Is this what Josh Marshall meant?

[Syrinx]

I hope not. This is bad enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/politics/21GITM.html?ei=5062&en=c5bd0d9c61bc2572&ex=1088395200&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

[DarkPhenyx]

1. Excellent read.

No real bias to the story, just the facts and quotes from multiple sources. The contradictions between sources are presented w/o any interpretation. This is what papers are supposed to do.

[Stephanie]

2. I don't think so - won't shift the tectonic plates

June 21, 2004
U.S. Said to Overstate Value of Guantánamo Detainees
By TIM GOLDEN and DON VAN NATTA Jr.

GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba, June 19 — For nearly two and a half years, American officials have maintained that locked within the steel-mesh cells of the military prison here are some of the world's most dangerous terrorists — "the worst of a very bad lot," Vice President Dick Cheney has called them.

The officials say information gleaned from the detainees has exposed terrorist cells, thwarted planned attacks and revealed vital intelligence about Al Qaeda. The secrets they hold and the threats they pose justify holding them indefinitely without charge, Bush administration officials have said.

But as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on the legal status of the 595 men imprisoned here, an examination by The New York Times has found that government and military officials have repeatedly exaggerated both the danger the detainees posed and the intelligence they have provided.

In interviews, dozens of high-level military, intelligence and law-enforcement officials in the United States, Europe and the Middle East said that contrary to the repeated assertions of senior administration officials, none of the detainees at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay ranked as leaders or senior operatives of Al Qaeda. They said only a relative handful — some put the number at about a dozen, others more than two dozen — were sworn Qaeda members or other militants able to elucidate the organization's inner workings. <more>