Posted on 04/09/2010 6:01:07 AM PDT by autumnraine
The Bush White House knew that hundreds of early Gitmo detainees were innocent, but refused to release them because the admission would weaken support for the war in Iraq, according to a new document obtained by the Times of London. The charge, by Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, was made in a declaration in support of a lawsuit for a Gitmo detainee. Wilkerson claims that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld knew that the majority of the initial 742 detainees had been picked up, not by the US military, but by Afghans and Pakistanis for a bounty, and there was no evidence against them. But they saw it as "politically impossible to release them."
If innocent detainees were released, he writes, “the detention efforts would be revealed as the incredibly confused operation that they were.” Of Cheney, he writes: “He had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantánamo detainees were innocent. If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.” Wilkerson also says he discussed the issue with Powell, who told him it was not just Cheney and Rumsfeld, "but also President Bush who was involved in all of the Guantánamo decision making.”
I was just thinking the same thing. War is messy business.
Colin Powell gave his support to a transparent enemy to the values of this great country, all because he happened to be black.
Former glory does not forgive present sin.
God Bless you, Mr. Powell for your service to this country while in uniform, but damn you to Hell for selling it out in the name of racialism and personal gain...
You sound like you are changing your story.
I would think if it wasn’t, that guy would be opening himself up to a lot of crap.
The specific charges?
Time to gin up the anti Bush meme again!
You sound like you are reading things into my original statement that weren't there.
Since this article was alleging that the Gitmo prisoners really didn’t belong, the parallel to the mistakenly convicted is obvious. Those in Gitmo didn’t even get the right to go before a court until several years afterwards.
What, exactly, is Wilkerson trying to prove? That he can suck up to leftists? He was a State Department worker. He knew little, if anything, of what was going on in the Vice President’s office or in the Secretary’s office. What is his statement based on, other than rumor and conjecture? What does he have to back up his story?
As for General Powell, I personally don’t think he has anything to do with Wilkerson’s gabfest, and couldn’t stop him if he wanted to.
But it didn't on 9-11. After 911 there was a period of years when the Geneva Convention status of these people was in limbo and outside of Geneva Comvention language (and intent, frankly)-
and you can still see that they well understand the Geneva Convention rules, by the way they operate, who and what and how they kill, the way they treat civilians and the way they treat our soldiers when they capture them
I can remember discussing Geneva Convention rules to a class of foreign military officers- the Ethiopian (Mengistu army man) stands out in my mind, He was completely bored and unimpressed. “If I catch my enemy I will kill him, if he catches me, he will kill me”
And no, you don't get Geneva Convention protection if you are captured in civilian clothes without any military ID on a “battlefield” (would that “battlefield” be a blown up marketplace, apartment complex, school, or police station occupied by civilians?) ... ask any American why the MUST as a minimum carry ID identifying themselves as a member of the US military, or what the risks are if they do not
Wilkerson is not to be trusted.
As I recall FDR jailed US Citizens in WWII just because they were Japanese.
War is war, rather you have an ID card or not.
I can see the argument goes on ... sigh.
And since I'm pointing out that that premise is mistaken -- i.e. it is a detention facility not a penal one -- my comparison of it to a county jail, rather than a state prison is apt.
I have no problem believing that some who were in the wrong place at the wrong time were detained at Gitmo. I have no problem believing that some who were in the wrong place at the wrong time died in missile strikes either.
I take issue with the claim that Gitmo was an unjust or immoral solution to a problem, or that we purposely sought to punish innocent people.
There were a whole lot of innocent people detained at refugee camps after the Vietnam War. Do you have a problem with that?
FDR’s internment of US civilian citizens as suspected or potential enemy collaborators is a different issue than the Geneva Convention
sigh
You cut out where I said there was no judicial escape valve.
What were the specific charges? Terrorism? I thought they were picked up on a ‘battlefield’ scenario and were not in ‘uniforms’....thus not entitled to ‘Geneva Convention’ niceties.
How do you identify a terrorist vs a guerrilla? If they are trying to kill those in the invading military force (US/us)and they appear to be a bunch of brigands....what do we do with them when we capture them?
I admit I don’t know the ins and outs...but why is this an issue? How do we know they are ‘innocent’ or ‘guilty’ and of what?
Were we limited to capturing only Al Quaeda?
And I would bet if Bush had done that, let’s say detained Muslims in prisons our west, after 9/11 it would be fine for the hair splitters, the lawyer stooges, right?
Sigh.... some things and people aren’t fixable.
I don’t know, I was just offering an answer.
Wouldn’t hurt my feelings if they drove them all into refugee camps and fed ‘em spam.
You will know him by the company he keeps. Historically, Powell surrouded himself with people like Wilkerson and Armitage. No one says it, but under Powell the State Department was a drag on the administration, as was Powell himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.