The Army's Military Academy at West Point has a Combating Terrorism Center (CTC), which released a study last week analyzing the make-up of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. This report is not without some controversy, not the least of which is a Seaton Hall University report that claims the opposite of what the CTC report states. The CTC report includes a rebuttal to that study. From the NY Times:
With about 360 detainees still held at Guantánamo, the struggle to shape perceptions has become a central focus for the Bush administration and for advocates of the detainees. In the courts and Congress as well as in internal administration debates, some officials have argued that the detainees are far more dangerous than they are portrayed in the news media and in arguments by their advocates.
The report is an analysis of previously released military summaries of the unclassified evidence used in 516 of the military’s hearings that determine whether detainees are properly held as enemy combatants. It was written at the request of the Pentagon by the Combating Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy at West Point, a teaching and research center that describes itself as “actively involved in supporting the global war on terror.”
The report says it is an analysis of the same data as a February 2006 report that has become a major irritation to military officials because it has become the foundation for assertions that harmless men are imprisoned at Guantánamo under extreme conditions. The 2006 report was by Seton Hall University School of Law and two lawyers who represent detainees, Mark P. Denbeaux, a law professor there, and his son and law partner, Joshua W. Denbeaux.
The Seton Hall report concluded that only 8 percent of the detainees had been characterized by the military as Qaeda fighters and that 55 percent had not been determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States.
If you flip through the study, it is a remarkable collection of data with some analysis. Now mind you, it relies on publicly available, unclassified (and not verified) data. The report breaks the detainees into different levels of potential threat, noting 56 percent as definitely "supporting or waging hostile activities against the US/Coalition allies." Another 17 percent were counted as hostile for receiving combat training or being identified as an al Qaeda/Taliban fighter. About 12 percent of the remainder are believed to be, at the least, supporters or affiliated with terrorist/insurgent groups, and a small remaining number don't seem to have any evidence of involvement or violent tendencies.
You need to take some time looking through the data, and I confess that I don't remember enough statistics to determine the relevancy of all this information. The report is interesting for a number of reasons, one of which struck me as amusing - the report's authors separated the fact of detainees being captured with or being trained on the AK-47 rifle as opposed to those captured with or trained on combat arms such as RPG anti-tank weapons, explosives, and sniper weapons.
"In the Afghanistan-Pakistan region ... familiarization with and possession of AK-47's and other small arms is a part of daily life for many and not a sufficient indicator of threat. For this reason, the CTC felt it was prudent to identify and separate those ... as a Level II versus Level I threat."
Sounds like nirvana for the National Rifle Association, a place where carrying an automatic rifle using a 7.62mm round is considered "part of daily life" and "small arms" usage. But I digress. If you look at the detainee background data on page 11, it's interesting that 24 percent are Afghani, 22 percent are Saudi, and 20 percent are Yemeni. Yes, about two thirds of the detainees in Gitmo hail from countries claiming to be friends with the United States (not to mention being the beneficiary of hundreds of millions in US military aid). There are more Kuwaitis and more Pakistanis than there are Iraqis and Iranians combined! I was told (on background) that while there once were Iraqi detainees at Gitmo, currently there are none. I suppose they are detained in Iraqi prisons, although this point was not answered.
These do look, on the surface, to be dangerous people. At the least, there are more than half who are alleged to have been caught in the act of hostilities. At most, 95 percent of the detainees are either directly or indirectly engaged against U.S. troops, if the unclassified evidence is accurate - and of course, that's the sticky point. I made the observation that, even given this information, it doesn't justify being held for years without charges or the special military tribunal process developed by the White House. The response I received was a little less enlightening. The DOD seems to view the detainees as enemy combatants, and as threats to the United States, liable to being held without judicial process for the duration of the conflict. There's a strong legal question here, however, as to the process by which these detainees were named "enemy combatants."
Whichever side you're on, this is an interesting report that ought to be read, if nothing else to understand the background of the detainee population at Gitmo. I do believe, however, that the military will need to develop better detainee guidelines - the sooner the better - to address legal issues involving terrorists and insurgents. Without an end state to the "global war on terror," it just doesn't make sense to hold these individuals forever, potentially without any rights (and I mean international as well as legal rights). Even Israel processes the Palestinian fighters with some legal process. It's not in our best interests to keep Gitmo open and filled, and it certainly doesn't put the United States in a favorable light.
I'm surprised you haven't gotten comments on this yet J. With the post you had a while back about the whole Geneva conventions thing applying to this situation and the disagreements we had there, I thought it would have had more comments by now, it is only a day old though. I haven't looked at the links you've put in here, but I did just finish a recent GQ article about two JAGs guys from different services the legal struggle they are having deciding between obeying the military chain of command and possibly being disbarred or suing their chain of command and ruining their military careers because of the guys they are supposed to defend but don't want to be. Now, I'll grant you this, the way the White House is handling this is just atrocious, when military lawyers say it's no better than a kangaroo court that a third world country would throw together, that's bad, that's a quote from the article. You're right something needs to be done about this. Maybe a catch and release program with a CIA monitor or something (manpower?). I'm willing to concede that I don't know the black side of this and that the White House is looking out for our & it's own best interests holding these guys, but the credibility with how they are managing this and managing everything else is just not convincing anyone, they need to be a lot more overt about this. As for the Geneva conventions thing, I don't think they deserve the distinction at all. Which is a lot of the reason behind the legal problems, being that the SC decided the GC did apply, so then the WH just renegged on the charges, didn't recharge, and now they are just sitting there. It's like yelling DO OVER and then running inside your house and not playing anymore.
Posted by: NVH | 30 July 2007 at 09:18 PM
NVH,
I like your catch an release with monitoring idea (Follow THEM home!), I suggest something similar along the line of the old parole method. Release, be a good boy, never raise arms against us again, etc, etc (maybe be sneeky and plant a subdermal rfid chip with gps, just sayin', easier than tailing him). We catch your ass fucking up? Summary execution. AND they might just lead us to some of the dickheads we have been looking for for the last 5 years.
Posted by: Grandjester | 31 July 2007 at 11:31 AM