Secretary of State Rice explaining yesterday on Fox News why Gitmo can't be closed:
If we do close down Guantanamo, what becomes of the hundreds of dangerous people who were picked up on battlefields in Afghanistan, who were picked up because of their associations with Al Qaeda? We do have an obligation, the president has an obligation, to also keep America and, by the way, many of our allies safe by making certain that people don't return to the battlefield.
Men picked up on the "battlefields in Afghanistan" and men connected to al-Qaida, eh Condi? According to a Seton Hall study that relied on the Pentagon's own data, just 11 percent of the detainees were captured "on the battlefield" by coalition forces. Also, the majority of detainees--about 66 percent--were "captured" in Pakistan. Just eight percent of the prisoners have been classified as "Al-Qaida fighters."
I don't know, maybe I'm reading her quote incorrectly, but she said 'battlefields in Afganistan and men connected to al-Qaida' and you quoted the 'captured on the battlefield' number and the 'classified as 'Al-Qaida' fighters. Can't I (though I'm not) be associated with Al Qaida and not be a battlefied fighter? I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that the folks picked up in Pakistan were somehow associated with AQ.
Posted by: Greg | May 22, 2006 at 10:50 AM
Yes, you can be associated with AQ and not captured on the battlefield. But take a look at that Seton Hall study--and the expose on Gitmo by Corrie Hegland at the National Journal. Most of those people picked up have only thin evidence against them and of the three possible levels of connection to AQ, the gov't has in the majority of cases picked the lowest level" "association" with. And even then, lots (I admit: I don't remember the number) aren't classified as even that.
Posted by: Eric Umansky | May 22, 2006 at 11:48 AM
I don't know why anyone's impressed with much of anything Condi has to say. Of course it always *sounds good*, but where's the beef? Doesn't she essentially regurgitate the main WH talking points, and simply sound better doing so?
Posted by: JohnTheBaptist | May 22, 2006 at 02:54 PM
people who were picked up on battlefields in Afghanistan, who were picked up because of their associations with Al Qaeda?
Depending on how this was spoken, this isn't two separate groups of people. She's saying they were picked up on the battlefield because of their association with AQ.
Perhaps the audio implied an 'or' where the text only shows a comma.
Posted by: editor | May 22, 2006 at 03:05 PM
The study conducted by the detainees' lawyers? Reeeeeal believable.
Posted by: A.S. | May 22, 2006 at 05:33 PM
These guys are prisoners of war, and should be afforded all rights granted as such in the Geneva Convention. There is the catch. The Bush administration has gotten so used to rewriting the rules, and you have gotten so used to conceding the rules, that you forget the fundamental lies involved. Get real. This place needs to be closed, and the Bush boys (Condi included) need to be tried for high crimes and treason.
Jim
Posted by: Jim | May 23, 2006 at 05:59 AM
"The American people reject 'guilt by association' or so said Mary Matalin on Meet the Press when talking about Jack Abramoff.
Posted by: Turk Meister | May 23, 2006 at 12:45 PM
yes, well, that happens when you offer up rewards for people to turn al qaeda in. the american government has tortured people to death based on nothing more than heresay.
Posted by: of;ueof;u | May 23, 2006 at 01:06 PM
If anything, they were just the slowest runners. Most were brought in through bounties paid by the U.S.
Given that our soldiers cannot even speak the language, we have no idea what their affiliation is, but anyone in Afghanistan who is not enjoying OUR invasion of THEIR country is automatically branded a terrorist and thrown away. Imagine if the roles were reversed.
Afghanistan was a pretext war to control oil, just like Iraq, all triggered by a hoax event, the inside job known as 9/11. Wake up to the truth, people. Start with www.st911.org and see that you've all been duped on a massive scale.
Posted by: legalpad | May 23, 2006 at 02:30 PM
If it is possible to imagine a fate worse than Guantanamo, it would be some nameless gulag in Eastern Europe; at least the attention of the world is focused on the Cuban base.
Posted by: Colin Brace | May 24, 2006 at 11:33 AM
Where to begin this trip report as it is the craziest trip I think we have taken. Not in credits, but in emotions. We headed out a little after noon on Friday to head down to Columbus to pick up some tickets for Holiday World (Thanks Pat) and to Cincinnati to head out for Haunt. We arrived []
http://po9.competitionbill.com/map-1.html
Posted by: Phillip | November 03, 2010 at 02:31 PM