Skip to comments.CALLING ALL FREEPERS, Help Needed "Challenging The Gitmo Study"
Posted on 03/04/2006 8:11:19 PM PST by coffee260
What I propose is to have bloggers volunteer to review the data in the PDF files at the DoD link. We need to tally the SOEs to see how many include allegations of hostile acts, the type of affiliation for each detainee, and whether the SOE included mitigating information (found in Paragraph 4). Rather than look just for 3b, we need to review all of Paragraph 3 for the complete context of the threat presented by each detainee, at least according to the SOE.
If you are interested in participating, send me an e-mail with the subject "Gitmo project"...
(Excerpt) Read more at captainsquartersblog.com ...
Count me out. I can't even understand the excerpt from Captain's quarters.
Not a problem
I'll take 50 pages. Just tell me what I'm looking for.
LOL....I didn't either...until I went to Captain's Quarters and read the whole post.
I would LOVE to do this...but, my time is not my own much---since I babysit my grandbabies a lot.
I think this project would be PERFECT for you three!!!
Like I already posted...my granddaughters take up so much time, I couldn't set aside enough time to really do a good job, otherwise I would LOVE to do this.
Thanks for the info
Social Science Research Network has published a study by two attorneys, Mark Denbeaux and Joshua Denbeaux, which dissects the government stipulations in the tribunal record for each detainee in order to determine the evidence for detaining each individual. The professor notes their conclusions:The raw data (about 560 Mb in 60 files) is at http://www.defenselink.mil ...
1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006459.php
2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority - 60% - are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners, a nexus to any terrorist group is not identified by the Government.
4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.
5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants - mostly Uighers - are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.
The venue (Court v. Pentagon) for resolution of being assigned enemy combatant status is being challenged in a number of "detainee cases," e.g., Hamdan.
To me, the interesting question is "how many" of the detainees, if any, are wrongly held. The weasel word there is "wrongly." Note too, there have been some number of detainees brought to Gitmo, then released. Presumably, these cases illuminate a bit of what constitutes "wrongly" detained.
Does the Social Science Research Network mention the two attorneys, Mark and Joshua Denbeaux, are representing detainees at Gitmo? I take it there is no mention of this in what you read. That's the reason why CQ is recommending another independent conclusion.
Yes. It's right in their report. Footnote "*" on page 2 (the first page after the title page).
That's the reason why CQ is recommending another independent conclusion.
It's a good reason. The Denbeaux review could have been rebutted without having the recently redacted names, but I think the FOIA release puts the raw data in more hands. No way would I travel to Rutgers to look at this, and now I have it on a local hard drive.
Denbeaux, one of the "Gitmo attornies", and Rasul (via videoconference from London) are on C-SPAN now, live.
Denbeaux notes that he has a follow-up study coming out today, and Rasul is describing his version of conditions and treatment at Gitmo.
Gitmo Study Nears Completion - March 17, 2006
Update On The Gitmo Study - March 8, 2006
Gitmo Study Project Under Way - March 5, 2006
Challenging The Gitmo Study - March 4, 2006
Do The Gitmo Detainees Have A Case? - March 4, 2006
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.