Who Are the Two Syrians Released From Guantanamo to Portugal?
On August 28, in the first indication that European countries are prepared to help the Obama administration fulfill its promise to close Guantánamo by accepting prisoners who have been cleared for release, but who cannot be repatriated because of fears that they will face torture on their return, the Portuguese interior ministry announced that two Syrian prisoners had arrived from Guantánamo and had been released on their arrival in Portugal. Officials added that they are "not subject to any charge, they are free people and are living in homes provided by the state."
Last December, Portugal took the lead in offering to rehouse cleared prisoners from Guantánamo, when, in a letter to other EU leaders, Luís Amado, the Portuguese Foreign Minister, declared, "The time has come for the European Union to step forward. As a matter of principle and coherence, we should send a clear signal of our willingness to help the U.S. government in that regard, namely through the resettlement of detainees. As far as the Portuguese government is concerned, we will be available to participate."
The deal was apparently sealed in June, when the government announced that it was ready to take "two or three" prisoners from Guantánamo, following a visit by U.S. Special Envoy Daniel Fried. On arrival in Portugal, the men's identities were not known, but on Monday, court documents released by the Justice Department (PDF) revealed that the two men are 27-year old Mohammed al-Tumani (identified by the Pentagon as Muhammed Khan Tumani), and 37-year old Moammar Badawi Dokhan.
In a press release issued on Friday, the U.S. Justice Department explained the circumstances of the men's release, stressing that the final say in approving their transfer had been taken by Congress. "As directed by the President's Jan. 22, 2009 Executive Order, the interagency Guantánamo Review Task Force conducted a comprehensive review of these cases," the DoJ announced, adding, "As a result of that review, the detainees were approved for transfer from Guantánamo Bay. On Aug. 6, 2009, in accordance with Congressionally-mandated reporting requirements, the Administration informed Congress of its intent to transfer these two detainees."
The Justice Department was also keen to allay any fears that the men might pose any threat in future. "The transfers were carried out under an arrangement between the United States and the government of Portugal," the press release stated, adding, "The United States has coordinated with the government of Portugal to ensure the transfers take place under appropriate security measures and will continue to consult with the government of Portugal regarding these detainees."
To be honest, these caveats were unnecessary, as the Portuguese government would not have taken the men in the first place, and would certainly not have announced that they "are free people and are living in homes provided by the state," if there had been any doubts about their insignificance. Moreover, their stories, as revealed in publicly available documents from Guantánamo, also reveal that neither man had any connection whatsoever to international terrorism, revealing, as so often before, that right-wing hysteria about those still held in the prison is largely hyperbole of a kind that, on close inspection, reveals more about the cowardice and xenophobia of those making the claims than it does about the majority of the prisoners themselves.
Mohammed al-Tumani: a story of persistent abuse
The younger of the two released men, Mohammed al-Tumani, who was just 18 years old when he arrived in Afghanistan in June 2001, has always maintained that he arrived as an immigrant with his entire family, and was seized by mistake with his father, Abdul Nasir al-Tumani, who is still held in Guantánamo. As I explained in my book The Guantánamo Files, based on the men's accounts in their military tribunals:
The father had traveled to Afghanistan in1999 in search of work, finding a job in a restaurant in Kabul and bringing ten members of his family over in June 2001, including Mohammed, his grandmother and an eight-month old baby. Another six family members -- his uncle's family -- arrived a week before 9/11, but after hearing about the attack on America the family fled to Jalalabad, where they stayed for a month, and then made their way on foot to Pakistan. On the way, their guide advised al-Tumani to let the women and children travel by car, to make them less of a target for highway robbers, but when he and his son arrived in Pakistan the local villagers handed them over to the Pakistani army.
Mohammed also said that, while in Pakistani custody, in three separate prisons, he and his father were "subjected to beatings and harsh torture," and his nose was broken. He added that throughout this ordeal "there were Americans present," and this account was echoed by his father, who said that the Pakistanis "were torturing us really hard," and the Americans "were looking and standing right there. The Americans were present. I am sure about that because they were the ones who interrogated us."
In addition, Mohammed explained that, in the U.S. prison at Kandahar airport (where the prisoners were processed for Guantánamo), his father's forehead was fractured "and the Red Cross saw this and wrote a report," and he added that he received a fracture to his left hand, as well as suffering "many diseases" and "other methods of psychological torture," including sleep deprivation.
