Media advance falsehood that Pentagon has confirmed that 61 former Guantánamo detainees have returned to battlefield
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Since President Barack Obama signed an executive order requiring that the Pentagon's detention facilities at Guantánamo be closed within a year, numerous media figures and outlets have repeated or failed to challenge the claim that 61 former detainees held there have returned to the battlefield. In fact, the figure, which comes from the Pentagon, includes 43 former prisoners who are suspected of, but have not been confirmed as, having "return[ed] to the fight."
Since President Barack Obama signed an executive order requiring that the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay be closed within a year, numerous media figures and outlets -- including CNN's Campbell Brown, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Fox News' Sean Hannity, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and ABCNews.com -- have repeated or failed to challenge the claim that 61 former detainees held at Guantánamo have returned to the battlefield. Hannity, the Globe, and the Los Angeles Times, in particular, falsely asserted that the Pentagon has confirmed this figure. In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, according to the Pentagon, the 61-detainee figure includes 43 former prisoners who are suspected of, but have not been confirmed as, having "return[ed] to the fight." Indeed, during a January 13 press conference, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell stated: "The new numbers are, we believe, 18 confirmed and 43 suspected of returning to the fight. So 61 in all former Guantanamo detainees are confirmed or suspected of returning to the fight." Additionally, as Daily Kos contributing editor Joan McCarter noted, Seton Hall University School of Law professor Mark Denbeaux has disputed the Pentagon's figures, asserting: "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, the DOD has been forced to retract their false IDs and their numbers."
Media repeating or failing to challenge the claim that 60 or more Guantánamo detainees have returned to the battlefield include:
- During the January 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity, speaking with Kate Obenshain, vice president of the Young America's Foundation, Hannity falsely asserted: "But we know, Kate, 61 Gitmo detainees that have already been released, according to the Pentagon, went right back to the battlefield with their fanaticism."
- The Boston Globe falsely asserted in a January 23 article: "Pentagon statistics show that of the hundreds of detainees that have been released from Guantanamo since it opened in early 2002, at least 61 have returned to terrorist activities."
- The Los Angeles Times falsely reported on January 23: "The Pentagon has said that 61 former detainees have taken up arms against the U.S. or its allies after being released from the military prison in Cuba."
- On January 23, the San Francisco Chronicle uncritically reported: "Republicans also claimed that 61 detainees already released have been 'found back on the battlefield.' "
- During the January 22 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull, Cliff May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, asserted of Guantánamo detainees, "Many hundreds have been released. About 60 of them -- a little more than that -- have returned to the battlefield." Brown did not challenge May's assertion.
- During the January 22 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Matthews failed to challenge Sen. Kit Bond's (R-MO) claim that "we know already that more than 60 of the people who have been released have been killing our troops, our Americans and civilians on the battlefield."
- A January 22 ABCNews.com article by Jake Tapper, Jan Crawford-Greenburg, and Huma Kahn uncritically reported House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-OH) statement: "Do we release them back into the battlefield, like some 61 detainees that have been released we know are back on the battlefield?"
By contrast, The New York Times reported on January 23 that "[a]lthough the Pentagon has said that dozens of released Guantánamo detainees have 'returned to the fight,' its claim is difficult to document, and has been met with skepticism."
From the January 22 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull:
BROWN: So, Peter, let me just start with you on this question. Two hundred and forty-five people estimated -- suspected terrorists at Gitmo. Who are these people? I mean, are we talking about the worst of the worst? Who's still being held there? What are they suspected of?
PETER BERGEN (CNN national security analyst): Well, 60 of them have been cleared by -- for release by the Bush administration. You've got about 100 Yemenis in there. Yemen is a country with a rather inadequate prison system, so they haven't been back -- sent back to Yemen. You've got 20 high-value Al Qaeda people in there, who are certainly serious terrorists, and then some other people that we don't really have a good sense of: are they really engaged in terrorism or are they there -- are they sort of innocent? And that's, of course, one of the things that's happening with this 120-day review process is to look at all these cases and say who should be released, who should be held, who should go to some form of trial, whether it's a military trial or a trial in a federal court.
