Apparently, at the request of the Iraqi government, we let hundreds of prisoners go:
Nearly 1,000 detainees at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison were released this week at the request of the Iraqi government, Multi-National Forces said Saturday.
“This major release, the largest to date, marks a significant event in Iraq’s progress toward democratic governance and the rule of law, demonstrating the involvement of Iraq’s government in the effort to provide both security and justice for all Iraqis,” the forces said in a written statement.
The detainees were released from Wednesday through Saturday, with the assistance of the Iraqi government, the statement said. They represent all Iraqi communities and had been brought to Abu Ghraib from detention facilities throughout Iraq.
Those chosen for release were not convicted of violent crimes, the statement said, “and all have admitted their crimes, renounced violence and pledged to be good citizens of a democratic Iraq.”
I am sure there is much more to this than what is reported here, but I am curious- why were we holding them one day if it is just ‘ok’ to let them go the next day?
srv
I don’t think we run Abu Ghraib anymore. We turned it over.
Visualize the Dukakis revolving door commercial. MoveOn should make one with TERRORISTS in it, as George and Dick look on.
Tinkerbell, indeed.
Mr.Ortiz
Supposedly something like 25% of detainees in Iraq are completely innocent. But if we’re only releasing the ones who have admitted their crimes, well, I’m as lost as you. Maybe the offer went something like this: “We have nothing on you, but in order to save face, please sign this confession/abdication of violence before we release you. If you don’t sign, you don’t go home.”
mac Buckets
Well, except that those released were non-violent criminals — looters and the like, presumably. Not that the truth need corroborate political ads.
Greenwood
We usually can’t tell the the good guys from the bad guys. We don’t speak their language and we know little about their culture. It is much like our experience in another distant country that we aren’t supposed to compare to – one that starts with V, but not the one that that interests Pat Robertson.
We think we can rule the world speaking just English, communicating only with exile leaders who speak fluent English, like Chalabi and Allawi. Unfortunately our guys don’t pick up foreign languages as quickly as the fictional characters on Mission Impossible or Alias.
DougJ
Starting a new country with a new constitution is about compromise. And that’s what this is a compromise. Yes, it would be better to have detained some of them longer to keep the dangerous ones off the steets and to get more information from the ones who were not criminals. But those are the kinds of compromises that need to be made to get the Sunnis back to the negotiating table. When you look at the big picture, letting a few dangerous elements out isn’t such a big deal.
KC
Maybe DougJ is right. I’m leaning that direction myself. It’s obviously tough to know for sure though. Also, if anyone’s interested, there’s a great article in Harper’s on strict constructionism, actually judicial fundamentalism. I think it puts to rest (along with Narrowing the Nation’s Power, written by a conservative 9th circuit judge, John Noonan) any notion that the real debate over the judiciary is over judicial restraint, but is really about conservative activism on the courts. I urge anybody interested to read it.
mac Buckets
Odd day in Iraq news…
Apparently, discussions about letting these prisoners go have been ongoing for awhile between Sunnis and President Talibani. It’s no doubt just a “good-faith buyoff” to get Sunni agreement on the Constitution procedings.
Reuters also reports hot Sunni-on-Sunni action:
“In one example of Iraq’s complex violence, hospital officials said 20 members of two rival tribes were killed near the western town of Qaim. Both tribes are Sunni but one supports the militant group al Qaeda in Iraq, clerics in the town said.”
These Sunnis still remind me of Life of Brian:
Joeseph Ramone
BREAKING….MILITARY RECRUITERS SHOW UP AT CAMP QUALLS….DOZENS FLEE!!
ppGaz
Bwaaaaaaaaaaahahaha! Is that right, Dougie?
You sound like you are watching a tv show about building a new carport.
Tell us more about nation-building, Doug. Here, let me help you:
DougJ
9/11 changed everything. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand anything.
ppGaz
Really? How’s that, Doug? 9-11 meant that we are now going to try to nation-build our way to a world of perfect safety?
