First blush: the link you post is over 3 years OUT OF DATE!
The quotation is three years old. It is not three years out of date.
At one time, Gitmo had over 750 prisoners. The total now is 250. Most of the non-prosecutable inmates have actually been let loose, which you don't hear ONE mainstream liberal say. Over 400 of them.
770 detainees were brought to Gitmo; 500 were released, many of them under pressure. I mentioned that non-prosecutable detainees, by the way, had been released. I confess to being further left than most mainstream Liberals, so whether that confirms or disconfirms your point I can't say.
The terrorists captured in Iraq STAY in Iraq for trial. You don't hear that on national news either. These terrorists rounded up were also organizers, leaders, and funding people for terrorist organizations. So this website calls them non-violent, or whatever. Totally bogus.
The people arrested in Iraq stayed in Iraq for trial. Even that is something of a misdirection. The army as opposed to the administration had very different things to say about those people in Abu Gharib.
These should not be confused with the detainees in Gitmo, who were arrested in Afghanistan and in parts of Pakistan, as far as I understand it, where there as at least an outside chance that they might be distantly related to Al Qaeda folks and where, in fact, some percentage of them were. Even Liberals will go so far as to acknowledge 10% to 30% may have been related to Al Qaeda or the Taliban; both organizations having been getting US backing, as I understand it, when they were anti-Soviet only a few years before.
The original accusation against the inmates of Abu Gharib was that they were dangerous Al Qaeda operatives. At the time, there were essentially no Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq, and the population of Abu Gharib was being tortured to gain information about a non-existent organization and to get knowledge of weapons of mass destruction that had been destroyed years before.
Whatever the people in Abu Gharib were, outside the occasional Sadam Hussein era official that was being kept there, it is unlikely that there was any information at all. Even with these folks taken into account, the amount of useful and current intelligence gathered by the people who were convicted of the abuses there was not even remotely considered as a possible defense, not even right up through the General commanding the Prison. And the army investigation was harsh.
Some of the best busts of Al Q have come from Pakistani support, and they ARE in Gitmo. Awaiting deposition. If they were detained for information purposes and their folders state that, they were interrogated, cross referenced answers for congruity, then released. Only the 'non-violent' ones that may have still-pertinent info are still in custody, along with the blatant terrorists whose murderous cases still need justice.
If these were "busts" there would be a semblance of legality involved. There would be formal charges that a prisoner might contest. The prisoner would be able to call witnesses, would have access to counsel of his or her choice, would have the right to defend himself and would be safe from torture. They would also have the right not to be held incommunicado and in isolation for periods of time up to years in length. They would have the right of Habeas Corpus.
Torture would not be a factor in any interrogation.
These were not "busts."
The cases of most of the people who were detained have been dealt with in such a way that they are unavailable to review behind the screen of "national Security." If such a thing as a non-political court could be found, I'd be willing to have these cases reviewed there to see how necessary this sudden grip of National Security has been, and to what extent it is something that is a basic damage to the country and has been inappropriately applied. I feel it's possible that it's been inappropriately applied here, and needs objective review. I'm willing to say that it's possible I'm wrong, and to place the review into hands that all hands would find reasonably a-political. This degree of secrecy is inappropriate for a democracy.
How "murderous" these cases are, or how benign, if we are looking at them judiciously — in either sense — is certainly not something that can be pre-determined. Nor should it be pre-determined by a monopoly of the presentation by one side of Judicial process, the prosecution, which has already succeeded in skewing the legal rules out of recognition in its favor.
This is one of the things we fought a revolution to protect ourselves against, and we made a point of writing due process and no cruel and unusual punishment into the constitution.
I've heard at least three talking heads recently, all Liberals, use these same out of date numbers to justify closing Gitmo.
Old is not the same as out of date.
The fact that these people were arrested or kidnapped up to six years ago doesn't mean that their imprisonment is ended. For some, it continues. That is not out of date. The "release" of some of these prisoners has been to what places? Often it has been to jails, which begs the question of their guilt or innocence, doesn't it? The nature of the countries which own these jails has been what? Syria, for some of them? Egypt for some of them?
We may have gotten them away from the scrutiny of the American Public, but exactly where have we put them, Jeff? I sure don't know. These are people who have never had any guilt proven.
This is kind of like using the early war casualties in Iraq to today say we lost. It just ain't so.
Won or lost about events in Iraq makes so little sense to me that the whole concept seems slightly off base. If there was a war, we won it in six weeks. We've been wearing out our troops, our economy and our welcome ever since. Our troops have done all that we could have asked them and much much more, and I think that what I see of the way they've been treated with stop loss orders and worn out equipment and "You fight the war with the equipment you have," is far less than they deserve.
We did lose a lot, however, including the faith of the world in American leadership, and this needs to be rebuilt.
I believe we lost a lot in terms of civil liberties as well, and that the Legislative branch lost a lot to the Executive branch, and that the balance of powers has gotten out of wack. I would like, for example, the business of signing statements to end, and I'd like to see legislation on the matter and judicial review of it.
We may not have lost the war, but we haven't emerged yet, entirely, and we won't emerge unscathed.
Sincerely, Bob Kaven
This link is more recent, should you wish a more recent link, and it deals with the issue of recidivism. I would have thought differently, myself, given the radicalizing nature of the experience.