BROWN: And Cliff, give us your view on this. I know you are obviously a big supporter of President Bush's policies. When Guantánamo Bay shuts down, do you believe that Americans are going to be at greater risk?
MAY: Well, we don't know that yet. I give President Obama great credit for the symbolism of today. People just hearing about this story probably think he is or has closed Guantánamo down. He hasn't. His advisers now have a year to figure out what to do with the dangerous terrorists who are there.
Don't forget, people -- I've been to Guantánamo. It's not the place that's the problem, it's those who are there. Some can be released. Many hundreds have been released. About 60 of them -- a little more than that -- have returned to the battlefield. What is a great danger -- and the young woman you had on expressed it -- is once they come to the U.S., they will have the constitutional rights due Americans.
Some of them -- Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was one of the masterminds of 9-11 -- you want to be careful that you don't have lawyers immediately saying, "OK, now they have to be released because they have to go to the -- you don't have evidence against them. Their confessions were coerced. You have to reveal your intelligence sources." We don't want these people living in Atlanta. We don't want them living in Miami, New York, or even Hollywood.
BROWN: You disagree.
BERGEN: But that's kind of an absurd point.
JEFFREY TOOBIN (CNN senior analyst): I disagree. I disagree --
BROWN: Hold on, Peter.
TOOBIN: -- completely. We have a legal system in this country that has tried Zacarias Moussaoui. It has tried the "Blind Sheikh." We have had terrorism trials. These people are in prison. Our legal system is completely capable --
MAY: Let me --
TOOBIN: We're talking about maybe 40 trials. That is the way the system is supposed to work, not through these secret detentions and endless holding people without charges. Let the system work. We've got a system -- a legal system here that's done us very proud.
From the January 22 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: But we begin with Senator Bond. Senator Kit Bond joins us from Capitol Hill. Senator Bond, what is your thinking when you heard that Barack Obama's going to close Gitmo?
BOND: Well, I think it's irresponsible to say you're going to close Gitmo without having a plan. What are you going to do with the hardened terrorists that are there? I can't think of any town or city in Missouri who wants to have hardened criminals, illegal combatants like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or Abu Zubaydah coming into their community.
Now, if you don't bring them back to the United States, if you release them, we know already, that's more than 60 of the people who have been released have been killing our troops, our Americans and civilians on the battlefield. If you really want to bring them back to the United States, people in Missouri and Kansas believe Gitmo is just fine. Folks in San Francisco want it closed. I'd suggest you put them in Alcatraz.
MATTHEWS: Well, why wouldn't you imprison somebody after holding a trial or execute them? Why don't we do it by law? What's the problem with doing it the usual way?
From the January 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
PAT CADDELL (Fox News contributor): Well, that's my -- I happen to agree with you about that, Sean. I think -- President Bush wanted to close Gitmo. I think Gitmo has become a real stain, but the problem is: Where do you put these people? I'll tell you what, in Charleston, we do not want them in the brig. You know, we -- these people are really dangerous, some of them. Some of them -- and I think we should have gone over to the trial process. But what do you do? Put them in Fort Sumter? Put them in Alcatraz? I don't know. But I'll tell you what -- or give them to [Rep.] Mr. [John] Murtha [D-PA]? But the point is, the country is upset about this. They're against it.
HANNITY: Terrorists do not deserve constitutional rights.
PAT BOONE (entertainer and conservative activist): No.
HANNITY: They don't deserve their day in a civilian court. Pat, we've never done this in the history --
BOONE: No.
HANNITY: -- of the country. And for all the --
BOONE: These are military prisoners, they are not U.S. citizens. And they are suspected terrorists and murderers. I think we should do what the Israelis have done, which -- from time to time, they simply release them, send them back where they came from.
Now, you know, you scald a dog, and he may not want to attack you again. And if they let these guys go, and the Israelis know it when they let them go, it's --
HANNITY: Wait a minute. He's --
BOONE: If we meet them again, they may not be taken prisoner; they'll be killed.
HANNITY: Well, wait a minute. But we know, Kate, 61 Gitmo detainees that have already been released, according to the Pentagon, went right back to the battlefield --
BOONE: Yeah.
HANNITY: -- with their fanaticism.
KATE OBENSHAIN (vice president of Young America's Foundation): Well, that's the problem.
