The DIA suggests substantial numbers of released Guantanamo POWs have returned to the fight. This assertion is not well supported.

Smokescreen

Notice the shell game in the DIA arguments. One key to this puzzle is to notice what they're distracting attention from: The original supposed actions of the former POW.

The DIA is focusing attention on the vague post-release actions. They're asking us to focus less on supposed evidence they have related to the original capture; and focus on the vague information about what they're supposedly now doing.


Convoluted DIA Information Quality

Information quality should increase with time. We should have more precise information about things under our control than things outside of our control

If the DIA claims were real, this should be happening:

Comparing Information Quality Before Capture (1) vs After Release (2)

The DIA statements are not consistent with reasonable expectations about information quality.

1. Pre-capature: The information quality related to their pre-capture activity should be higher, with greater specificity, and precision realted to (a) supposed historical actions, documented in the files, than (b) what we now have about their supposed activities after release.

2. Post-Release: There should be less specific information about what they're now doing, relative to the information gathered before and during their original detention.

DIA is implicitly arguing the opposite, which defies reason. If, as DIA argues, there is more specific information now -- after release -- then it cannot claim the original basis to detain was proper; nor that there existed information that would warrant their continued detention. Where there is inadequate information, the court ordered release.

Rather, the opposite is most likely: That the US has no information in many cases to detain some people; and those who were released had even less information (if that is possible). The US's problem is explaining why, despite the dearth of information before they were released, the US is claiming they have "returned" to something previously not known, nor within their files.

The US position is convoluted and defies reason. The US must explain why it had no information warranting their detention; but, after release, they've obtained information showing why the former prisoners should have been detained, and that they prisoners have "returned" to something previously not known nor within their files warranting continued detention.

DIA claims, key word "returning":

18 former detainees are confirmed as "returning to the fight"

If true, this would mean:

1. There was information supporting the contention they were involved with terrorism before original capture before release;

2. The same people detained were linked with the original acts, before capture; and

3. Despite the above two (1, 2), the US released the people, despite the (illegal) option to fabricate evidence.

This defies reason.

This is a sign that the "rest of the story" depends on how the public asks questions:

Morrell declined to provide details.

This strongly supports the conclusion that, as questions are raised, the lines of evidence related to the subsequent information-lines will not reconcile with the original assertions, other reports, nor with subsequent responses. This is consistent with DOJ-WH deceptions related to FISA violations during wartime, rendition abuses, and the Geneva compliance

The issue is less of what the "former prisoners" are supposedly doing now; but how their original supposed actions were or were not factored into the assessments prior to release. However, we know from the Guantanamo trials that both government and defense legal counsel are concerned with the secrecy, unreliable information, invalid prosecutions; and not being able to get access to all information used to continue holding prisoners or prosecute them.

The DIA report would have us believe an absurd opposite conclusion: That the US, in secret, is unable to fabricate evidence to justify holding prisoners. This sounds more like the convoluted Addington-logic to justify secrecy about illegal activity re FISA violations, "too scary" for Tamm's Senate contact to discuss.

Something isn't adding up because someone knows who isn't admitting it; and someone appears to be benefiting by this hysteria: It's a distraction, and reduces the chances of oversight over what Members of Congress knew, and when they knew it.

If someone is "returning" to the fight, why -- despite the supposed evidence that they were "in the fight" to begin with -- were they released?

We judge the following:

1. The DIA report is speculative

2. The original basis for detention was dubious

3. If, as DIA "knows" this inforation is "true," then DoD-CIA-DHS-DOJ-WH should be able to explain why was not able to target those it supposedly says have returned to combat.

4. Unlikely: The US has disclosed information about a target, but not used that information in secret to neutralize that threat, nor later publish the favorable neutralization.

The other question is, "How are they defining terrorism":

This is acts of terrorism. It could be Iraq, Afghanistan, it could be acts of terrorism around the world

Is an "act of terrorism" something that requires real action, or could it be someone sitting down with someone indirectly linked with anti-government activity?

the Defense Department in the past has described former detainees as rejoining "the fight" because they spoke out against the U.S. government