How could President Bush let this happen?

From any conceivable angle:

Worst.
Administration.
Ever.

Oh, please. They're Muslims, ain't they? Therefore, they are guilty. Exterminate the brutes!

Some of them -- the ones who entered Gitmo as 14yr old kids and will leave it, without any charges having been brought against them -- as young men, will not *return* to the fight, but will join it for the first time. Might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb...

So, you are a young man who is wrongfully charged with a crime, or rather held without charges and with no substantiation of a crime being committed, abused in any number of ways by ignorant Americans, and when you are finally released with no reasonable chance of finding a job or having a decent life, someone offers you the opportunity to avenge your captors and be paid and rewarded for your efforts. What would you do? Think about how you would respond to someone killing your family, detaining and abusing you, and then expecting you to just merge into the population in contrition and surrender. Unless you were some sort of Christ presence or the buddha, you would probably do what the suicide bombers are doing. Wouldn't you?

And, it doesn't matter if they are Muslim, Christian or atheist. Their instinct would drive out all reason, and they would kill.

Please tell me I'm wrong. Then, take a plane to Israel and negotiate the ceasefire.

Bless you,
st john

Hilzoy, tasty snark.

You remind me of Bob Somerby circa 99/01
As good as cal-pundit...

the overall known terrorist reengagement rate has increased to 11 percent.

And I don't suppose they said anything about the 89% who didn't even write an op-ed against us? These guys were the worst of the worst, right?

There are so many levels on which this Pentagon statement could be dismissed but the first thing that came to mind was that an additional statistic could easily have been that 'fourteen of the released have become the third in command of Al Qaeda.'

The government propaganda is at that level of absurdity.

A 1990s Department of Justice tracked the rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration rate of former inmates three years after their release from prison in 1994. The study found that the overall rate of recidivism was about 67%, with robbers having a rate of about 70%, burglars 74%, car thieves 79%.

So it appears that, even using the Pentagon's inflated figures, that the world's most dangerous and fanatical terrorists have a recidivism rate far, far lower than that of joyriders.....

So there will have to be some solution for the likes of them, and those are among -- that is among the thorny issues that the president-elect and his new team are carefully considering.

Oooh, ooh, I've got a solution, pick me, pick me!!!!

Here it is: if you have evidence that they've committed a crime, charge them and try them. If you convict them, you jail them; if you don't, you let them go. If you don't have any credible evidence they've committed a crime, you let them go without even a trial.

I'll admit this is not original, and actually used to be known as "the rule of law" -- but, in these days, it's the radical DFH position.

I suppose it's too much to hope for that the spokesman in question, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell, will be out of a job as of Jan. 20 . . . .

Here it is: if you have evidence that they've committed a crime, charge them and try them. If you convict them, you jail them; if you don't, you let them go. If you don't have any credible evidence they've committed a crime, you let them go without even a trial.

And pray tell, how does your suggestion contribute to the reelection prospects of George W. Bush, the Republican Party, or the ability to whip up the popular hysteria necessary to justify yet another invasion?

Please get with the program, Stefan. Detainees like these are a very valuable political asset not to be wasted serving the interests of blind justice.

Wait - Bush is out in six days? Oh, go ahead and do your thing, then.

When I posted about this Wednesday morning I put it this way:

If you don't want to let dangerous people go free, don't fuck up the prosecutions. If you want to put someone in jail, have a trial, present your evidence and make your case. Don't torture them to extract "information" so the sort of judge you would want judging you if you were falsely accused and signed a coerced confession throws it out.

Yes to all Stefan and Blue Girl said and the other take-away is this. The Pentagon really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really needs taking down. They are becoming a pox on American democracy. Rather than engage public opinion, they seek the route of cowardice, trying to manage public opinion with a mix of blatant lies and half-lies, PsyOps operations aimed at the domestic audience, at the citizens of other democracies. The only good thing I can say is that they are fucking awful at it (though unfortunately not awful enough - they can still deceive much of the American public).

Considering the possibility that many released were never really "in the fight" to begin with. After their time and treatment at Gitmo, would it really be so hard to understand why they might want to join in the fight after release? I would hardly equate that with recidivism.

The Khmer Rouge had a solution to this issue: kill everyone after you torture them. That may seem unpalatable, but maybe we could avoid that solution by not torturing in the first place. That said, the supposed 'recidivism' rate is surprisingly low. These detainees seem to have a much higher moral character than a typical American criminal. If these guys are really the worst of the worst, then Islam clearly is a superior religion. More likely, these detainees are mostly just unlucky people with no connection to any nefarious activity. That is one of the problems with offering money to turn people in. Think about it from an Afghan farmer's perspective: "What, you'll give me twenty years' wages to turn in my asshole neighbor whose goats keep crapping on my yard? You got a deal!"