He also explained, as Carol Rosenberg described it in the Miami Herald, that during interrogation at Camp X-Ray (the rudimentary first prison at Guantánamo, which was closed in June 2002), "one of the interrogators brought two wires connected to electricity and said that if you do not say that you and your father are from al-Qaeda or Taliban, I will place these in your neck,'" and that the abuse continued in Camp Delta (Camp X-Ray's more permanent replacement), where he said that he was "threatened with violence," and that "an interrogator threatened to send him to torture in a foreign country."
Beyond these alarming examples of abuse, which cannot be independently confirmed (but which certainly accord with claims made by many other prisoners), Mohammed al-Tumani's story is also notable for a startling example of how allegations made by other prisoners were regarded as reliable evidence by the authorities at Guantánamo, even when, as in al-Tumani's case, the veracity of these claims was undermined by military officers who had chosen to investigate the quality of the supposed evidence rather than accepting it at face value.
The baleful effects of Guantánamo's notorious liar
As Corine Hegland explained in two ground-breaking articles for the National Journal in 2006 ("Guantánamo's Grip" and "Empty Evidence"), Mohammed al-Tumani was one of two prisoners whose protestations regarding what they claimed were false allegations made against them by other prisoners were investigated by their enterprising Personal Representative. The Representatives were military officers appointed in place of lawyers in the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, the review boards established in 2004, which, as one former insider, Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham has explained, were designed primarily to rubberstamp the prisoners' prior designation as "enemy combatants" who could be held without charge or trial.
In the case of Farouq Saif (identified by the Pentagon as Farouq Ali Ahmed), a Yemeni who was accused of guarding Osama bin Laden's private airport in Kandahar by another Yemeni prisoner, his Personal Representative (a principled but unidentified Air Force Lieutenant Colonel) submitted a written protest after looking at Saif's file and discovering that the government's sole evidence that he had been at bin Laden's airport was the statement of another prisoner, who, according to an FBI memo that he presented to the tribunal, was a notorious liar. According to the FBI, he "had lied, not only about Farouq, but about other Yemeni detainees as well. The other detainee claimed he had seen the Yemenis at times and in places where they simply could not have been." Despite this, Saif was judged to be an "enemy combatant," and is still held at Guantánamo.
In addition, Hegland also discussed how Mohammed al-Tumani had been ensnared by the informer's lies, as I explained in an article in 2007:
In his tribunal, [al-Tumani] denied an allegation that he had attended the al-Farouq training camp [the main training camp for Arabs, associated with Osama bin Laden in the years before 9/11] with such vigor that his Personal Representative decided to investigate the matter further. When he looked at the classified evidence, however, he found that only one man -- the same detainee mentioned above -- claimed to have seen him at al-Farouq, and had identified him as being there three months before he arrived in Afghanistan. As Corine Hegland described it, "The curious U.S. officer pulled the classified file of the accuser, saw that he had accused 60 men, and, suddenly skeptical, pulled the files of every detainee the accuser had placed at the one training camp. None of the men had been in Afghanistan at the time the accuser said he saw them at the camp."
As with Farouq Saif, however, the Personal Representative's protestations were in vain, because Mohammed al-Tumani was also judged to be an "enemy combatant," and had to wait for nearly five years before President Obama's Guantánamo Review Task Force finally "conducted a comprehensive review" of his case, and, presumably, established that the evidence against him was unreliable. What has not been explained, however, is what happened in the cases of the other 58 men who were accused by the notorious liar, or why Mohammed's father -- whose circumstances seem to have been no different -- was not cleared for release as well.
A Taliban foot soldier?
Less is known of the second man, Moammar Dokhan, who was 29 when he was captured on the Pakistani border, as he did not take part in any tribunals or review boards at Guantánamo. According to the Pentagon, he "traveled from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan with the stated intention of joining the Taliban," "served as a rear-echelon guard and manned an observation post" near Bagram, and "carried a rifle while on duty at the observation post."