BOONE: Yeah.
OBENSHAIN: You know, this was a nice campaign promise. It invigorated the base for Obama. But the problem is, it has real, lasting consequences. And, you know, there is a reason why we haven't had another 9-11 attack, and a lot of people think it's because of the information that was secured during those --
HANNITY: Absolutely.
OBENSHAIN: -- interrogations.
From the January 22 ABCNews.com article:
The president's sweeping orders effectively dismantled the Bush administration's system for handling terrorists, prompting criticism that his actions were shortsighted and dangerous.
Republicans such as Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, have expressed concern about where the detainees will go and say there are lots of questions still to be answered.
"I think the first thing we have to remember is that we're talking about terrorists here," Boehner said at a press conference this afternoon. "Do we bring them into our borders? Do we release them back into the battlefield, like some 61 detainees that have been released we know are back on the battlefield? And do we release them to get back and rejoin this fight? ... I'm concerned that some will be let go too soon, could end up back on the battlefield."
Cornyn argued that closing Guantanamo could bring terror suspects to America and put the country at risk.
"Clearly, these are not the kind of people you would want to put in our city jails or our state prisons," he said.
From the January 23 Boston Globe article:
Critics of the reforms, including the top House Republican, John Boehner of Ohio, argued yesterday that some of the 245 detainees now at Guantanamo could pose clear threats to national security if released. Pentagon statistics show that of the hundreds of detainees that have been released from Guantanamo since it opened in early 2002, at least 61 have returned to terrorist activities.
"The real fear is what do you do with these terrorists and if you make it clear you are going to close Guantanamo and you don't have a policy in place to deal with those who are housed there, what do you do?" asked Boehner, who with other House Republicans quickly filed a bill seeking to bar federal courts from ordering Guantanamo detainees to be released into the United States. "I'm concerned that some of these let go too soon could end up back on the battlefield. There are a lot of unanswered questions."
From the January 23 Los Angeles Times article:
There are 245 detainees in the prison. The question of what to do with them is a delicate one that balances the desire to close a facility widely seen as damaging to international standing with the risks of releasing prisoners who many think still pose a serious threat.
The Pentagon has said that 61 former detainees have taken up arms against the U.S. or its allies after being released from the military prison in Cuba.
Citing that concern, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the fundamental challenge was "figuring out how do we close Guantanamo and at the same time safeguard the security of the American people."
Some Republicans accused the White House of acting rashly and without sufficient concern for the potential risks.
"This is an executive order that places hope ahead of reality -- it sets an objective without a plan to get there," Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement.
From the January 23 San Francisco Chronicle article:
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the Obama commission leaves open the question of where Osama bin Laden would go if he were caught.
Rep. Jane Harman, the Venice (Los Angeles County) Democrat who chairs the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence and Terrorism, dismissed GOP complaints as "the fear card" because at most 60 Guantanamo prisoners could wind up in U.S. prisons, where they would face prosecution, probably in federal courts.
Harman said if evidence is tainted by torture, prosecutors will have to establish new evidence, but said this should not be difficult given the cases. Others, she said, would be sent to foreign countries for prosecution there.
Bond scoffed at the idea, saying other countries have been unwilling to accept detainees. Republicans also claimed that 61 detainees already released have been "found back on the battlefield."

















Maybe the definition of "battlefield" should be clarified. Since the "war on terror" is being fought in the cities and villages where these people live, they may very well have returned to the "battlefield", a.k.a. their homes.
The real question is whether they have taken up arms. Maybe they have, maybe not. How do we know?
Of course, the Pentagon would never lie to us.... would they?
We don't know if they are Sunni or Shiite or who they might want to fight or why. The whole "war on terror" thing lets us back or oppose just about anyone for any reason.
Oh I think we know what the reasons are: 'back or oppose just about anyone for any reason". Imperialism is imperialism, even with a shiny package around it called "War on Terror".
Hey nerzog...
Did you happen to catch Olbermann's take on StillBushed from Friday night about the supposed 'terrorist' (who had no reason to hate us at the time of his 'capture' in 2002) that was let go in 2007 (after 5 years of torture and illegal detaining with no charges nor a trial) and is 'now' someone who is by all accounts a junior leader of Al Qeada in Yemen that today... thanks to the Bush/Cheney regime... now has a reason to hate us.
