Ex-Bush official: Many at Gitmo are innocent: He claims they've been held in case they know something important

[one...two...tree 2,762]

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - A former Bush administration official says many Guantanamo detainees are innocent and have been held only because U.S. officials hoped they would know something important. Lawrence B. Wilkerson was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell. He says only two dozen or so of the roughly 800 men held at Guantanamo are terrorists. About 240 prisoners remain at the US military prison.

"There are still innocent people there," Wilkerson told The Associated Press on Thursday. "Some have been there six or seven years."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29778047/

Edited March 19, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[alienlovechild 75]

He says only two dozen or so of the roughly 800 men held at Guantanamo are terrorists. About 240 prisoners remain at the US military prison.

Why is it that many of their own countries don't want them back?

The whole thing is a farce. Never in the history of the warfare was so much time print and airtime spent on so few people and so little coverage of current two wars by comparison.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/....wilkerson.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/25/op.../oe-wilkerson25

He left the farm a long time ago!

Edited March 20, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[one...two...tree 2,762]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/....wilkerson.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/25/op.../oe-wilkerson25

He left the farm a long time ago!

Lawrence B. Wilkerson (15 June 1945 in Gaffney, South Carolina) is a retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell.

After three years of studying philosophy and English literature at Bucknell University, Wilkerson dropped out in 1966 and volunteered to serve in the Vietnam War. He told the Washington Post: "I felt an obligation because my dad had fought, and I thought that was kind of your duty."^[1]

Wilkerson arrived as an Army officer piloting an OH-6A Cayuse observation helicopter and logged about 1100 combat hours over a year. He went on to Airborne School and Ranger School before receiving his Bachelor of Arts degree in English literature and graduate degrees in international relations and national security. He attended the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island and later returned there to teach. He later served as deputy director of the Marine Corps War College at Quantico.

Wilkerson spent some years in the United States Navy's Pacific Command in South Korea, Japan and Hawaii, where he was well-regarded by his superiors. These recommendations led in early 1989 to a successful interview to become the assistant to Colin Powell, who was then finishing his stint as National Security Advisor in the Reagan administration and moving to a position in the United States Army Forces Command at Fort McPherson. He continued this supporting role as Powell became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff through the Gulf War, following Powell into civilian life and then back into public service when President George W. Bush appointed Powell Secretary of State.

Wilkerson was responsible for a review of information from the Central Intelligence Agency that was used to prepare Powell for his February 2003 presentation to the United Nations Security Council. His failure to realize that the evidence was faulty has been attributed on the limited time (only one week) that he had to review the data. The subsequent developments led Wilkerson to become disillusioned: "Combine the detainee abuse issue with the ineptitude of post-invasion planning for Iraq, wrap both in this blanket of secretive decision-making...and you get the overall reason for my speaking out."^[1]

...

Since his retirement Wilkerson has on several occasions spoken out against what he perceives as the poor planning and execution of the Iraq War as well as the global politics leading up to and following it. In particular he has denounced the decision-making process of the Bush Administration and Vice President ####### Cheney's and Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld's part in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wilkerson

...

In other words...to the Bushies, he's a traitor.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/....wilkerson.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/25/op.../oe-wilkerson25

He left the farm a long time ago!

Lawrence B. Wilkerson (15 June 1945 in Gaffney, South Carolina) is a retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell.

After three years of studying philosophy and English literature at Bucknell University, Wilkerson dropped out in 1966 and volunteered to serve in the Vietnam War. He told the Washington Post: "I felt an obligation because my dad had fought, and I thought that was kind of your duty."^[1]

Wilkerson arrived as an Army officer piloting an OH-6A Cayuse observation helicopter and logged about 1100 combat hours over a year. He went on to Airborne School and Ranger School before receiving his Bachelor of Arts degree in English literature and graduate degrees in international relations and national security. He attended the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island and later returned there to teach. He later served as deputy director of the Marine Corps War College at Quantico.

Wilkerson spent some years in the United States Navy's Pacific Command in South Korea, Japan and Hawaii, where he was well-regarded by his superiors. These recommendations led in early 1989 to a successful interview to become the assistant to Colin Powell, who was then finishing his stint as National Security Advisor in the Reagan administration and moving to a position in the United States Army Forces Command at Fort McPherson. He continued this supporting role as Powell became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff through the Gulf War, following Powell into civilian life and then back into public service when President George W. Bush appointed Powell Secretary of State.

Wilkerson was responsible for a review of information from the Central Intelligence Agency that was used to prepare Powell for his February 2003 presentation to the United Nations Security Council. His failure to realize that the evidence was faulty has been attributed on the limited time (only one week) that he had to review the data. The subsequent developments led Wilkerson to become disillusioned: "Combine the detainee abuse issue with the ineptitude of post-invasion planning for Iraq, wrap both in this blanket of secretive decision-making...and you get the overall reason for my speaking out."^[1]

...

Since his retirement Wilkerson has on several occasions spoken out against what he perceives as the poor planning and execution of the Iraq War as well as the global politics leading up to and following it. In particular he has denounced the decision-making process of the Bush Administration and Vice President ####### Cheney's and Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld's part in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wilkerson

...

In other words...to the Bushies, he's a traitor.

He never was an insider. He felt jilted because his loyalties were questioned, and so he ran off to write an expose all.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Ex-Powell Aide Moves From Insider to Apostate

by Steven R. Weisman

WASHINGTON - IT was in early 2004, the beginning of President Bush's re-election campaign, that Lawrence B. Wilkerson first printed out a letter saying he wanted to quit as chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

"In essence it said, 'Dear Mr. President, I find myself at variance with a majority of your foreign policies and even your domestic policies and therefore I respectfully submit my resignation,' " Mr. Wilkerson recalled recently. But the letter remained in a desk drawer for the rest of Mr. Bush's first term.