With nothing else to rely on, the authorities tried to spice up this meager list with claims that "his name was contained on a list of incarcerated associates found on a computer used by suspected al-Qaeda members in Pakistan in early 2002," and that his name "was contained on a list of captured mujahideen found in Pakistan on a hard drive associated with a high-ranking al-Qaeda operative," although as I explained in a brief profile of Dokhan's case last year:
It is not known if these two claims in fact refer to the same computer file, but neither provides proof of anything other than the fact that he was caught and imprisoned as a suspected militant. The "list," as in the cases of many other prisoners, may have been nothing more than a report of the prisoners' names, mentioned in the media or leaked by the men's jailers, and it appears to be no more useful as evidence than the Bush administration's claims that those in Guantánamo are "enemy combatants," because the President decided, without the need for evidence, that that was the case.
Nevertheless, although the Taliban allegations indicate that Dokhan was, at best, nothing more than one of the lowliest Taliban recruits in an inter-Muslim civil war that predated the 9/11 attacks and had nothing to do with al-Qaeda (although Dokhan himself "denie[d] ever having been in Afghanistan"), it is surprising that Obama's Task Force allowed him to be released, as, elsewhere, the Justice Department has been working overtime to prevent judges in the District Courts from granting the habeas corpus appeals of other prisoners whose connections to the Taliban have been no more pronounced, and, just last week, scored what appeared to be a rare victory when Judge Kollar-Kotelly ruled that a Kuwaiti prisoner, Fawzi al-Odah, could continue to be detained because the government had established, "by a preponderance of the evidence," that he was probably involved with the Taliban and/or al-Qaeda.
Logic dictates that those who traveled to Afghanistan to serve with the Taliban are a different type of prisoner from those who were members of al-Qaeda, and were committed to plotting and pursuing terrorist attacks against the U.S. and its allies, but logic was a rare commodity in the Bush administration, which chose instead to conflate al-Qaeda with the Taliban and to pack Guantánamo with men who knew nothing about Osama bin Laden or the 9/11 attacks, and had no involvement with terrorism. Moreover, the effects of this confusion linger to this day, as the Obama administration has chosen to maintain the same fiction that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are interchangeable, and the District Courts are also bound by this ludicrous lack of distinction.
We may never discover what the government's secretive Guantánamo Review Task Force concluded about Moammar Dokhan (or, for that matter, about Mohammed al-Tumani), but by cutting through the hyperbole and granting these two men their freedom, the Portuguese government has just established that it has a clarity of vision that, with just four months to go until President Obama's deadline for closing Guantánamo, remains sorely lacking in the United States.
Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press), and maintains a blog here.
Follow Andy Worthington on Twitter: www.twitter.com//GuantanamoAndy
France 24 | Portugal offers to take in Guantanamo detainees ...
AIUK : Guantanamo: Portugal offer welcomed, call on other European ...
Unwanted Guantánamo Prisoners: Portugal Open to Accepting ...
EU: Accept Portugal's Call to Take Guantanamo Detainees | Human ...
US welcome Portugal Guantanamo offer - ABC News (Australian ...
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
WRIGHTLY OR WRONGLY , BUSH & CHENEY inthat time shot tryed and keeped us ALLSafe !
you all need to see all those terorist for who they truely are Evil -men with black-hearts who Think they have a mandate from God ! A CLEAR MISREPRESENTION OF GOD'S WILL !
You must have your head still in sand!
what ?? Did we have another attack in the in the [U. S. ] ? NO !! SOOO WHOOOO
H E A D IS IN THE SAND ?????? the BUSH POLICY'S PUSH BACK al-QAEDA 'S
MIS-DEEEDS OF EVIL TO ALL AMERICAN'S !
I hope these men can get a semblance of normal life in Portugal - it's a lovely country and it's far less xenophobic than many of its European counterparts; also, with Portugal's Brazilian connection it shouldn't be difficult for these to men to adapt to their new lives, as Brazil is home to a large number of Syrian descendants.
A thought provoking story Andy although I am not convinced either way. I would like to see you do a story on those detainees that were released and then ended up going back into the war and killing Americans.
Interesting that you assume that some went "back into the war and killing Americans" when there is no evidence that they ever participated in hostile actions against the US in the first place. Indeed, those that have been released were released because there was no evidence against them that wasn't tortured or given by people who were paid for turning others over the the US without any evidence.
On the other hand, I would find it quite surprising if people who were picked up and transported to Guantanamo and mistreated for years and years on end were not radicalized by that treatment and did not undertake some sort of revenge.
