't vote!

I am still waiting for the name of the country with a more ethical military than ours. What nation should be our example?

A battlefield is where soldiers fight. The detainees were picked up by soldiers where they had been fighting.

"It seemed to me. . . ."

But since there was no need to try any of them, it's essentially moot. They can be detained without trial. . .that whole "Treaty of Westphalia" thingy.

I don't consider Democracy Now to be an extremist program. Most of the things they uncover are eventually proven true. I admit sometimes they put a liberal/progressive slant on a news story, but I think I can see through that. I really don't care a lot whether a perspective is "balanced" or not. What I care about is the truth, the whole truth. And I usually find it there.

I agree with you. Just clarification. Prisoners can't vote, but many states refuse to let ex-prisoners vote, as well. They might make the determination based on what kind of crime was committed - or not.

I learned that on Democracy Now.

I do not take the position that extremest blogs are bad nor that there are sources of news which are 100% balanced. My point is that these extremist sources like Media Matters or Rush Limbaugh want to spin us and play us like a fiddle. And they are amazingly successful with many people. It behooves us to balance them out. If we go and read a far left blog we need to balance that out with a far right blog or talk radio or something.

Completely agree. I would say it of almost any subject. Read widely and read both pro and con.

I enjoy listening to people, and reading articles, on both the political right and the left.

I totally agree with you up to the last sentence, which perhaps needs a little clarification. I want to find out the truth, and that's not as simple as finding a balance between far right and far left smoke blowing.

I think the best way to know the *truth* is to go to the sources who are reporting mostly from primary sources, hopefully who have proven over time to be credible, sources who are trying to dig out the facts instead of just repeating someone else's news, who don't try to manipulate the facts to meet some agenda, and who don't op-ed a lot.

There are sources on the right and left who do a pretty good job of that (as well as international), but you have to find them and not just willy-nilly pick a left-nut and a right-nut and figure the truth is somewhere in between. (And I'm sure you were not insinuating that, but I'm just trying to clarify my thoughts.)

I think I probably had more trust in Tim Russert than any other journalist. Now he is dead and perhaps an era of trying to report the news objectively died with him.

Call me cynical but I don't believe there are many in the news media doing a good job of reporting the news. I am a news junky but listen to everyone with suspicion that they have an agenda they are trying to sell.

As far as the truth goes... Well, I suspect we all want to know the truth, perhaps Adventists more than the average person. But I am not so vain to think that if I heard the "truth" about a specific news story that I would be able to distinguish it as truth.

In the spirit of respect and friendship I will use Bravus as an example to contrast myself. Bravus has a list on accomplishments a bit longer than mine. He is successful and indisputably intelligent. Yet we can both read the same news story and come away from it with a different belief in the "truth" of what really happened. So one of us (perhaps both) is wrong or misunderstands the story. We can't both be right. I think it would be quite conceited of me to assume I am always right and he is always wrong. Certainly I cannot always be right and conversely I can't always be wrong either. So how do I know the "truth"? I don't. And there is no way for me to know when I am wrong and when I am right in regard to the understanding of current events.

I know what I believe. I can share with others why I believe it. And I reserve the right to be wrong and change my mind. But I see no way of being sure that I know the "truth" regarding news stories.

Finding spiritual truths is much easier because by faith I can trust the Bible. I can't put that kind of faith in any news outlet or journalist.

You know, Shane, you tell me that I need to get a better view, a more varied view of media sources when it comes to getting my info on what's happening in the world. And I know that you are in AA meetings. Another of my cousins has been going to them for many years as well [we are talking more than one decades here] and he let's me know some of the things that happen there as well. It's his church, he says.

I work in the medical field, and by my experience, EVERYONE is sick. EVERYONE has a headache, or a stomachache or a shoulder ache or dizzyiness that the doctors can't seem to correct. And it's been my experience, and I have to admit that I have even done it, that when I am on the recieving end of something bad, it's not just bad, IT'S REALLY BAD!!!!!! I have heard that when there are aches and pains from others, it is truely the worst pain you can hardly imagine....and, of course, IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

So, Shane, with all due respect, I know that abuse happens. But as for the frequency and the intensity, ...well, that is subjective...and doesn't correlate with the info that I have.

Again, I stand by my words...I demand better of MY American Military.

As for prison reform, that's a whole different subject...

I totally agree that truth can be interpreted differently. But when the Red Cross states that what is going on in Guantanamo is "categorically torture" (not "it might be"), and the CIA report says probably 1/3 of the inmates are innocent and that's why they aren't getting good information out of there - how do you interpret that differently?

There is a teacher there who was turned in by a student that he gave a bad grade to. There are people there who were victims of inter-tribal disputes - turned in by someone just because they belonged to a different tribe that they were angry with. These people were not even in the vicinity of Al-Quaida, yet they got picked up and held for years as the "worst of the worst."

I disagree. This thread is about Gitmo, which is a military prison. The fact that we have abuse in our civilian prisons is relevant to the fact that we have abuse in our military prisons. The reason such a big deal is made regarding Gitmo is because the anti-war crowd is using it to further their cause. We don't hear so much about the abuse in the state pen because it has nothing to do with the war on terror.

This is off topic but...

Too many in AA make a religion out of it. Your cousin isn't alone. However both of the co-founders of AA called it a spiritual kindergarten. When AA members tell me that AA is their church or that they don't need church because they have AA, I always remark to them that they must not aspire to go past kindergarten.

The International Red Cross goes on what prisoners tell them. In the video clip in the other thread we have a kid claiming that he lost his eyes and feet when he obviously has not lost his eyes nor his feet. So what the International Red Cross is reporting isn't necessarily correct.

The CIA report is alleged. We have to take the word of a reporter with an admitted liberal, anti-war bias. I have not seen the report. I don't know anything about it.

I am not so gullible that I am just going to take the word of a Red Cross worker or an anti-war journalist. I am not defending abuse in Gitmo. I am just stating that we don't know how much truth there is in what is being reported.

I totally agree with you about the U.S. prisons. There are those who say they have it too cush, but they aren't taking into account the abuse that goes on. On the other hand, I could be wrong, but I don't think we torture prisoners in the U.S. As far as I know, we are still outsourcing that.

Now, since Congress has acted, our military is not allowed to torture. The CIA is allowed to waterboard. Some feel waterboarding is not torture. I disagree. However when compared to what the Vietnamese did to our soldiers, I agree it pales in comparison.

I do not believe the torture aspect of Gitmo is now what it was since the military is no longer doing it. However there is abuse going on there which is a lot of what the Red Cross is reporting.

Then there's always those black site prisons, where they have no rules.

Of course there are and always will be. When we close Gitmo these prisoners will simply be sent to prisons in other countries that are outside the jurisdiction of the US. I don' know if that is the victory the anti-war liberals wanted but that is what is going to happen.