We can never know for sure, however there are a few reasons I pretty strongly bias towards these people being innocent (especially of anything where ‘reasonable

We can never know for sure, however there are a few reasons I pretty strongly bias towards these people being innocent (especially of anything where ‘reasonable’ outcome might be torture and 20 years of confinement). My reasons are: 1. There’s evidence that the evidence used was exceptionally flaky - wearing a very common watch was considered evidence to imprison somebody 2. The political climate at the time was fervently “anti terrorist”, and there was plenty of incentive to “imprison first and ask questions later” - get any wins/info that you can at any cost. 3. When the political climate turned against Guantanamo, the government couldn’t even come up with a charge to justify it (to be fair there could be concerns about revealing sources, etc. but I would think a charge itself wouldn’t do so) And in general, I’m a pretty firm believer in innocent until proven guilty. In this case we just took someone and held them and didn’t even make a proper accusation, and did so in a case where I see the government having strong incentives to do so regardless of guilt.