How’s that going to work, Doug? Can you map it out for me? Timetable? Goals? Measurables? Costs? Benefits?
Most Americans don’t think this war has made them safer from terrorism, Doug? Are the people too stupid to figure this all out?
Maybe you should explain it better for them?
jobiuspublius
9/11 did change everything. It was the switch part of bait and switch.
Davebo
9/11 did indeed change everything.
Today people eat their corn on the cob in a vertical versus horizontal position, causing many buttery noses.
Boronx
9/11 changed everything.
If you don’t see through that, you don’t see through anything.
Aakash
Regarding Mr. Cole’s question in this entry… I actually had thoughts along this line, after those prisoners were released, in the wake of the prison contoversy. This doesn’t seem to make that much sense.
And, reading the comments above, I am sick of seeing people who say…
(Well, considering the time, this is another issue, that will have to wait for later.) Goodnight.
baronelmo
Since it has been well established that the Bush White House and the neocons in general were desperate to invade Iraq long before the WTC attack, it’s hard to see how 9/11 “changed” anything in regard to their attitude towards nation building. Made lots of Americans very eager to kick some Muslim ass, though – and Bush and company were overjoyed to oblige. The fact that Iraq wasn’t actually involved in the attack? A mere technicality. Those damn Ay-rabs all hate America anyhow…
mac Buckets
Iraq wasn’t ever an exercise in nation-building, so this whole argument is kind of stupid. “Nation-building” is strictly for humanitarian reasons, and Iraq was never presented as that — there were UN Resolutions, a ceasefire, and a terrorist-supporting government also at play.
p.lukasiak
John, I think the answer to your question is fairly simple.
There is no functioning “justice” system in Iraq at the moment, and thus no way to process people accused of a crime through a justice system. So you have lots of people being “detained” on suspicion of criminal acts who find themselves in a legal “limbo” — not only is there no effective means of contesting the charges against them, there is no functioning system that can determine guilt and mete out appropriate punishment.
The “solution” — let the ones “detained” on suspicion of non-violent crimes go free — is the only practical one.
james richardson
it doesn’t make much sense. either a) they couldn’t keep the manpower utilized in the prison (then why not use iraqis?) or b) they researched these people and found them to be innocent (beat that with a stick oreilly). any more? it can’t be for a “good” reason because they dumped it in the friday news dump.
mac Buckets
Is that a joke, or just woefully uninformed opinion?
Tim F
Looks like we hade more or less the same reaction.
Tim F
Speaking of woefully uninformed.
kl
It’s Paul “Kinko’s” Lukasiak, so the two are not mutually exclusive.
kl
I’m with Tim F. Iraq never supported a single terrorist, and I will ignore all evidence to the contrary. Don’t even try, wingnuts.
mac Buckets
LOL! That IS much easier that actually reading, innit?
Tim F
Show me an anti-American terrorist who was supported by Iraq. Saddam gave grudging support to groups that threatened Israel, to the same degree as every single other leader in the Arab world, but the last time I checked Israel is not America.
So either you intend ‘terrorist-supporting’ to mean that Saddam was in fact an arab leader in the middle east, or else you intend something more in which case you are a mealy-mouthed bullshit artist. Your choice.
Tim F
My magic rightwing eight-ball just came up ‘Zarqawi.’ Don’t bother.
kl
Don’t even try it! [puts fingers in ears] LA LA LA LA LA LA
Dude, I’m on your side! Don’t let these wingnuts tear us apart.
Tim F
I’ll take that as choice ‘b.’ Thanks for playing.
kl
I know you don’t mean that. Don’t let these chickenhawks get to you, man. IMPEACH BUSH!!!
p.lukasiak
Is that a joke, or just woefully uninformed opinion?
neither. do some research.
kl
Like Mary Mapes did.
sigi
BREAKING….MILITARY RECRUITERS SHOW UP AT CAMP QUALLS….DOZENS FLEE!!