The Worst of the Worst?

They told us to overlook the abuses because Guantánamo housed “the worst of the worst.” But new statistics prove that the vast majority of prisoners detained there never posed any real risk to America at all.

Controversy over the Bush administration’s policy to detain enemy combatants at Guantánamo has raged since the facility opened in 2002—fueled primarily by the lack of legal protections afforded the detainees and allegations of their mistreatment. Often overlooked, however, is the fact that most of these detainees have never posed any real risk to America, for the simple reason that the vast majority of them were never “enemy combatants” in the ... Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala
Tags Help
Subjects: World, U.S.
Member Tags: Guantanamo
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Kaizar Campwala - Oct 21, 2008 - 10:34 AM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Derek Hawkins - Oct 21, 2008 - 11:59 AM PDT

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Derek Hawkins
3.8
by Derek Hawkins - Oct. 21, 2008

Very well argued and well supported piece calling on the next president to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Information about released detainee recidivism is vindicating for Guantanamo opponents, particularly when compared to that of normal domestic criminals. News to me was the transitional programs in Saudi Arabia -- I'd like to know more about how this process works, but it wasn't fleshed out in this story.

The numbers here are inescapable. I find it impossible to believe that by rounding up suspected terrorists and holding them indefinitely, without charges, and without recourse to petition their cases in court, the Pentagon has made our country safer and less pervious to attack.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Mark Monday
4.0
by Mark Monday - Oct. 21, 2008

This is a well-argued but concise piece. Journalistically you don't find the two elements together often.

See Full Review » (6 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.9

not enough reviews
from 2 reviews (20% confidence)
Quality
3.9
Information
4.0
Insight
4.0
Style
4.5
Context
4.0
Enterprise
3.0
Expertise
3.0
Originality
3.0
Relevance
4.0
Popularity
3.6
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
3.5
# Reviews
1.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!