And scumbags like BillO and Glen Beck can sit there behind the camera and act all tough claiming that we can't close Gitmo... even though it is now painfully obvious that Gitmo is a factory that creates a new generation of terrorists so that the Bush created War on Terror will have plenty of future recruits...
Note to President Obama: Save this country from the damaging hand of Bush/Cheney and allow Eric Holder to do what needs to be done to save the future of this country!
In my opinion, the liberal side will never win this argument, even if facts and logic support our position. Joe Scarborough was waving a copy of the New York Times which claimed that a man released from Gitmo is now a "Top Al Qaeda Leader". I don't know if this story is even true, but I guess it's enough for some people to abandon the burden of due process and reason.
If even one former detainee can be proven to have killed one American, that's all that will be needed to stampede the nervous ninnies who think every Muslim is a terrorist.
I am affraid, nerzog, that "nervous" is not a strong enough word for the Scarboroughs of the world ... They, like Cheney & W, are hysterically PARANOID
"In a state of perpetual urination".
nerzog,
There you go again, mixing an unconfirmed news reports and you own far left mindset to project on to people you don't know your biased and biggotted opinions. It's a new year, how about tossing out those tired cliche's, juvenile perceptions, and childish name calling. It really does detract from your posts such as the one above, which is simply a joke.
I completely agree with you with your apt synopsis.
Well, if you were to change "nerzog" to "anotheramerican" and substitute "right" for "left", that is. It would be a perfect description of youself, you cottonheaded ninniemuggens!
Which part is untrue?
AA, take my advice and chill:
Get up offa that thing,
and dance 'till you feel better,
Get up offa that thing,
and dance 'till you, sing it now!
Get up offa that thing,
and dance 'till you feel better,
Get up offa that thing,
and try to release that pressure!
Get up offa that thing,
and shake 'till you feel better,
Get up offa that thing,
and shake it, say it now!
Get up offa that thing,
and shake 'till you feel better,
Get up offa that thing,
and try to release that pressure!
Get up off!
Ha!
Good God!
:-0)
I feel better already, j.j. Your presence has that effect on me ;-)
Wel, that doesn't look so hot, but you get the gist. In the meantime, maybe AA could use some vitameatavegamin since he's not too poopular at this party! :-)
I think Ricky Ricardo would be right proud to sing your limerick, Julia ;-)
If fact, I hear him singing it right now, while Lucy takes her vitamins. they were much more poopular than certain people on this here board who never learn anything and don't want to.
Excellent choice, juliajayne. Clearly, ug's the hardest workin' man in wingnut nonsense today.
F'n A coop...!
You just proved Nerzog's point.
Thing with that one is, Political appointees in the shurb administration released him to the Saudis in 2007. No trial, no judicial review. The Saudis let him walk.
Source today's crooks and liars.
The NY Times did bury this fact today but at least it included this line:
Although the Pentagon has said that dozens of released Guantánamo detainees have “returned to the fight,” its claim is difficult to document, and has been met with skepticism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html?hp
Good article, thanks. I didn't know much about politics in Yemen. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html
What about the 18 confirmed to have gone back into battle?
Strangely I see no posts so far referring to them. Does it not stand to reason that of the remaining terrorist, since they are deemed more dangerous, that the chances of them again bearing arms against the Allies is even greater than the confirmed and/or suspected who have already been released?
how do you know that those 18 were in battle before being detained?
This is why you loons lost, ug. Once you get past the corruption and the cluelessness, you have nothing to offer but fear itself.Confirmed by whom, ug? Cheney? They've had three convictions in seven years. So much for the worst of the worst. They round up the usual suspects and that's the best they can come up with. The reich is dead, ug. Let it go.
truth,
I personally don't know. What I do remember is that every detainee has records regarding where he was captured and the reasons surrounding the capture. The assumption that the group of detainees were all or mostly innocent civilians I think is greatly overstated.
Almost all were captured during combat if I recall correctly and those that were questionable, were already released.
I use the word "terrorist" to describe those detained because they did not belong to any official military organization. If you want to use another word for them, be my guest.
