Secret Guantanamo trials revealed

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Ever wonder what goes on in the review boards that decide whether a Guantanamo detainee should be released or not? Well, the BBC has finally found out, after one of its journalists was allowed to observe an unclassified portion of the review proceedings. The journalist, Adam Brookes, noted that there wasn’t a lawyer in sight and that the actual sources of the evidence against the detainee were never revealed. The questioning of the detainee was apparently quite short, including such productive exchanges as:

Question: “Who did you fire your rifle at?”
Detainee: “I never fired a rifle.”
Question: “Why were you firing?”
Detainee: “I never fired.”

The disturbing part is that this was the unclassified portion of the review. The BBC correspondent didn’t even get to see the really unsubstantiated evidence. Consider, if you will, the two forms of recourse currently available to detainees: These review boards—which decide if detainees should be released because they no longer pose a threat to the U.S.—or the military commission that tries those detainees whom the U.S. claims to have committed crimes. Both processes presume guilt often based on evidence that is never even shared with the detainees. This presumption of guilt stands in contrast to military claims (PDF) that the majority of the detainees possess no useful intelligence.

So how can the Pentagon release innocent prisoners while still saving face? According to Secretary of the Navy Gordon England, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s appointed civilian official for the Detainee Administrative Review Processes at Guantanamo,

It should be emphasized that a…determination that a detainee no longer meets the criteria for classification as an enemy combatant does not necessarily mean that the prior classification as enemy combatant was wrong.

Impeccable logic.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend