"DSK" wrote
The Gitmo prisoners are from a number of sources. Some (perhaps most)
are battlefield captives, others were grabbed in counter terrorist
sweeps. At least a few were turned over to the U.S. military by other
"gov't agencies."

Yes. But most people captured on the battlefield or in sweeps or where ever
were either killed or imprisoned locally or freed - each after some sort of
hearing to determine their fate. Only a small percent were sent to Gitmo -
again after some kind of hearing to determine that fate.
... not necessarily IAW US law ....

If that were the case, I'd agree. But I don't think it is, at least not
for the majority.

Consider this, why would we keep prisoners ourselves, if the military
suspects they have info on terrorist operations and/or organization,
when we can hand them over to one of our 3rd world "allies" secret
police who will simply torture it out of them pronto? OTOH since the
Bush Administration endorses the U.S. military torturing prisoners, why
do we need to keep them at all?

Because our "allies" are notoriously inefficient at extracting *reliable*
info out of prisoners. The kinds of torture they use gets them the answers
they want to hear quickly but not necessarily the truth. Our experts use
psychological "torture" (if one can call it that) to get much better
results.

I suspect a lot of these guys are being held because somebody, somewhere
deep in the belly of some spook ops dept, thinks they will be able to be
'turned' and used as a U.S. counter agent in the future.

That is entirely possible and consistent with the kind of "torture" used.