The Bush administration's entire conception of justice was entirely Manichean. To them, crimes weren't something you DO, they're something you ARE. Thus, to the president torturing prisoners was OK, because he was on the side of Jesus, and because the tortured had to be on the devil's side.
So when they're deciding who to try to convict, if they've decided that so-and-so 'is al Qaeda", then he's guilty of terrorism, period.
Bush and Cheney just like to hurt people. Its not complicated.
Not complicated??? Only want to hurt people?? Empire only PROFITS!!! Anyway, anywhere, whoever, Empire , you americans don`t see the differences. You don`t know anything about the "outer" world!!! Begin with some studies. About respecting DIFFERENCES!!!You are not the ONLY ones on earth!!
Andy, once you change "the war on terror" to "the war for terror", everything would make sense!
or as borat famously said, "the war of terror"
Face it, America is now a country known world-wide to torture people with little if any pretext, and to so fear their continuing enmity, that it must deport them to protect itself -- if it will release them at all.
One nation, under fear...
The home of a lot of not very brave.
What's lost in all this are any comments on the courage and basic decency of Portugal to help us unravel this mess.
It puts to shame the governors of those states crying NIMBY to proposals to transfer any of the prisoners to their solitary confinement high security facilities in response to their loudest chickenhawks. As if these guys have small nuclear devices secreted up some secret Arab orifice that went undiscovered at Gitmo.
I suppose there a many 18 year-old Syrians who immigrated to Afghanistan for peaceful purposes.
Something like a million illegal aliens try to sneak into the USA every year. But the USA is not the only nation people want to resettle in. Some people live in horribly repressive countries, where they are unsafe, unsafe due to their religion, their ethnic group, or because they practiced free speech in a country where that wasn't safe.
Yes, some people wanted to settle in Afghanistan, because their own country was not safe for them, and immigration to North America, Europe, Australia, were all closed to them. Settling in Afghanistan was easy. And there were innocent bystanders who wanted to settle there to escape repression in their own countries, because no more attractive country was open to them.
Some of the human rights workers and aid workers who became hostages in Iraq and Afghanistan post 9-11 are Christians, traveled to the trouble zones, because of their religious beliefs. I never believed that being a Muslim was equivalent to being a terrorist. And, after reading the captives testimony, Just as the Christian community contains people so devoted to helping their fellow man that they will travel to unsafe countries to help those most in need, there are a small minority of peaceful Muslims who are similarly devoted to helping their fellow man. Prior to 9-11 some of them traveled to impoverished and illiterate Afghanistan to try to help their fellow man.
Christians make that kind of sacrifice, and some Muslims make that kind of sacrifice too.
"here are a small minority of peaceful Muslims who are similarly devoted to helping their fellow man. "
Given that one of the five pillars of Islam is helping those less fortunate than yourself, I would bet that the "small minority" is quite a bit larger than the same minority of Christians who feel that they should be helping those less fortunate.
Besides, a man doesn't bring his whole family along if he's planning to be a terrorist rather than looking for work. I've seen what Syrians will do to just exist. Lebanon has a similar situation with Syrians that we have with Mexicans. There is a surfeit of Syrians willing to do the work that Lebanese don't want to do and they come "illegally" although Lebanon has a much better system than we do in that as long as the person has some sort of government identification whether Syrian or Lebanese, there isn't any problem. They just don't get government services.
I remember clearly, on many occasions, hearing Cheney refer to these people as "the worst of the worst." I do not remember, even one time, a journalist asking how he knew they were the worst of the worst if they did not have any evidence.
To me it is the same as absolutely knowing Iraq had WMD, but not knowing a single location where that WMD was located.
I am completely baffled when I attempt to understand these people. How do you know someone is guilty if you have no evidence? We have built an entire legal system on the concept it requires evidence to actually know something. Not only that, the evidence must be convincing, it must have credibility.
How on earth did America elect such people?
Of course he didn't know. He was only saying it to convince us -- not because it was true! That's a Republican all over: it doesn't matter what's really true, only what he wants to convince you of.
STOP BELIEVING REPUBLICANS !!!
