Pentagon Pushes Debunked "Returning To Terror" Hype
By Steve Hynd Wednesday Jan 14, 2009 3:15pm
The pro-Gitmo, pro-torture camp are getting all excited about a Pentagon statement that 61 former detainees from the Guantanamo Bay facility "appear to have returned to terrorism since their release from custody." But that bald figure is very misleading.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said 18 former detainees are confirmed as "returning to the fight" and 43 are suspected of having done in a report issued late in December by the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Morrell declined to provide details such as the identity of the former detainees, why and where they were released or what actions they have taken since leaving U.S. custody.
"This is acts of terrorism. It could be Iraq, Afghanistan, it could be acts of terrorism around the world," he told reporters.Morrell said the latest figures, current through December 24, showed an 11 percent recidivism rate, up from 7 percent in a March 2008 report that counted 37 former detainees as suspected or confirmed active militants.
Only "suspects"? That's pretty thin gruel when no details are given. That March figure is itself up from a 2007 claim of 30 "returning to terror" after their release from Gitmo - but that claim was firmly debunked by reports from the hard-working Seton Hall School of Law.
Just as the Government's claims that the Guantanamo detainees "were picked up on the battlefield, fighting American forces, trying to kill American forces," do not comport with the Department of Defense's own data, neither do its claims that former detainees have "returned to the fight." The Department of Defense has publicly insisted that at least thirty (30) former Guantanamo detainees have "returned" to the battlefield, where they have been re-captured or killed. To date, however, the Department has described at most fifteen (15) possible recidivists, and has identified only seven (7) of these individuals by name. More strikingly, data provided by the Department of Defense reveals that:
- at least eight (8) of the fifteen (15) individuals identified alleged by the Government to have "returned to the fight" are accused of nothing more than speaking critically of the Government's detention policies;
- ten (10) of the individuals have neither been re-captured nor killed by anyone;
- and of the five (5) individuals who are alleged to have been re-captured or killed, two (2) of the individuals' names do not appear on the list of individuals who have at any time been detained at Guantanamo, and the remaining three (3) include one (1) individual who was killed in an apartment complex in Russia by local authorities and one (1) who is not listed among former Guantanamo detainees but who, after his death, has been alleged to have been detained under a different name.
It seems clear the people being referred to in this new statement aren't a different set of Gitmo detainess and include that spurious 30 and doubtless a bunch more too.
Moreover, not one of those named in that earlier claim had attacked Americans after his release from Gitmo and all had been released "by political appointees of the Department of Defense, sometimes over the objection of the military" rather than through the tribunals process. Seton Hall's studies also found that a bare 55% of Gitmo detainess had ever taken up arms against the US and only 8% were suspected of being members of Al Qaida. The vast bulk of Gitmo detainees had been turned in by local warlords for bounty payments with no US witnesses to their alleged involvement in terrorism at all. No wonder their recidivist rate is so low, at a Pentagon figure of 11%. That compares with "an estimated 67.5%" in the general prison population.
With Obama seemingly set on closing Gitmo down, and Susan J. Crawford, convening authority of military commissions, coming forward to say that some cases cannot be prosecuted because the evidence is indelibly stained by torture, the timing of this Pentagon "just believe us" statement is a little too pat. It is undoubtably true that some dangerous people will likely be freed because of the Bush administration's arrogant belief in its own ability to re-write law to suit itself, although the number is far lower than the Pentagon is trying to suggest. Even so, any failure to keep the public safe should be blamed on Bush and his coterie.
Crossposted from Newshoggers
Login or Register to post comments.
...orange jumpsuit. Just ask them to sign an agreement that they will keep them on when they leave.
Geez....isn't it obvious?
for no good reason so that the Government can set a precedent and
start locking up American citizens whenever they feel like it.
I cannot believe any of this.
1st: bin Laden is DEAD!
2nd: no one in our government has told the truth since 2000 (and probably a long time before that).
3rd: Who cares? I've never been afraid of "terrorists."
I'm afraid of the international financial cabal, the NWO
guys who seem to be winning in this war to take control of
the USA for their own purposes.
[Deleted. Please don't go there. I don't want to clean up the flamewar. thank you. Site Monitor]
Be sure and catch Hardball tonight and listen to this one guy try to blame Clinton for 9-11, because bush didn't change his national security plans away from Clinton's that is why we were hit. Then after 9-11 bush put in the Patriot Act and all that other shit and thats what has kept us safe. Even Chris seemed to think it was BS.
Clinton probably is party responsible. He continued the bombing campaigns started by Bush Sr., and used almost identical reasons for doing it. People watching their family get killed from bombing, don't ask if the guy doing it is Republican or Democrat.
Because, iirc, most of those hijackers were Saudis and none were from Iraq.
And, ya know, the big AQ talking point was "Get the infidel troops out of the Holy Land!"
were in Saudi Arabia with jets leaving there, to bomb Iraq. That was the point. And those AQ talking points were prob made up at the local CIA meeting of the week. Wait till the true terrorist campaign actually does start after military campaigns over there for 20 years. Some person with revenge in mind, is going to do a real terrorist attack that isn't US gov't sponsored. And then the tears will be crying, "why do they hate us?"
