The other day, in an envelope representing through its terms to be from OASD-Public Affairs, Directorate for Public Communication, 1400 Defense Pentagon, Washington DC 20301-1400, originally and only addressed to me at my within below given address, I received a letter appearing to be signed in original (not facsimile or stamp nature)in name David R. McWilliams, descriptio personnae thereof Director, Office of Public Communication.

It was in reference to an alleged letter to Robert Gates questioning conditions of release set for Mohammed Mohammed Hassan Odaini, with indication that the Director of Public Communication had been asked to reply to me thereon.

I know I've participated in some ACLU and Amnesty International efforts re GITMO, so I'm notifying both groups of the complete DOD reply after said opening references of sender, said body of reply verbatim and completely being, to-wit:

"The U.S. Government seeks humane treatment and security assurances from recipient governments before approving the transfer of release of a detainee as appropriate. Many of the detainees, who have been approved for transfer from Guantanamo, have objected to their transfer to certain countries. The negotiations to transfer a detainee can, and have, taken years to complete in some instances, but are a necessary step to ensure released detainees are not mistreated and/or do not re-engage in hostilities upon release. In cases where there are no litigation obstacles preventing transfer or where these obstacles have been resolved, the U.S. Government makes every effort to ensure a timely return or release. Despite these challenges, the Department has transferred over 500 detainees from Guantanamo to date.

For more information regarding detainee operations, please visit the Detainee Affairs website at http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/Detainee_Affairs.

We hope that this information provides more clarity on our detainee policies. We understand your concerns and we thank you for taking the time to share them with us." [End Of Cited DOD Reply]

For the record, despite all pollyanna and military splendor of waging war on terror, I remain of an opinion bona fide terrorists are essentially self-motivated anarchists who use anything from bent coat hangers to guns to whatever deadly devices they can finger, all in grand-sounding but rather limited-capability strikes; I further find it obnoxious that some nations like Pakistan let terror groups base within their borders, but in absence of AUMF or war declaration against any such nation(s)...and Iraq doesn't count as only AUMF is to rid of Saddam Hussein not manifestly due to 911...the AUMF against Qaeda seems to not allow grafting on of anybody any nation wants to call terrorists without trial of evidence, and whether or not al-Qaeda involved; I am baffled as to why Qaeda then sits as if allowing Pakistan to be a cause célèbre (bête-noir?) enabling anyone on earth to be suspected of "joining anarchy in sympathy to Qaeda"; I would be satisfied if a Harry Callahan-like group went around asking terrorists and in fact ANY thugs if they felt lucky, taking into swift trial of ANY nature those who surrender, otherwise using force as required for those feeling lucky until subdued; lastly, I firmly believe that in re Islam or any faith on earth, when one acts for one's own egregious concern, especially when killing, at such point such people in fact cease being able to be called members of ANY faith...and indeed, most of the earth is NOT a vast cesspool of killer folks, or we wouldn't have such small numbers of bona fide terror group members...unless, of course, any government(s) were to transmogrify or expand terms of terrorism to include anything from questioning why an official thinks a policy is or isn't working, up to and through say Iceland riots, that last one being its own kind of felony in any event but not requiring tether to Qaeda-type demands for destruction of a nation's economy or trade.

I myself see the relevant DOD response as an insinuation the ACLU is anti-American for questioning the Terror Watch List, what with that implied "bigger than WWII field of battle these well-martialled mercenaries return to, causing more battle casualties as decaying economies help identify they are winning and only the guilty seek arraignments or trials".