WRT to Cheney and other senior members of the Bush administration lying. I think they knew they were lying. But I think they naively believed some other lies that they thought should remain classified. The torture of Ibn Al Sheikh Al Libi produced false denunciations that they seem to have foolishly taken at face value. I suspect there are similar false denunciations that they took seriously, because they were undisciplined, overly emotional, filled with hubris, applied to sensible sanity checking, that have remained classified.
I think the public would be much safer if practically all the information that was withheld from the public to protect national security was made public.
In the field of computer security experts mock a concept they call "security through obscurity". Real computer security experts recognize that peer review of security algorithms makes for more robust algorithms.
If the Bush administration had been forced to reveal all its secrets this would not have harmed national security, it would have enhanced national security, because every single one of their extremely dangerous and foolhardy misconceptions would have been exposed to public scrutiny and criticism. And even George W. Bush would not have been able to ignore the criticism sanity checking of those misconceptions would have triggered.
We didn't elect them, we elected Al Gore. Florida, whose governor at the time was Bush's baby brother, Jeb Bush, had "some problems" with counting and recording votes. Just think if Gore had been allowed to take his rightful place as president.
More confirmation that our side's torturers are sick, crazy, and illogical. They insist that what these individuals say is the truth only while they are being tortured. After their torture ends, anything they say is a lie.
With much greater probability the reverse is true. Under torture, people will say anything the torturers want in an often futile attempt to stop or deflect the torture.
Whom do you believe? The torturers or those torturees who are released because despite the torture nothing substantial against them can be proved?
These two are just two of many. I wonder how the American public would feel if American citizens were grabbed around the world, imprisoned without benefit of counsel, had their human rights violated repeatedly ("the lawyers said it was okay") and then at some time in the future were released without apology or compensation.
I think we'd be pretty upset with anyone who did that, and we'd wonder who the hell they thought they were to treat human beings that way.
It would be misleading and confusing as long as you don't focus on the real reason for such actions not mentioning invading other countries, creating conflicts, secret renditions, tortures, mass bombings and creating large collateral damages. Perhaps most of these actions are done to create more enemies that consequently would prolong the war. Another words the main goal is to expand and prolong the war, not to limit or minimize it! Once you come to this conclusion, everything comes into light and every action would make logical sense!
Great journalism again by Andy Worthington.
Following the utterly criminal Bush-Cheney regime, "the Obama administration has chosen to maintain the same fiction that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are interchangeable, and the District Courts are also bound by this ludicrous lack of distinctio
Don't forget, people: Iraq and Afghanistan are Wars of CHOICE by the USA. That's unconstitutional in the USA. That's "high crime" against our country, our people. And it's been a horrible murderous crime against more than a million innocent people in those two countries. The USA continues to kill more innocent bystanders than actual "enemies."
Both the Republicans and the Democrats have done this, by choice.
As Bill Moyers said on Bill Maher's show some days ago, both parties are corporate parties serving a narrow set of corporate interests. And those corporate interests seem to win on every major issue they have an interest in.
Of course, they have an interest in the huge profits involved in war. That's why they pay the politicians to over-prepare for war and then make war, and continue war, and now escalate a wrongful war.
Damn it, people, BE THE CHANGE. Save the next million lives, including thousands of our own. Stand up and stop our Congress and President. Force them to resign now. Their replacements will know that We The People are the boss, not the wealthy corrupt elite.
I was with you 100% (and wanting to have your children) until I got to ". . .stand up and stop our Congress and President. Force them to resign now. "
How does that work? Short of outright revolution in the streets, which isn't going to happen, how do you recommend we proceed?
National strike on 09/11/09. Nobody do nuttin! Kuchinich, Fiengold, Nader, McKinney, get behing this idea. Larry Flint is often right on!
Then vote Green or Constitution or anything but Dem/Rep. That goes for your reps. People always say throw them out, except for their own rep.
I don't know if anything can change but OBama Change is not believed by the avg Joe six pack. Is it??
Campaign Finance Reform would seem to me to be the 1st thing that must happen if anything is to change.
They are all innocent, always. The piece admits that their claims cannot be substantiated, but we are supposed to believe them anyways. The writer admits that we will probably never know the conclusions of the investigations, but he still implies they are innocent or simply the "lowliest Taliban recruits".
Yes, they are "innocent" inasmuch as they cannot be proven guilty and there is no evidence of them committing any crimes. I don't know how anyone could fail to grasp that concept.
