Casio Watches an Arresting Offense in Afghanistan: Wikileaks on Guantanamo

Wikileaks has released the Pentagon assessments of nearly 800 suspected al-Qaeda prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay to newspapers such as the Washington Post.

The documents show that some of the prisoners were likely dangerous men, while many others were probably arrested on flimsy evidence or even out of stupidity. Wearing a Casio watch could be a cause for arrest, apparently, because al-Qaeda types used them as timers.

12 Responses

  1. I’ve heard of “suicide watches”, but “Casio watches”? And these are what passes for “information” or “intelligence” sufficient to be presented as a sufficient justification for arrest? for holding? for transportation? and maybe for conviction (but of what?).

    Phooey. American justice, kerplunk.

  2. Important background: these DABs were written between 2002 and January 2009.

    George Bush left office in January 2009.

    At the end of January 2009, Barack Obama ordered a review of all of these DABs, and many of them were thrown out and the detainees released.

    This is a look at the past.

    • Joe, Obama signed an executive order just last month, ordering that dozens of detainees at Gitmo should remain imprisoned indefinitely without any charges. Rahm Emanual, Obamas’ former chief of staff is widely considered to be the one who blocked the effort to transfer detainees to America. What this leak has revealed, is that the reason these people aren’t being brought before a court, or even a military tribunal, is because there is no case against them. There is no point in even talking about evidence if you don’t even have a case…

      • That was not Rahm, that was the US Congress. They refused to fund the closing of Gitmo or trying the prisoner’s cases on US soil under civilian law. This happened because of the GOP filibuster and a few Democrats in conservative states.

        Get your facts straight.

        This is a look at the past.

      • So, in other words, there is not a single word in my comment you take exception to, but it’s so important that you find something negative to say about Barack Obama that you’ve decided to change the subject.

        BTW, Rahm Emmanuel? Really? Yes, I know: he was so determined that he went behind his boss’s back and engineered a near-unanimous vote in both houses of Congress, blocking Obama’s proposal, but only after Obama and Holder had stuck their necks out, expending political capital on an unpopular position, and argued for civilian trials for several months. Sure that makes sense.

    • As with so many other questions about the Bush administration, we’re left to wonder: incompetence? Corruption? Criminality? Ideology? Some combination?

  3. “This is a look at the past.”

    Of course it can never happen again…. so why look, eh?

  4. I like the idea of “get the facts straight.” How about a citation or attribution to help us poor readers know where these facts come from?

Comments are closed.