This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
On April 24, New York writers Charlie Savage, William Glaberson and Andrew Lehren headlined, "Classified Files Offer New Insights Into Detainees," saying:
Released files on about 750 detainees, including 172 still held, "lay(s) bare the patchwork and contradictory evidence that in many cases would never have stood up in criminal court or a military tribunal."
However, continuing their willful deception, the writers added:
"(M)ost of the 172 remaining prisoners have been rated as a 'high risk' of posing a threat to the United States and its allies if released without adequate rehabilitation and supervision, (besides) about a third of the 600 already transferred to other countries....also designated 'high risk' before they were freed or passed to the custody of other governments."
A same day editorial headlined, "The Guantanamo Papers," saying:
Despite documents revealing administration "chaos, lawlessness and incompetence....(t)here are seriously dangerous prisoners at Guantanamo who cannot be released," despite no corroborating evidence proving it.
Moreover, falsely claiming torture and abuse have stopped, it continued saying the "trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five other alleged Sept. 11 plotters should be pursued," even though no incriminating evidence proves culpability, except from perhaps torture-extracted confessions The Times apparently believes are credible, despite international law and two Supreme Court decisions calling them inadmissible in criminal proceedings (Fisher v. State, November 1926 and Brown v. Mississippi, February 1936).
The Center for Constitutional Rights' (CCR) Assessment/Critique
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