Suspected terrorist is the word until they are proven guilty by a legal entity. When people are simply charged or accused with X, then they are suspected X.
Does it not stand to reason that of the remaining terrorist, since they are deemed more dangerous,... AA
Deemed? See that's part of the problem. Anyone can say someone else is very dangerous, but without some sort of due process how can there be any certainty about the accusation?
"...of the remaining terrorist"
There you go again, making gratuitous assumptions. How do we know they are terrorists? Because the Pentagon says they are?
AA: First of all, who "confimed" this as a fact? Evidence, anyone? We've already addressed the "back into battle" crap.
You state as fact "the remaining terrorist [sic][sick]" with no proof that these people were, in fact, terrorists in the first place. Take the case of the Ungars - I'm sure you are quite familiar with them. Held for many years after it was established there was no reason to hold them - because once we had them we had no other place to put them. Geez, that's a good reason to keep folks in prison for years and years!
Maybe we could just put an implant in their brain so we can follow them everywhere they go, like Total Recall. You know how the Repugs just love those action movies.
HEY!! Fog!! Quit stealing my ideas that I also steal from movies!!
Newz,
I am only reading the reports that say they were confirmed. I imagine if they had not been confirmed, MMFA would have noted it.
I am not familiar with the Ungars.
Let's see- so the Bush Administration set eighteen prisoners free who then went on to go into battle against Americans?
Is this another example of the Bush administration "keeping us safe?"
jj,
I guess you want it both ways. Let 'em all go or keep us safe.
Yeah, Prince, I guess these breathless complainers only had trusticles when their reality distortion field was activated by ex-holes Bush and Cheney. Now they're having a tough time reorienting themselves to life without the blinders. All of a sudden they're concerned.
It would be touching if not so disingenuously and patently absurd.
Yes, their concern is amazing. Whatever they hear on their radio from illusionists like Limbaugh, or on Faux "news", which spouts enough distortion and misinformation to rival Pravda...that's what they obsess about. No matter what the facts are, no matter how they weren't bothered by something until it became the latest talking point.
Parnoidians
Criminal Dick and Uncurious George
breathless complainers
trusticles
reality distortion field
ex-holes
illusionist
Faux News
Pravda
Yep.. Mary, it is laughable how you crticize others about facts when these posts are nothing but a catch all for silly phrases.
AA, nice that you got the over all larger concept as usual :-) Do you really imagine you're fooling anyone with distraction techniques? I use colorful phrases for entertainment, btw.
But I understand why you're not amused. The rest us aren't amused by the fact that Obama and the American people have to clean up this filthy mess. You do realize what a mess we're in, right? Are you gonna step up and help out, or are you gonna all of a sudden decide you don't need to support our new president. After all, your side was screaming about how we weren't patriots when we didn't co sign Bush's colossal mistakes. Dude, wake up!
What is being forgotten here is the word "returned." In order to return, a person must have been there before. How do we know that anyone released from Gitmo and now fighting the US has "returned" to the battlefield or just started fighting.
It has been well documented that many prisoners at Gitmo were not fighters or terrorists to begin with. They were sold to us by warlords, bounty hunters and others looking for a quick buck. Some were apparently captured due to personal vendettas.
Bottom Line: Until the US proves that a given person was, indeed, a fighter or terrorist, it's pointless to claim that upon release they are "returning."
Finally - if you were an innocent person, thrown into prison for years without trial or a decent opportunity to defend yourself, and then released - what would you do to the people who treated you this way?
"Finally - if you were an innocent person, thrown into prison for years without trial or a decent opportunity to defend yourself, and then released - what would you do to the people who treated you this way?"
Thank you, that's the exact point I wanted to make and you beat me to it.
If I was abducted and held for years in a prison getting relentlessly interrogated, waterboarded, deprived of sleep, denied the use of my senses, and periodically shackled to the floor of a room blaring with death metal music, only to wind up being released because it was somehow later determined that I was either innocent or of no tactical value, I THINK I'D BE PRETTY DAMN P***ED OFF AND LOOKING FOR A LITTLE PAYBACK.
pete,
That makes them as guilty as the rest.
Time to get off that torture bandwagon as justification for attacking the U.S.