Why didn't AQ hit the barracks at those bases?
cuz there is no AQ?
I think this administration is scared shitless that someone is going to pull the right thread and a whole lot of shit is going to unravel. Not all the crooks will be heading back to Texas next Tuesday.
You're running a story about authoritarianism vis-s-vis made up wars and propaganda, and I'm running my second online poll, which tangentially raises the question in a more gentle fashion about a different made-up war.
The first online poll I did was on Why God Abandoned Sarah Palin and was extremely well received. I hope you enjoy this little trip back down memory lane as well....
Flashback to the Sixties
{ Deleted, Blogwhoring. SiteMonitor}
Enjoy.
but I couldn't vote.
"I don't remember too much about it" wasn't one of the choices. ;)
We should put most of them up at Disney World for six months, and then send them home with a new wardrobe, a new Caddy, and a big note that says Sorry!
He's got to deal with a lot of shit.
Give the guy a break.
and some country imprisoned me, tortured me and allowed me absolutely no due process for years -
I'd be tempted to take some action. It wouldn't involve stern letters.
...if I was old.
...and I aint never even been to guantanimo.
For the sake of argument let's stipulate that a number of former detainees have committed acts of terror since leaving gitmo. Two questions.
First, why did they do so? How do we know that they didn't commit acts of terror because of what was done to them and others at gitmo? that gitmo isn't more of a terrorist manufactury than a terrorist protection?
Second, what are the alternatives to respecting the demands both of international law and of common humanity? Trample on the principles that have defined our nation? Become virtual slaveholders once again, kidnapping people from their homeland, holding them and abusing them with any legal recourse for them or accountability for us?
And let's not forget that, independent of justice, honor, and humanity, what goes around comes around. We do it to citizens of other nations at gitmo, simply because we're strong enough to get away with it? They we give tacit encouragement for every other nation or organization to do it to our own citizens.
They hate us for our Free-dumb.
The Pentagon making up numbers for whatever nefarious reason??? Impossible. I refuse to believe that as their historical track record is as lily-white as the driven snow. Every mind filled with pop culture distractions knows that.
Will there be a sudden cessation of government propaganda beginning on January 21? I recall it's being the OTHER way when Reagan was elected. Suddenly, America had enemies EVERYWHERE and our nation was threatened. The difference in tone was absolutely startling.
Anway, that's what I'll be looking for, the kinds of comments that will appear after Obama is sworn in.
smiled as he bombed Iraq. Did that make it any better? Does anyone suppose that relatives of the dead refer to US presidents by their political party?
How do you know he smiled? What a stupid remark.
I've seen several comments from folks on this and other blogs saying they'd become terrorists against the US if they'd been tortured for years. So it's an easy rumor to spread even among those who approve of torture, who surely feel the same way. Right now it's a claim made to try to keep the Guantanamo prisoners from being released.
I think, too, in the interests of honesty and transparency we should be asking for details, names, date of release, were they tortured, who they're associated with now, what country they live in, etc. Otherwise, it's just propaganda.
I keep wanting to tell these folks about their propaganda, "It ain't gonna' work this time."
Geoff Morrell is someone I will like to see shown the door.
in yersterday's NYT an article about Obama and Gitmo mentioned that the pentagon is pressing ahead with plans to begin a trial on Jan. 26 of one of it's high profile suspects a Canadian detainee named Omar Khadr. he is the guy that susposively killed an american in 2002 in afghanistan. at the time he was 15yoa
For making us all torturers. It is sad to see such injustice in the name of security. Our country is attacked so rarely it is unreal. Lets see, Pearl Harbor and New York, they were many years between each other so this justifys having an illegal prison in Cuba. Bush did a good job of scaring the fuck out of everyone. Neat!
whoops
I don't know, I'm a fairly easy going fella, but snatch me off the street, torture me and hold me without process for who knows how many years, then release me in a way that makes me an outcast or an illegal in my home country... I might harbor ill-will towards my oppressors and turn to criminal activities partly due to rage and partly due to having no other recourse open to me. But hey, thats just me.
So, is that the premise the pro-Gitmo camp is arguing? That we basically hold them...forever?
Where would we hold them?
Who would be paying the cost of holding them?
It's absolutely ludicrous to believe that all of those being held would immediately "return to the fight."
well, i'll tell you one thing for damn sure - if they weren't terrorists before, they are now.
If the government doesn't have enough evidence to convict these people then they have no business holding them.
as if these were state parolees failing to check in with their POs?...
On the other hand, our government acts as if confining these few at Gitmo will keep some sort of proverbial lid on Pandora's Box; no other pissed off wannabe terrorist could ever figure out how to harm 'Murika...
Am I schizophrenic or what?
Recidivism could have been very low if the prisoner treatment had been different and if there would have been any effort in changing how a person thinks about what he (supposedly) had done.
...of a cleaning out of Bush political appointees and career hires like every other department of the government. They can start with whatever idiot decided to issue this piece of bullshit.
Keeping the currect SecDef is just another poor Obama decision that will come back to bite him in the ass.
Login or Register to post comments.