Another indicator that the evidence against some of the suspected "enemy combatants," which fit the definition of "prisoners of war" in the Geneva Accords, and "suspected terrorists" is flimsy was revealed in an
AP report today.
Wearing a Casio is cited among the unclassified evidence against at least eight of the detainees whose transcripts were released by the Pentagon after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by The Associated Press.
While it is true that Casio wristwatches have been used to set off a couple of explosives, so have and can other timing devices. According to former FBI agent David Williams, who worked on the 1993 WTC attack:
"You give me a half-hour in a supermarket and I can blow up your garage."
More on the flip
It's part of the U.S. government's inept profiling scheme, which includes the wearing of olive-drab clothing, which can just as easily wrap up the innocent as it can detect possible terrorists ... maybe even more likely considering that many more detainees have had to be released than have been successfully prosecuted.
"This watch is not from al-Qaida, it's not used for a bomb," protested Abdul Matin, a prisoner from Afghanistan. "This is just a regular watch. All older, younger men and women use this watch everywhere."
We are beginning to see why the Bush Administration fought so hard to prevent independent investigation into its detainment system. Not only are there abuses, in violation of the Geneva Accords, but exposure of the paucity of documentation regarding terrorist ties.
Consider this when evaluating the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping:
- If the criteria for establishing possible targets for surveillance is roughly the same as it has been for detainment of "enemy combatants" or suspected terrorists, how many people who have absolutely no reason to be wiretapped are being subjected to it?
- How many prisoners are now being held under U.S. authority, at Gitmo and elsewhere throughout the world, were rounded up by the illegally spying program and have not been prosecuted because the evidence would be thrown out of court as inadmissable?
These are the people to whom the American public should entrust unlimited authority?