Nearly two years later, Mr. Wilkerson, a 60-year-old retired United States Army colonel, has finally completed his journey from insider to apostate. Alone among those who surrounded Mr. Powell in the first term, he is speaking out critically, assailing the president as amateurish, especially compared to the first President Bush, and describing the administration as secretive, inept and courting disaster at home and abroad. Nor has he spared his former boss, whom he says was overly preoccupied with "damage control" for policies set by others.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1224-03.htm

[one...two...tree 2,762]

He never was an insider. He felt jilted because his loyalties were questioned, and so he ran off to write an expose all.

That's pretty dismissive for a man with his credentials. Let's be honest here - the Bush Administration never liked anyone within their circle to second guess their decisions.

[Heracles 417]

So you cannot tap phone lines, you cannot detain people, you cannot profile. Therefore, please enlighten me on how you would like them to actually catch a terrorist.

Oh wait you cannot interrogate either. The rest of the world would also like to learn this liberal avenue. Diplomacy maybe?

Edited March 20, 2009 by Constellation

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So you cannot tap phone lines, you cannot detain people, you cannot profile. Therefore, please enlighten me on how you would like them to actually catch a terrorist.

Oh wait you cannot interrogate either. The rest of the world would also like to learn this liberal avenue. Diplomacy maybe?

Stay on topic please or go create your own thread, Wild Tangent.

[Heracles 417]

Stay on topic please or go create your own thread, Wild Tangent.

So you cannot answer.

Dude you are the epitome of a liberal. You only read stuff that reinforces your own beliefs and stereotypes. Therefore, like a stereotypical liberal you will only participate in a discussion directly related to your belief. Thus, when I asked you what interrogation method they should use, you replied with a stay on topic. Well it is in topic. Without detaining people how do you expect them to prevent anything from happening. You're obviously insinuating that they simply pluck people off the streets and lock them up. Maybe they should just hand out surveys on the battle field.

Maybe I am missing something. Oh wait this is a rights issue. Yep I forget how yank liberals love their rights issues. Sure the country is falling into bankruptcy but hey, lets ensure terrorist suspects rights are not being infringed.

Edited March 20, 2009 by Constellation

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

He never was an insider. He felt jilted because his loyalties were questioned, and so he ran off to write an expose all.

That's pretty dismissive for a man with his credentials. Let's be honest here - the Bush Administration never liked anyone within their circle to second guess their decisions.

What credentials? He was a ride-along for General Powell since 1989, and let his rank get confused with his authority when he tried to perpetrate a coup within the state department in the later half of Bush's first term. When Powell reminded him in no uncertain terms who was President, he ran off sulking to his office, and pens his resignation letter, and sticks it in his desk, so that he can look at it for the next two years. Nothing but sour grapes here. This is not the first time he has claimed specific knowledge of things he would normally not have any way of knowing.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

He never was an insider. He felt jilted because his loyalties were questioned, and so he ran off to write an expose all.

That's pretty dismissive for a man with his credentials. Let's be honest here - the Bush Administration never liked anyone within their circle to second guess their decisions.

What credentials? He was a ride-along for General Powell since 1989, and let his rank get confused with his authority when he tried to perpetrate a coup within the state department in the later half of Bush's first term. When Powell reminded him in no uncertain terms who was President, he ran off sulking to his office, and pens his resignation letter, and sticks it in his desk, so that he can look at it for the next two years. Nothing but sour grapes here. This is not the first time he has claimed specific knowledge of things he would normally not have any way of knowing.

Bill, how many times have we seen this same ol' song and dance? Someone with the Bush Administration openly questions or criticizes decisions made and they get dismissed as 'crazy' or 'bitter'. Are there any insiders from the Bush Administration who openly questioned or criticized decisions that you considered made legitimate concerns? That answer will be telling for sure.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

He never was an insider. He felt jilted because his loyalties were questioned, and so he ran off to write an expose all.

That's pretty dismissive for a man with his credentials. Let's be honest here - the Bush Administration never liked anyone within their circle to second guess their decisions.

What credentials? He was a ride-along for General Powell since 1989, and let his rank get confused with his authority when he tried to perpetrate a coup within the state department in the later half of Bush's first term. When Powell reminded him in no uncertain terms who was President, he ran off sulking to his office, and pens his resignation letter, and sticks it in his desk, so that he can look at it for the next two years. Nothing but sour grapes here. This is not the first time he has claimed specific knowledge of things he would normally not have any way of knowing.

Bill, how many times have we seen this same ol' song and dance? Someone with the Bush Administration openly questions or criticizes decisions made and they get dismissed as 'crazy' or 'bitter'. Are there any insiders from the Bush Administration who openly questioned or criticized decisions that you considered made legitimate concerns? That answer will be telling for sure.

So, when the first Obama insider comes running out to write a tell all book, you are not going to reflexively dismiss him as a malcontent, or a wacko?

Pfffft!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So, when the first Obama insider comes running out to write a tell all book, you are not going to reflexively dismiss him as a malcontent, or a wacko?

Pfffft!

Shouldn't it depend whether there's any substance to it? What part of Wilkinson's criticism lacks any credibility besides trying to simply discredit his opinion?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So, when the first Obama insider comes running out to write a tell all book, you are not going to reflexively dismiss him as a malcontent, or a wacko?

Pfffft!

Shouldn't it depend whether there's any substance to it? What part of Wilkinson's criticism lacks any credibility besides trying to simply discredit his opinion?

Besides the fact that his numbers don't add up, now, or in 2005 when he said almost the same thing, and was fully discredited back then? Nothing.