NYT, please define "returned"
May 22, 2009 7:39 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Justin Elliott at TMPMuckraker highlighted this Times flip-flop, and it deserves the attention. The Times' lead, upper-right A1 story on Thursday was this [emphasis added]:
1 In 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad, Pentagon Finds
In it, the Times' Elizabeth Bumiller claimed the following:
An unreleased Pentagon report provides new details concluding that about one in seven of the 534 prisoners already transferred abroad from the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has returned to terrorism or militant activity, according to administration officials.
The conclusion could strengthen the arguments of critics who have warned against releasing any more prisoners as part of President Obama's plan to shut down the prison by January 2010.
The Times left little doubt: According to the Pentagon, 1 out of 7 terrorist detained "rejoined jihad." They "returned to terrorism." That announcement went off like a firecracker with conservatives seizing upon the revelation as a way to bash the Obama White House for having a flawed strategy to deal with the detainees.
But then appearing on MSNBC later in the day Thursday, Bumiller announced, "There is some debate about whether you should say 'returned' because some of them were perhaps not engaged in terrorism, as we know -- some of them are being held there on vague charges."
Really? There was some "debate"? Among whom? Because there was little hint of any debate in the Times' original article. It's true, as Elliott noted, that the Times online later adjusted the wording of the article to reflect more ambiguity about the detainees' activity. But their supposed return to terrorism was the central thrust of the news report. That's what landed the story on A1. How could the Times not be sure about that before they published the piece?
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Anyway, I don't believe that Obama is talking about releasing anyone, just shutting down the Gitmo operation, and moving them elsewhere. This seems to be a basic point that everyone ignores, as if shutting down Gitmo means that everyone there would be released.
Furthermore, I'd love to know exactly what "returned to terrorism or military activity" means. If they have an AK-47 in their house, does that qualify as "military activity"? If they give the finger to a convoy of American soldiers, does that qualify as "terrorism"?
But, wait... we know that the Pentagon, like the CIA, would NEVER lie to us.
True, many of these released persons would be happy to return to their former life, or what remained of it, but wouldn't you expect some to be interested in some sort of retribution?
Noni
Vague charges?
But, wait.... I thought they were the "worst of the worst"... too dangerous for our Maximum security prisons? So deadly that merely moving them to American Soil would cause California to slide off into the sea?
VAGUE CHARGES?
Before they release someone they picked up on terrorist-charges, they have an extensive rehabilitation course, letting the man have some anger-therapy, so that they ventilate their frustration in other ways than return to terrorism.
One man released this way returned to Al-Qaida, but later turned himself in to the Saudi government, persuaded by the government through his family, and they cut him a deal where his wife could visit him.
The American way, is to release prisoners straight out of Gitmo, and then be surprised when you see a video of him driving a truck filled with explosives into an Iraqi army-base.
It's like with the regular prisons. Just punish them and then let them out, and they'll do the same, if not worse crimes.
You've got to rehabilitate them, so they'll go on a different path once released.