I think the point is that it's counter-productive, not that it justifies anything.
"That makes them as guilty as the rest."
It absolutely does.
"Time to get off that torture bandwagon as justification for attacking the U.S."
I didn't mention anything that the right-wing predominatly defines as torture. Are you breaking ranks?
"torture bandwagon as justification for attacking the U.S."
motivation and justification are not the same thing.
pete592: This is an excellent example of how the Global War on Terror has produced more terror. Years ago a US Army officer was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle saying the War in Iraq was the Superbowl for Terrorists. They were arriving from around the world to fight us there.
Oh, President Bush "kept us safe since 9/11." Only if we don't consider the attacks on our "allies" in Spain, Italy, England, etc. Or the thousands of US citizens killed in Iraq. And the official combat death count is low because it doesn't include contract security personnel, some who died from their wounds in Germany or the US, suicides or "accidents," etc. And the tens of thousands wounded. I don't consider this keeping our nation safe, when more people have died since 9/11 than died during 9/11. That's bizarre arithmetic!
Finally - why would any prescient individual believe any number published by the US Government during the Administrations of George Bush?
I've made it a point to listen to Hannity,Limbaugh and that little twerp, Levin to see how they posture themsleves after the election. All 3 seem to be a bit more frantic with the lies then usual. Hannity it appears tp have taken the self appointed role as defender of the American way (Bless you Sean) of life and has vowed to fight Obama's "socialist" agenda. As he repeatedly says " That's my job." He has nothing left, except to put on his Mighty Mouse outfit and protect his dilusional perception of the safe and prosperous Bush and Chenney left us.
Limbaugh has gone to a higher level of sarcasm playing sound effects to mock Obama - Nothing much else left for him either, and Mark Levin... Well. he's just a nasty little nut! If he didn't have this radio show, he wouldmost definatley be doing some reality show on aliens form space.
I am no able to repeat the very words to these 3 anti American cynics that were shouted at me back in '67. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!
I listen to Sean Hannity for as long as I can tolerate it to try and understand what their stratedgy will be after Obama became President and it is clear to me that they are going to keep pinning him as a socialist who will fail (because history tells us so). It's too bad Hannity doesn't know what socialism is otherwise if he wasn't so partisan he would be crying foul over George W. Bush's 700 billion dollar welfare cheques to the big banks and each American in the year of 2008. Funny how Hannity doesn't point out the largest expansion of gov't under George W. Bush or the trillion dollar deficit that Bush managed to build up. Funny how he manages to forget all these things which *gasp* I thought only socialists were guilty of.
Hannity is a hypocrite to the core, we all know that...he just doesn't want his listeners to know that other he will lose multi-million dollar contracts that make him fabulousely wealthy over the ignorance of others.
AoW: Yes, Sheer Insannity rants about President Obama's "socialism" (forgetting that Gov. Palin pushed through a windfall profits tax on Alaskan oil companies - proceeds going directly to the citizens of the state and therefore subsidized by the remaining 49; or Sen. McCain's statement that people who make more money should pay more taxes) and then goes directly to closing Gitmo.
What in the world does closing Gitmo have to do with socialism?
It makes clear, however, how radical Sheer Insannity's political veiws are if he considers a demonstrated centrist such as President Obama to be on the left.
newzhound, stop attacking Hannity. He is an award-winning journalist. Media Matters itself gave Hannity an award recently. Here it is:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200812170007
http://crooksandliars.com/cernig/pentagon-pushes-debunked-returning-terror-h
Repeating one link debunking the bogus statement that "61 former Guantanamo prisoners have returned to the battlefield."
Seems like the Pentagon is taking a page from General Joe McCarthy, who kept changing the number of Commies in the State Dept. to suit his paranoid power delusions.
MickD,
McCarthy was a Senator, not a General. Subsequent research has shown he was correct. The State Department had been infiltrated by Communist agents.
Professor Arthur Herman. His new book, "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator," and featured in the Sunday New York Times Magazine, shows the vindication of most of McCarthy's charges. Herman, who is also coordinator of the Smithsonian's Western Heritage Program, said that the accuracy of McCarthy's charges "was no longer a matter of debate," that they are "now accepted as fact." However, the term "McCarthyism" still remains in the language.
