New York Times archive of documents on Guantanamo detainees
November 19th, 2008
The New York Times has an archive of documents (16,000 pages so far) about the 779 Guantanmo detainees, organized by detainee. The best thing is that it is searchable. Thus, one can search for “torture” and find all documents with that word in it.
Here is the Times description of the archive:
The Guantánamo Docket is an interactive database of Pentagon documents and New York Times research regarding 779 men who have been detained at Guantánamo as enemy combatants since January 2002. For the first time, these documents are organized by detainee name and are searchable.
The Pentagon has declined to release a list of the detainees currently at Guantánamo or a precise number of the remaining suspects. But by reviewing thousands of pages of government documents released in recent years, as well as court records and media reports from around the world, The Times was able to compile its own approximate list. In this database, the status determined by The Times is shown as Held, Transferred or Dead.
This database provides access to information on individual detainees from previously released Pentagon documents relating to the Combatant Status Review Tribunals and subsequent Administrative Review Boards. Additional data on individual detainees has been included to provide a fuller understanding of the past and present population of the detention center.
In March 2006, the Defense Department began to release documents from military proceedings in response to a lawsuit brought under the Freedom of Information Act by the Associated Press. These documents and other records relating to Guantánamo are posted on the Defense Department web site.
The Times will update the database with ongoing research. Watch for additional data, documents and features.
Entry Filed under: Guantanamo, Media
1 Comment Add your own
1. Rolf Krake | November 20th, 2008 at 10:17 am
This ought to be added to key articles:
Putting the “Psycho” in Psychoblogging
In his “about me” page, Soldz sets the tone, making reference to how the American public has “rallied around a mythic ‘war on terror’” which “is built on a simplistic duality of good versus evil.” In other words, the terrorists are not actually evil. Rather, it is just that we have projected all of our “undesirable characteristics” into the so-called “evil” other. Evidently, it is we who actually want to chop their heads off and murder their children just for the hell of it.
This arrogant moral equation is so amazingly simplistic that one hardly knows where to begin. First of all, it reflects the boilerplate leftist idea that evil does not actually exist. Rather, there is only “so-called evil”; there are only “undesirable characteristics” that we project into others. Apparently, people who project evil are evil, but evil behavior isn’t. So Americans are evil projectors, but the terrorists who slashed the throats of stewardesses and flew airplanes into the Twin towers were not evil. No, it’s just our projection.
If that is true, one wonders why Dr. Soldz focuses only on our so-called projection of evil into the terrorists, but not on their projection of evil into us. After all, they started it. I promise to stop thinking they’re evil if they promise to stop trying to kill me. (By the way, you’d think Soldz might take a bit more offense at the idea that the terrorists also want to kill him merely for believing in “Jewish psychoanalysis.” After all, they’re not going to give him a pass just because he appeases evil. In fact, they probably won’t even extend the professional courtesy of killing him last.)
Soldz rhetorically asks “Why does this trick [of projection] work? Why are people willing to put their critical faculties to sleep and line up behind their side in the ‘clash of civilizations?’ Ah, there’s the question! Simplistic answers won’t do.” But what could be more simplistic than believing evil only exists in the mind of the person who perceives it, or that there is really no clash of values between Western civilization and whose who openly wish to destroy it? Talk about somnolent critical faculties. Soldz does not have to project. His overwhelming denial of reality makes it redundant.
Amazingly, Dr. Soldz welcomes the launch of al Jazeera in America, stating that “I, for one, wish them well. I hope they will continue offending the powers-that-be by telling the truths that others suppress.” In other words, Dr. Soldz not only aligns himself with this invaluable propaganda tool of our terrorist enemies, but regards it as a courageous conveyer of suppressed truth. No, people aren’t offended by al Jazeera because — like virtually all of the Arab Muslim world — they are steeped in vile lies about America and Israel. Rather, they are offended because they do not want to hear the suppressed “truth” about Jewish conspiracies and genocidal Americans.
This man is beyond simplistic. He is beyond ignorant. He is even beyond stupid. I have no compunction whatsoever in saying that he is, at the very least, a moral imbecile.
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2006/11/putting-psycho-in-psychoblogging.html
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed