Comments on: What about Abu Zubaydah?

By: MarkH

MarkH — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:22:54 +0000

What are they trying to do here? Is this aimed at Obama?

Withdraw charges and rearraign?

I’d guess they’re going to find there is insufficient evidence to hold them and send the ones with damaging information home. That way Obama can’t use those individuals against Bush & Co. Still, that’s cutting it very close to do it the day before Obama takes office.

By: Palli

Palli — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:51:36 +0000

Some are there because we tortured them and we can not let the world seen what we have done.

By: JohnLopresti

JohnLopresti — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:51:05 +0000

Found an interesting 1999 travelogue about Uighur socioeconomic status.

By: macaquerman

macaquerman — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:43:36 +0000

I’m not real sure on getting people convicted of felonies, but Obama means to shut it down.

By: JThomason

JThomason — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:38:59 +0000

I think its fair to say that DOD torture tactics emanated from “administration appointees and zealots.” The CIA issues are of course more complex.

I look forward to an increased understanding and accountability. I am not convinced that is what we will get.

By: macaquerman

macaquerman — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:34:38 +0000

Good answer. I would point out that the opportunity for a thorough investigation probably wasn’t there for McClatchy and that the “government” agents investigating the detainees were far larger than administration appointees and zealots. With the administration leaving, you’re going to hear more information coming from official sources, even if in unofficial ways.

By: macaquerman

macaquerman — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:27:27 +0000

Bless you, o wise one.

By: JThomason

JThomason — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:20:25 +0000

Forensic exercise.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:19:29 +0000

Why you guys jerking around with the trolletariat?

By: JThomason

JThomason — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:16:13 +0000

Your talking about a government that went to war first because of the imminent threat of WMD including nukes and the effort to purchase “yellow cake” from Niger, then because Iraq was connected to 9/11, and then because regime change made sense, right? A government that has “lost” most of its internal communications, “lost” evidence of how it treated its prisoners. right? A government that declared that it would not wiretap citizens without a warrant, right?

Inquiry must start somewhere. McClatchy at least had the courage to assert what it considered facts after inquiry. They are there for all to test. Its not the standing as government that gives rise to bona fides. Its the light.