When you say I attributed my opinion to incompetence, I really thought you meant that I had excused my opinion by saying I was incompetent. I didn't know where you got that one. Now I know what you were saying.
Answering you, finally.
You assertively stated that some Gitmo prisoners had NO case files. . Maybe it was a case of trying to summarize a story with a mistaken flat assertion, but the clear implication is that the government has no written record of who they are, where they came from or what they did to deserve this incarceration. You then attributed this false conclusion to incompetence (I’m surprised there was no sinister conspiratorial reasoning as well). The article from which you presumably gleaned your “facts” said nothing of the sort. It did paint a picture (in a clearly biased fashion) of incomplete files, misplaced files and files that were presumably in the custody of someone other than the Gitmo management. This is potentially the result of 1) the government believing prisoners would never be tried, 2) the information was of such a sensitive nature that your average Gitmo guard shouldn’t be in possession of the files, 3) there was an intentional disbursement of the file contents to slow down the openly stated plans of the incoming administration, 4) general screw ups and lack of diligence or attention due to a variety of reasons (see point 1). There was nothing in the article to support your assertion so it’s always good to provide the original source as you diligently did.
in the Post article to mean "no case files." I have not seen that anywhere and that really makes no sense.
Case files had to have been generated by the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. So at least some process was afforded these poor guys to permit the conclusion that they were enemy combatants.
Further, it is not realistic to presume that Bush officials did not bother keeping records bc they believed these guys would never be tried. They have known since 2004 at least that statutory habeas corpus extended to Gitmo and since June of last year that constitutional habeas corpus remained, notwithstanding legislation the dispensed with the statutory procedure.
I think reason 4 is the practical culprit. But the real shame of this whole sordid story lies on the shoulders of the lawyers who manufctured legal memos that the Constitution does not apply outside of US Borders, thus opening the door for the Bush administration to detain the innocent with the guilty indefinitely.
And although they had known since 2004 that statutory habeas corpus extended to Gitmo, IMO, they still felt free to disobey the ruling, and not having files certainly served that interest. A bit like shredding, but more efficient.
Or who was responsible for them missing, such as a spokesmen from the CIA saying that the Defense Department must be responsible.
It's pretty biased of you when you say I attributed my opinion to incompetence. I did no such thing. I gave my opinion, I attributed the source.
The reasons might be anything that you give, but 1 screams laziness, 2 screams idiocy, 3 screams obstructionism and mumbles criminality, 4 screams idiocy AND laziness. In no possibility you give does the Bush administration seem either proud or competent. Why not shorten the post and cut to the chase here?
You also site the bias of the source. The source did report that the whole thing might be the Obama administration trying to backpedal and delay its promise of closing Gitmo. Indeed, that might be a possibility. I have two problems with that argument: 1) maybe I'm piling on, but the Bush administration has demonstrated incompetence and stupidity many times, the Obama administration hasn't-- yet; 2) Obama really doesn't have to backpedal on this one. They haven't been receiving criticism. Everybody knows its going to be difficult, presumably they are aware of this.
More about point 1: due to its reputation, I don't think I owe the Bush administration any slack on this. Usually, the most cynical and pessimistic answers one can find for their decisions have turned out to be the true ones.
When you say I attributed my opinion to incompetence, I really thought you meant that I had excused my opinion by saying I was incompetent. I didn't know where you got that one. Now I know what you were saying.
the whole thing is one big conjecture.
My first and only point was to call you on turning a big unknown into a big FLAT ASSERTION.