Wearing a Casio watch used as evidence at Gitmo for being a terrorist

[CJCRANE]

I was about to buy a cheap digital watch when I decided to look up it up on Wikipedia out of curiosity and found something quite alarming...

"This model of watch {Casio F91W} is notable because United States intelligence officials have identified it as a watch that terrorists use when constructing time bombs.<1> Ahmed Ressam, the "millennial bomber", bought two Casio F91Ws.<2>

...

"Although none of the captives who remained in detention when the Combatant Status Review Tribunals began in August 2004 were being held solely for possession of this watch, this is used as the main allegation against them...It is said that having this watch was being used as "proof" of the captives' status as enemy combatants. Those that say otherwise point to the fact that eighteen captives known to have faced the allegation of owning this watch all faced other allegations as well. However, this 'evidence' still remains the main allegation against them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casio_F-91W#Claimed_use_in_terrorism

Amazon info:

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #17 in Watches (See Bestsellers in Watches)
Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

#1 in Electronics > Accessories & Supplies > Electronic Watches > by Feature > Alarm
#1 in Electronics > Accessories & Supplies > Electronic Watches > by Feature > Water Resistant

[Bolo Boffin]

1. There appears to be no supporting evidence for the assertion that this is the "main allegation"

against these people.

Would you care to support the statement you've quoted?

Let's say someone was murdered with a Ginsu knife left at the scene. The police charge a man, who among other incriminating evidence, is found to have a set of Ginsu knives with one missing. Lots of people have Ginsu knives, and I'll bet plenty have one or more that's missing. By itself, that's not enough evidence to convict. But it doesn't rule the suspect out, either, and it's necessary for the suspect to have access to a Ginsu knife for him to be guilty. All this does is show that the suspect had access to a Ginsu knife set. It's evidence that must work with other evidence to convict.

So for these watches, they are used in improvised explosive devices. It is your quote's contention that this is the "main allegation" against them. Somehow I doubt that but who knows? Can you provide evidence that this is actually so?

[Ghost in the Machine]

2. Was it too hard to click the link provided and read for yourself?

"Although none of the captives who remained in detention when the Combatant Status Review Tribunals began in August 2004 were being held solely for possession of this watch, this is used as the main allegation against them, as this link was highlighted in the Denbeaux study compiled by lawyers for two detainees. It is said that having this watch was being used as "proof" of the captives' status as enemy combatants. Those that say otherwise point to the fact that eighteen captives known to have faced the allegation of owning this watch all faced other allegations as well. However, this 'evidence' still remains the main allegation against them."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casio_F-91W#Claimed_use_in_terrorism


Denbeaux Study:

"The study says:

"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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Profile_of_517_Detainees_through_Analysis_of_Department_of_Defense_Data

:hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Let's see if we can have a civil conversation.

I did click to the link. I downloaded the Denbeaux study and still have it open to that very page. While it does say that the possession of a Casio watch is cited as evidence, it does NOT say that the watch is the "main allegation" against the detainees.

The Denbeaux study is not proof of the assertion. If you feel you can find the evidence that supports the "main allegation" assertion, feel free to do so. You have not yet thus far.

[Ghost in the Machine]

4. From what I'm reading, even Mark Denbeaux is trying to figure it out...

His assertion is that many of the detainees were captured by people, who were only after the $5000 rewards for 'enemy combatants', and the only 'evidence' given, which the US military accepted, was that the person was wearing Olive Drab clothing *or* one of the Casio watches.


This would be akin to me snatching you off the street and turning you in for a reward by saying "well, he's got brown hair (or a certain kind of shoe, watch, whatever), so he's an enemy combatant"... and they actually accepted my reasoning and paid me the reward and took you into custody.

"The Denbeaux study is not proof of the assertion."

Well, since it was Mark Denbeaux who made the assertion in the study, how would we go about finding the proof? Do you know where we can look up the evidence against the detainees? Mark Denbeaux's son is a lawyer representing some of the detainees, so maybe he was privvy to some information that we're not?

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Denbeaux did not make the assertion.

He said that a handful had this listed as evidence, not that it was the sole or the main evidence against them.

I remind you that I have the Denbeaux study open on my desktop.

ETA: For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Abd_Allah_Mansur_Al_Futuri#Summary_of_Evidence_memo

This detainee has many items on his summary of evidence memo. The watch is only one of several items. This is what Denbeaux is talking about.

[Ghost in the Machine]

6. Look on page 17

http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

Just as strong evidence proves much, weak evidence suggests more. Examples of evidence that the Government cited as proof that the detainees were enemy combatants includes the following:

Associations with unnamed and unidentified individuals and/or organizations;
Associations with organizations, the members of which would be allowed into the United States by the Department of Homeland Security;
Possession of rifles;
Use of a guest house;
Possession of Casio watches; and
Wearing of olive drab clothing.


Nowhere does it say that *all* of these together were given as evidence... it could have been one, two or more of these examples put together, hence the word "examples. The rewards for 'enemy combatants' basically turned it into a witch hunt:


From page 15 of the report:

"The United States promised (and apparently paid) large sums of money for the capture of persons identified as enemy combatants in Afghanistan and Pakistan. One representative flyer, distributed in Afghanistan, states:

Get wealth and power beyond your dreams....You can receive millions of
dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al-Qaida and Taliban murders. This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people.

Bounty hunters or reward-seekers handed people over to American or Northern Alliance soldiers in the field, often soon after disappearing as a result, there was little opportunity on the field to verify the story of an individual who presented the detainee in response to the bounty award. Where that story constitutes the sole basis for an individual’s detention in Guantanamo, there would be little ability either for the Government to corroborate or a detainee to refute such an allegation."


As for this quote:

"The study says:

"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."

I guess you'd have to take that up with the person, or persons, who wrote the wikipedia entry. It's not up to the OP, or me, to back up that claim.... I do agree with you, however, that the report doesn't say it's the 'sole evidence' or the "main evidence", just that it was one of the examples of proof cited by the government.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. I understand all of that

And I'm not saying that all the detentions are justifiable. If the main (not to mention sole) evidence was wearing a cheap digital watch easily available in the Middle East, that would be great proof that the person's detention was unjustifiable and a travesty of justice. That may well turn out to be the case. But it's not in evidence yet here, and that's what I'm asking the OP to do.

[jberryhill]

8. "Proof" and "evidence" are two different things

Granted, I'm certain many of these detentions were simply people collecting bounties and settling scores that had nothing to do with Taliban or Al Qaeda.

However, to rely on something that says "examples of evidence included" is pretty meaningless.

Take this statement:

"An example of evidence used to prove OJ Simpson killed his wife is that a dog barked at around 10:20 PM"

That is a true statement. What would be incorrect would then be to go on a rip like:

"Just because a dog barked at 10:20 PM doesn't mean a guy killed his wife."

No, it doesn't. The dog barking was in combination with other evidence and testimony establishing a timeline.

I could have the most popular watch on the planet. But if my watch, Bolo's watch, and your watch, all were sequential serial numbers, say, then someone might think we bought our watches together.

But, as I've said repeatedly, now that we have a responsible administration, someone needs to sit down with this crap, figure out whether there is enough admissible evidence to nail anyone for anything, and figure out what to do with the rest.