61 Detainees Returning To Terror? No, Pentagon "Making Up Numbers"
By Steve Hynd Friday Jan 16, 2009 3:00pmI wrote on Wednesday about the Pentagon's claim that 61 Gitmo detainees had "returned to terror" and noted previous Seton Hall Law studies that said the Pentagon was...umm...lying through it's teeth.
Seton Hall now has a new report out examining the evolving claims and hyped allegations entitled Propaganda by the Numbers. The accompanying press release says:
Professor Denbeaux of the Center for Policy & Research has said that the Center has determined that “DOD has issued “recidivism” numbers 43 times, and each time they have been wrong—this last time the most egregiously so.”
Denbeaux stated: “Once again, they’ve failed to identify names, numbers, dates, times, places, or acts upon which their report relies. Every time they have been required to identify the parties, they have been forced to retract their false ID’s and their numbers. They have included people who have never even set foot in Guantanamo —much less were they released from there. They have counted people as “returning to the fight” for having written an Op-ed piece in the New York Times and for having appeared in a documentary exhibited at the Cannes Film Festival. They have revised and retracted their internally conflicting definitions, criteria, and their numbers so often that they have ceased to have any meaning— except as an effort to sway public opinion by painting a false portrait of the supposed dangers of these men.
Fourty-three times they have given numbers—which conflict with each other—all of which are seriously undercut by the DOD statement that “they do not track” former detainees. Rather than making up numbers “willy-nilly” about post release conduct, America might be better served if our government actually kept track of them.”
The study itself notes that the Pentagon keeps hedging it's bets:
Eighty-two percent (82%) of the publicly made claims catalogued in the Appendix of this report contain qualifying language, including terms such as: “at least”; “somewhere on the order of”; “approximately”; “around”; “just short of”; “we believe”; “estimated”; “roughly”; “more than”; “a couple”; “a few”; “some”; “several”; and “about.”
Why? Because the Department of Defense "does not keep track of released detainees nor does it follow their post release conduct". It makes these claims up from data collected which might show Gitmo detainee involvement but having previously claimed as recidivists men who were never in Gitmo in the first place and someone whose only terrorist act after release was to pen an op-ed for the new York Times it's amazing that the mainstream takes them seriously.
When you really, truly, need a statistic pulled out of someone's ass - call the Pentagon's Geoff Morrell.








Login or Register to post comments.
about other "recidivism" statistics.
The people who quote those pull them out of their asses too.
I knew it! None of these reports ever made sense. How would they know one if the men returned to the battle field unless they saw him or killed him and took a DNA sample? The soldiers don't have a clue what these people look like and if they blow someone up, they don't have the means to take a sample for a DNA test. None of this ever made sense to me and it still doesn't. It was all just an excuse to not deal with Gitmo and as usual to strike fear in Americans.
Bring the rest of the detainees here, put them in prison (if we can keep Charles Manson in jail without his escaping, we can secure these people) until they have a trial, if we even have something to charge them with or indict them
They let a brown skinned guy named Mohammed go and suddenly they find a brown skinned guy named Mohammed involved in terrorism. Coincidence? I think not. (/snark)
the value these asswipes put on a human life. None.
They have propaganda value.
Pentagon making up figures to sway public opinion? Propaganda against its own citizens is a major offense.
Just in case anyone is keep track of the crimes.
Bush has some people in the Pentagon; most likely civilian employees that need to be weeded out.
When other government agencies lie and propagandize, they call it "spin". How quaint. When the military lies, under Article 107 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it's called "False Official Statements", and it is a Courts Martial level offense that can include fines, imprisonment and dishonorable discharge.
I think all military members of the propaganda squad who helped advance this lie should be punished to the maximum extent dictated by the UCMJ, because they have stained the service of every other person who has worn a uniform and served honorably.
The GOP is mounting a full force Karl Rove style media campaign against the new administration.
1. Clinton did extraordinary renditions
2. 61 detanees released from Gitmo committed new terrorist acts
This is no coincidence. The bushies are trying to get ahead of the ballgame.
all the leaders at the Pentagon, and in the military, dismissed when new administrations come in?
The military officers usually get promoted and tranferred out. They give them that second star and issue them orders for meaningless dead end posts like TRADOC or TACOM commander. If you have never heard of these commands don't worry; there is a reason that you have never heard of those commands. The Army is full of dead end commands in the middle of know where; the Army uses them to dispose of its ash and trash.
The political appointees are easy to get rid of. They serve at the pleasure of the President and can be told to just pack up their stuff and go.
The civilian employees are a bit harder to get rid of. Basically, you have to terminate their job position. Then you offer them an alternative job at the same GS pay scale level in Shangri-La.
.
The Pentagon is using the, "Some people said," style of reporting.
As long as they can give the impression that others share their view, that makes it legit to them. Funny thing is, some people say the Pentagon is the corporate war headquarters. Others say there is a killing to be had at making wars. And yet others insist you can not replace bombs if you don't use 'em first.
I guess everyone is a certified expert with all the unknown know-it-alls.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RpSv3HjpEw
or at least like everything else during the last eight years just made up what they wanted you to hear!
everything that happened during the last eight years was made up lies that is all!
but now they get called on it - not perfect, but progress.
Every time the Pentagon lies their budget is reduced by $1 billion. See, we could have saved $43 billion just on this one subject alone.
for these guys. The ones with blood on their hands, that we invited to Iraq so we wouldn't have to fight them here. Don't hear much about them.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9...
Not to be nitpicky, but your "it's" should be a "its". The possessive form of "it" doesn't get an apostrophe, so that it can be differentiated from the abbreviation for "it is."
why do so many promotable 3 star generals try to to get the command?
http://www-tradoc.army.mil/
And I think the acronym is TAACOM
This is for upchuck somehow the reply ended up here.
Lest we forget!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-...
I can hear bin laudin now heck of a job georgie heck of a job
mission acomplished
were used against U.S. citizens by a compliant mainstream media.
Score one for the jihadist!
http://www.infowars.com/articles/military/psy...
Wonder if he's the same clown at the Pentagon yanking numbers out his ass on "friendly-fire" deaths too? And the faked numbers on war wounded and the faked numbers on killed in action?
Every part of the horrible Bush administration was a lie.
Even if these men did commit criminal acts since their release, they didn't 'return' to terror as the Pentagon so erroneously blurts out - they had become terrorists. Thanks chimpy!
Login or Register to post comments.