The Guardian:

The New York Times:

And today the Times stresses the potential danger allegedly posed by those imprisoned there:

This is not to suggest that the Times' pieces are particularly bad. But the difference in emphasis is striking--and reminiscent of how differently the papers treated previous WikiLeaks disclosures.

The documents show that a major reason a Sudanese cameraman for Al Jazeera, Sami al-Hajj, was held at Guantánamo for six years was for questioning about the television network’s "training program, telecommunications equipment and newsgathering operations in Chechnya, Kosovo and Afghanistan," including contacts with terrorist groups.

The Times' piece is definitely worth reading, though I wish they didn't feel the need to add this type of equivocation:

The Guantánamo assessments seem unlikely to end the long-running debate about America's most controversial prison. The documents can be mined for evidence supporting beliefs across the political spectrum about the relative perils posed by the detainees and whether the government’s system of holding most without trials is justified.

This would seem to be true of most policy debates about controversial subjects, so it doesn't seem worth noting.

Prosecutors are charging jailed U.S. contractor Alan Gross with "acts against the integrity and independence" of Cuba and requesting a 20-year prison term, state news media reported Friday, dimming hopes he would be allowed to go home soon.

Further down, as one would expect, is a response from the United States:

Gloria Berbena, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, which Washington maintains instead of an embassy, said his "imprisonment without charges for more than a year is contrary to all international human-rights obligations."

Now that is rich. A news outlet might want to point out the well-known fact that elsewhere on Cuba, the United States has built a detention facility to do precisely that to prisoners under U.S. control. But the AP is not that impolite.

(h/t JJ, who spotted the piece in his local paper)

But never fear--the story has finally broken through. And in the New York Times, no less!

Sort of... it's on the letters page.

To the Editor:

Re "Editorial Shake-Up as Harper's Tries to Stabilize in a Downturn" (Business
Day, February 1):

I'd like to clarify your report of something I said at a Harper's Magazine
staff meeting on January 27. When I complained that "the mainstream media is
ignoring it to death," I was referring not to the magazine itself but to our
March cover story by Scott Horton, which challenges the official government
account of the alleged suicides by three prisoners at Guantánamo in 2006.

John R. MacArthur
Publisher, Harper's Magazine
New York, February 6, 2010

So just to be clear: The Times story about Harper's referred to the magazine being ignored by the rest of the media--and the Times managed to omit the specific story the publisher said the media were ignoring.