Are you really suggesting that McCarthy got a raw deal in the whole Red Scare that he personally fueled?
Yup, him and Ann Coulter hold out Joe as a great American.
OB: Don't forget Tailgunner Joe as the past master of libel. "Have you no shame, Sir? Have you no shame?"
If you have the opportunity, view Edward R. Morrow's documentary on Sen. McCarthy where the poor drunk is hung with his own words. It is an amazing piece of work!
Herman's "new" book was published in 1999.
You also may notice that the entire paragraph about the book was stolen from a World Net Daily article.
Even when confronted with his plagiarism many times in the past, this poster continues his cutting and pasting and passing the words and ideas off as his own.
Oops!
Forgot to give my source.
Amazing, Worrierking. Another grandmotherly lecture to somebody whose boots he's not fit to lick, then right on the plagiarism pony.
Mrs. T used "narcissist". I don't think "psychopath" is too strong.
I'm always at work when I read this website, so I don't typically have the time and inclination to backgroun check what the wingnuts are posting. However, it's always obvious when their tone and syntax suddenly changes that they are no longer using their own words. Do they really believe that their blog comments have the same pacing as a finished article? Not that the WND has really highbrow journalists, but are the posters here really that narcissistic?
There is a wide range of narissism displayed here. Some rated at professional clinic levels.
Anybody else getting a lot of flak from the profanity filter ?
No, but I'm a gentleman.
Spending a lot of time in Gentlemen's clubs does not a gentleman make. Good day, Sir !
Should I still give Bambi your regards?
I'll support the performing arts directly, not by proxy, thank you.
I find it interesting that Bambi was named after The classic Felix Salter story Bambi provides the basis for this near-perfect Disney animated feature. We follow the male deer Bambi from birth, through his early childhood experiences with woodland pals Thumper the rabbit and Flower the skunk, the traumatic sudden death of Bambi's mother at the hands of hunters, his courtship of the lovely doe Faline, and his rescue of his friends during a raging forest fire; we last see the mature, antlered Bambi assuming his proper place as the Prince of the Forest. In the grand Disney tradition, Bambi is brimming with unforgettable sequences, notably the young deer's attempts to negotiate an iced-over pond, and most especially the death of Bambi's mother--and if this moment doesn't move you to tears, you're made of stone (many subsequent Disney films, including Lion King, have tried, most in vain, to match the horror and pathos of this one scene). The score in Bambi yielded no hits along the lines of "Whistle While You Work", but the songs are adroitly integrated into the action. Bambi was the last of the "classic" early Disney features before the studio went into a decade-long doldrums of disjointed animated pastiches like Make Mine Music.
You're really into the woodland friends, aren't ya? :-0)
And plagiarizing! Sure beats thinkin' up stuff yourself.
Now if Neon would just repost his quilting article...
Well I have, but I've been trying to use the word mother f----er.
Although yesterday I DID put something in italics and the profanity filter told me to watch my mouth. So who knows.
Mrs. T, I'm not sure how long you've been reading this site but Anotheramerican has been busted countless times for plagiarizing. He seems to have absolutely no concept of the ethics of it.
I'm not talking about his normal lies or factual foul-ups, but deliberately trying to pass off others writing as his own. It's stunning, he seems to be unfazed and completely amoral about his repeated exposure as a liar.
every once in a while I forget and leave out a link. My apologies.
The point is I wanted to make is that there is documented proof by a number of authors that, his hyperbole aside, McCarthy was indeed correct. Much of what is commonly thought about him is actually due to the HUAC committe a couple of years before Joe -that is associated with the Hollywood blacklisting.
every once in a while I forget and leave out a link. (AA)
Please stop insulting everybody's intelligence. It's childish, and only makes you look like a fool in addition to being a liar and plagiarist.
I was joking about the "general" part (in reference to the Pentagon numbers) but thanks for the revisionist history.
Why would he have to change the number? What was that number that was changed? I'm all ears...
From Wikipedia...
"The State Department is infested with communists. I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department."