They are not US Citizens, why do we treat them as if they should be accorded any rights at all.
We hit Afghanistan BECAUSE the Taliban would not give up Osama Bin Ladin, therefore even the lowliest Private is our enemy. What we released Italian Prisoners of War because they were not Nazis? That is ridiculous.
As far as torture goes, none of what you stated is considered torture.
Also, The Geneva Convention is a Treaty, and is only applied to other nations that have also signed the Treaty with us. We do not have to abide by that Treaty with Al Queda or the Taliban because they are not signatories.
See Andy Worthington's Profile
Thanks for replying to that, sixtyfivep
Like Andy I have read every single transcript. No, I would never claim that all the captives are innocent of a meaningful role in terrorism. After reading every transcript I'd estimate that at least five percent of the captives had a meaningful tie to terrorism. Maybe even as many as ten percent. The Bush administration talked abou eventually charging 80 men. Well, that is ten percent of the 778 men who have been held in Guantanamo
You should regard that as a tacit acknowledgment that the Bush administration understood that only ten percent of the Guantanamo captives could meaningfully be described as terrorists.
And, when you look at the two dozen men the Bush administration actually ended up charging, you can see for yourself that about half of them weren't terrorists. They were only poor unfortunates that totally unscrupulous fear-mongers thought they could frame in the extremely unfair Guantanamo military commissions.
Binyam Mohammed faced charges. Moazzam Begg was to face charges. I think a cool examination of the public record show they were innocent men. Fouad Al Rabia faces charges now. I feel extremely sorry for him, because he too is clearly an innocent man. I think if Mohammed Jawad had faced a fair trial he would have been acquitted.
Make no mistake convicting innocent men in a kangaroo court is not simply unjust, it makes the public less safe.
Wasn't this supposed to be closed by now? Oops...ano
It doesn't matter if they close Guantanamo. Guantanamo is the tip of the iceberg. Guantanamo is the prison camp we *know* about, the one that has a name and not just a number. Guantanamo is the place all the attention is focused on, which suits the administration very well.
Oops, another commenter who plays fast and loose with the facts. Guantanamo is supposed to be closed by Jan. 21, 2010. It remains to be seen whether the yellow-bellies in Congress succeed in making it impossible to keep this promise.
Amazing. On a day where we learn that Syria is developing chemical weapons with hezbollah (and in fact that the explosion that killed 20 of them a few weeks ago was a test gone bad) we have yet another article here attacking the United States for detaining Syrian terrorists.
I live in a country( the U.S) that is killing civilians with impunity in the Middle East and backs state sponsored terrorism as well in other countries. The leaders of this country promote torture on the television daily,yet I do not consider myself a terrorist just because I happen to be from such a country. Governments come and go , but the people of the land remain , punished by association with these demagogues.
HUH???
Yes, most people who are "terrorists" in one country are considered "patriots" in other countries. It's all a matter of perspective.
Could you please explain your logic. Are you saying that the fact Syria may be developing chemical weapons with hezbollah now means it was OK to arrest and imprison innocent people in 2003? What is your connecting logic? Or do you think they connect automatically? Can you see you may be missing a few steps in the actual connection of the two completely separated events?
Or are you saying we should never criticize our government because other governments do bad things? Again, could you please explain the logic of such an argument, because I cannot for the life of me see it.
Not terroroists, Syrian or otherwise, not guilty, just sold up the river by crooked opium farmers more than willing to get paid by US stupid stupid Amerikans
Did you even read the article? Did you think that ANYTHING in the article upholds your above assertion that these men are terrorists?
The people released were innocent when detained, and the fact that they were kept so long, and tortured as well, speaks very ill of we who did it.
Your attitude is that of one who refuses to learn from either experience or evidence. The Reich is where you belong.
No one is suggesting that every single Guantanamo captive was an innocent bystander. But, first, the evidence that has been made public about Al Tumani and his father very strongly suggested he was an innocent bystander. And those officials who were authorized to review the classified evidence concluded that the classified evidence, once the clearly fabricated false denunciations were dismissed, also didn't support any other conclusion than that he didn't represent a danger.
Make no mistake, without regard to any possible Syrian weapons program, holding innocent men has made the general public less safe.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