Hard to imagine that after being tortured at Gitmo and released that anyone would actually be supportive of the US. If they didn't hate us or want to attack us before being tortured...they probably do now. BTW...we didn't let people go we proved to be guilty in the first place so how could there be a "return" to the battlefield?

The whole idea of a war on terror is very stupid. Terrorist groups around the world (including our own brave freedom fighters from the days of the revolution) have almost always had local political aims, and this list includes Hamas, Hezbullah, the rebels in Afghanistan and Iraq, and on and on. If there is a group on whom we could conceivably declare war, it might be al Qaeda, though in my view, the term war is over the top even for Bin Laden. Law enforcement would be more like it.

The whole idea of a war on terror is very stupid.

Oddly enough, the British Foreign Secretary arrived at this conclusion only yesterday.

Now if his predecessors had done so five and a half years ago...

can you really trust the Pentagon, that eats up over half the US budget, to be fully-fact checked against their own interests?

Come to think of it, what does the Pentagon mean "returning" to the fight? None of these men have ever been convicted of being in the fight. They've been suspected of it, sure, on the flimsiest of evidence, but they've never been convicted and, since they were released, there couldn't have been that much credible evidence against them in the first place.

Blackstone's formulation: Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

How we doing on that, Mr. Pentagon?

Sadly, this is another example of Obama failing to live up to the hype. Gates should have been dismissed and replaced with someone who has a clue. This is Rumsfeld all over again. And how can we ever restore the rule of law to this country if there are no prosecutions of the Dumbya administration?

First of all Terry your an idiot. I don't how many times I have to say this but Obama isn't president yet. Save your critique for when the guy is in office and has actually done or not done something.
How many americans after being held without trial for years would passively sit back if they were released from Guantanamo?

Hey Gandalf you are entitled to your opinion, but our president elect has decided to keep Gates on as Secretary of Defense at least for the forseeable future. The Pentagon answers to Gates and it appears that Gates will do nothing to stop the sort of mindless propaganda that is the subject of this thread. I am not sure why you think I am an idiot to suggest that Obama's decision to keep Gates has more to do with sucking up to the hard right than a reality based determination that he is the proper person for the position--or are you suggesting that the propaganda being put out by the Pentagon serves a useful purpose? Second, Obama has gone on record as wanting to leave the past in the past when it comes to holding Dumbya administration personnel accountable for their violations of law. Obviously, Obama rationalizes this by wanting to be a "uniter" not a divider (where have we heard that before?) and not wanting the distractions of prolonged investigations and prosecutions when there are very serious issues to address. The problem with this rationale is that if there is no accountability for breaking the law than we have no law. Whether Obama adheres to the law or not there will be others in the future who will not. Either you restore the Constitution or we may as well consider it a dead document. If you find that view idiotic, then I think you are pathetic. I also think Obama's economic proposals reflect more politics than economics or basic fairness, but that is not the topic of this thread.

Well Terry, your opinion and four bucks will get you a cuppa coffee at Starbucks, as will mine. And it is my opinion that Gandalf is right and you are an idiot.

I'm inclined to agree with Glenn Greenwald on this one. Unwavering support for Obama will only ensure that we give him no political reason to do the things we want him to do.

If your main goal for the Obama presidency is merely to support it, then support away. If your main goal is to see that certain policies are enacted or changed, then hold Obama's feet to the fire until it happens.

If we know these people are "returning to the fight" doesn't that presume they've been followed and watched?

If so, the released detainees have effectively helped US authorities find out more about terrorist organizations and, hopefully, how to police them.

I'm not saying this is right or good, but it seems to be a point not being made anywhere.

I don't think PE Obama is entitled to unwavering support, but I do think he's entitled to some benefit of the doubt. Pretty much since the election season started he's made decisions that I've thought retarded or weak at the time that turned out to be correct because he plays a much deeper game than most of his critics.

Consequently I now find myself thinking twice when tempted to rant about the latest stupid thing he's done. Chances are good that I'm the one who'll end up looking stupid.

How about this- let's count how many people have been KILLED by detainees returning to the fight.

Since the left is concerned about detainee rights, why don't we try and do something about an AMERICAN WOMAN held in an ITALIAN jail for two years RIGHT NOW without charges being filed against her. She is suspected of murder and guilty until proven innocent. That's the rule of law over there-

What? Silence? Thought so...