There is some dispute about whether or not McCarthy actually gave the number of people on the list as being "205" or "57". In a later telegram to President Truman, and when entering the speech into the Congressional Record, he used the number 57. The origin of the number 205 can be traced: In later debates on the Senate floor, McCarthy referred to a 1946 letter that then Secretary of State James Byrnes sent to Congressman Adolph J. Sabath. In that letter, Byrnes said State Department security investigations had resulted in "recommendation against permanent employment" for 284 persons, and that 79 of these had been removed from their jobs; this left 205 still on the State Department's payroll. In fact, by the time of McCarthy's speech only about 65 of the employees mentioned in the Byrnes letter were still with the State Department, and all of these had undergone further security checks
So, Mr Hannity fails to point out that (given the meaning of "hundreds") that 80 to 90 percent of Gitmo detainees do _not_ return to their previous behaviors...?
I am constantly amazed that Hannity considers himself qualified to discuss any topical issues at all.
I am no expert in these matters, but I certainly know other non-experts when I hear them
Well, as a troglodyte on another thread has shown us, it only takes a handful to commit a heinous act. Therefore, in the feeble minds of the Sean Hannity's out there, better to incarcerate 100% without trial than to risk the 5% who might commit an atrocity in the future.
Why not apply that same principle to our own criminal justice system? Every crime would be punishable by life imprisonment... period. Of course, we'd have to turn the state of Alaska into a prison camp to hold them all, but Simple Sarah would be glad to get the Federal money.
Wasn't it Cheney that came up with the "1% doctrine".
All I know for a fact is that Mr Hannity is an irresponsible commentator.
Let me get out my Thesaurus, to wit: He is ill-considered, thoughtless,immature, lax, shiftless, unaccountable, uncareful, unreliable, unstable, irrational, ... the list goes on and on and on.
Perhaps Mr Hannity considers this fact a "glass half-full" phenomenon.
Who knows?
I also enjoyed reading the report that showed that one example of "returning to the fight" that the Pentagon counted was someone who had done so by having an op-ed in The New York Times.
Lawfully.
Muslim terrorists have been tried and convicted in US civilian courts before. They're currently imprisoned in US prisons. They can and likely will be again.
Hey WMR, nice reply on that statistics thing a while back. Not being sarcastic. The thread closed before I could reply.
Anyway, what to do with the Gitmo detainees is a huge problem. We can't be certain of the accuracy of any of the intelligence that was used in rounding them up which is going to make trials difficult to say the least. We can be certain that a large percentage of them are going to have a grudge against the US that will lead to future problems, especially if they were innocent in the first place. And that is one of the keys to why this discussion is important. There is not joy in saying "Told you so." But we need to learn from this mistake. I don't know the answer of how to fix this, but I'm pretty positive that pretending everything is hunky dory and that it wasn't a terrible idea and contrary to the laws of this nation in the first place is a very bad idea.
Have been lucky enough to visit over 40 countries and have worked with foreign governments. It is amazing at how things can be "justified" or "criticized" from just about any angle or diection.
In the US we are an advanced society - but I also spent 6 years in the UK and while we appear to be the same on policy - the handling of things like Gitmo are worlds apart. In the first instance, the UK gov't would never have acknowledged Gitmo and if it did surface there would be wide level acceptance . One only has to look at the measures and steps that country took to deal with the NI bombers. And the UK is seen a "civil" and "advanced" like the US is on protection of civil rights.
What scares me most - I have been through three coups/uprisings. Young zealots, brain washed by their leaders, will stop at nothing until they do their damage. I believe many in Gitmo are these zealots and will be back.....
Ah, the ol' "round up the usual suspects" song and dance. After all, they're Muslims. Somebody's gotta be guilty of somethin'.
Nice try. No sale. I don't give a damn what you believe, little fella. Your beliefs ain't evidence. Three convictions in seven years is.
Of course we'll never know how many terrorists US policy has created in Iraq or how many Gitmo detainees were radicalized by the experience of being incarcerated without the basic right of habeas corpus.
Despotic acts foment hatred against the despot. Thanks, George!
Randy
Oh, yes. The "blame America first" crowd. That's right. George Bush created the terrorists. It never ceases to amaze me how history escapes some people.
Given the number of outright lies told by the DoD and other agencies over the past eight years they are going to have to provide a little more documentation of the claimed "61" before anyone believes them again.