Seton Hall report refers to several studies into the handling of detainees taken to Guantánamo Bay done by professor Mark P. Denbeaux of the Seton Hall University School of Law, and some of his law students.[1]
Denbeaux and his son, Joshua Denbeaux, are legal representatives for detainees Rafiq Bin Bashir Bin Jalud Al Hami and Mohammed Abdul Rahman.[2]
Contents |
The titles of these studies are:
Report on Guantanamo Detainees: A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data February 8, 2006 |
|
Second Report on the Guantanamo Detainees: Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy March 20, 2006 |
|
The Guantanamo Detainees During Detention Data from Department of Defense Records July 10, 2006 |
|
June 10th Suicides at Guantanamo August 21, 2006 |
|
No-Hearing Hearings November 17, 2006 |
|
The 14 Myths of Guantánamo: Senate Armed Services Committee Statement of Mark P. Denbeaux. Professor Mark P. Denbeaux testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee April 26, 2007 | |
The Empty Battlefield and the Thirteenth Criterion November 8, 2007 |
|
The Meaning of "Battlefield": An Analysis of the Government’s Representations of ‘Battlefield Capture’ and ‘Recidivism’ of the Guantánamo Detainees (12/10/07) Professor Denbeaux's Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on C-SPAN | |
Captured on Tape: Interrogation and Videotaping of Detainees in Guantánamo February 7, 2008[11] |
|
Justice Scalia, the Department of Defense, and The Perpetuation of an Urban Legend: The Truth about Recidivism of Released Guantánamo Detainees June 16, 2008[12] |
|
Profile of Released Guantánamo Detaines: The Government's Story Then and Now August 4, 2008 | |
Released Guantánamo Detainees and the Department of Defense: propaganda by the numbers? January 15, 2009 |
|
Torture: Who knew -- An Analysis of the FBI and Department of Defense Reactions to Harsh Interrogation Methods at Guantánamo |
The Denbeaux study was a study led by Professor Mark Denbeaux of Seton Hall University.[18] Denbeaux and his son Joshua Denbeaux, an attorney for two Guantánamo detainees, oversaw a statistical analysis of the unclassified information about the Guantánamo Bay detainees. Some of Denbeaux's students analyzed:
An article in the Village Voice reported:[19]
Already, however, we now know much more about how "dangerous" they really are because of a stunning, heavily documented investigation by the Seton Hall (New Jersey) School of Law. Titled "Report on Guantánamo Detainees," it profiles 517 of the prisoners at Gitmo entirely based on "analysis of Department of Defense data.
An editorial by the BBC's John Simpson summarized the study concluding that:[20]
The study itself reveals that those 92% who are not al-Qaeda fighters were deemed to be either other al-Qaeda members or Taliban or members of other affiliated hostile groups. Of these other affiliated groups, the study's authors express surprise in a second report that some of these groups are not listed in federal no-fly lists.[21] Contrary to Simpson's reading, the study does not indicate how many detainees were captured by bounty hunters. It merely refers to the detainees captured by non-U.S. forces "at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies."
The Denbeaux's primary sources did not include data on actual bounties. One example of a bounty was given in the references: that of Salim Hamdan, who was known to have worked directly for Osama Bin Laden. The reference comes from an article in the New York Times Magazine.[22]
The study says:[18]
In a handful of cases the detainee's possession of a Casio watch or the wearing olive-drab clothing is cited as evidence that the detainee is an enemy combatant. No basis is given to explain why such evidence makes the detainee an enemy combatant.
The authors are the legal representatives of Guantánamo Bay detainees Rafiq Bin Bashir Bin Jalud Al Hami and Mohammed Abdul Rahman[2]
Major Michael Shavers, a Pentagon spokesman, called the study "flawed because its authors didn't have access to classified evidence."[23]