Gregory allowed 61-detainee falsehood to stand unrebutted on Meet the Press
SUMMARY: On Meet the Press, host David Gregory allowed Rep. John Boehner to repeat the falsehood that, in Boehner's words, "we've already found" that 61 detainees released from the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay are now "back on 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 engaged in terrorist activity. Moreover, even the Pentagon's claim that it has confirmed that 18 former Guantánamo detainees have returned to the battlefield has been questioned by experts.
On the January 25 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host David Gregory allowed House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) to repeat the falsehood that, in Boehner's words, "we've already found" that 61 detainees released from the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay are now "back on 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." Moreover, even the Pentagon's claim that it has confirmed that 18 former Guantánamo detainees have returned to the battlefield has been questioned by experts.
After Gregory asked if President Obama's executive order requiring that the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay be closed within a year was "realistic," Boehner responded: "[W]hat do you do with these 270 prisoners? Some of them you might be able to release, but we've already found 61 of those that we've released back on the battlefield."
Gregory did not note that according to the Pentagon, the 61-detainee figure includes 43 former prisoners who are suspected of, but have not been confirmed as, having engaged in terrorist activity -- detainees who have not been "already found [...] back on the battlefield," as Boehner asserted. Indeed, as Media Matters for America noted, 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."
Further, the Pentagon's definition of "returning to the fight" has been challenged by some analysts. As CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen noted on the January 23 edition of Anderson Cooper 360: "[R]eturning to the fight, in Pentagon terms, could be engaging in anti-American propaganda, something that's not entirely surprising if you have been locked up in a prison camp for several years without charge." Bergen further stated: "[W]hen you really boil it down, the actual number of people whose names we know are about eight out of the 520 that have been released [from Guantánamo], so a little above 1 percent, that we can actually say with certainty have engaged in anti-American terrorism or insurgence activities since they have been released. ... If the Pentagon releases more information about specific people, I think it would be possible to -- to potentially agree with them. But, right now, that information isn't out there."
Additionally, Seton Hall University School of Law professor Mark Denbeaux -- who has written several reports about Guantánamo detainees, including some challenging the Pentagon's definition of "battlefield" capture and published detainee recidivism rates -- has disputed the Pentagon's figures, asserting: "[The Defense Department's most recent] attempt to enumerate the number of detainees who have returned to the battlefield is false by the Department of Defense's own data and prior reports." He added that in "each of its forty-three attempts to provide the numbers of the recidivist detainees, the Department of Defense has given different sets of numbers that are contradictory and internally inconsistent with the Department's own data."
Gregory also failed to challenge Boehner's assertion that the detainees at Guantánamo "are terrorists who have attempted to kill Americans." As Media Matters documented, a February 8, 2006, study authored by Denbeaux and a lawyer representing Guantánamo detainees analyzed Defense Department data on 517 Guantánamo Bay detainees, finding that more than half "are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies."
From the January 25 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
GREGORY: Let me turn to the issue of the executive order that the president signed to close down the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, within a year. Is that realistic?
BOEHNER: I don't believe so, and I've got concerns about it. I understand the problem with Gitmo and the black eye that it's given us. But President Bush wanted to close down Gitmo, too. So did Senator John McCain. And the reason that Gitmo is still there is they couldn't determine -- what do you do with these 270 prisoners? Some of them you might be able to release, but we've already found 61 of those that we've released back on the battlefield.
You don't want to bring them into the United States, where all of a sudden they have rights of U.S. citizens. We have to remember these are terrorists who have attempted to kill Americans, and unilaterally saying, "We're going to close Gitmo in a year," without knowing how we're going to deal with them, where we're going to house them, how we're going to try them, I think keeps a campaign promise but may be irresponsible.
GREGORY: Do you think that the president is making America less safe in taking this step?
Galloping faux statistics, and then our beltway reporter Gregory asks, "do you think this makes America less safe?" groan.
All the falsehoods of neo-con Boehner
Should be debunked by the press--a no-brainer
Yet reporters play dumb
As if under his thumb
Spineless Beltway press need a re-trainer.
Mary, Gregory has a spine. It's just "Stetched" too thin....now you can really groan, girl :-)
Host David speaks out of his arsse
Since his gray matter is somewhat sparse
He let's go the lie
Does enough to "get by"
'Cause that passes in our media farce
Can you believe I had to use 2 S's in order for that to get by the profanity filter?
Doesn't the alternate word have 2 S's without misspelling it?
You mean Ass? Let's see if that gets through :-0)
OMG. Ass gets through but arsse with one s doesn't...I love it!
Gregory regularly conducts himself like this and sees nothing wrong with it.
He's as big a hack as Tim Russert was.
Gregory sees nothing wrong with how the media conducted itself in the Clinton or Bush years. He thinks they asked the "tough questions" of Bush. To debunk this, just let me point out what the reporters did after Ari Fliescher threatened two members of the media:
1 -- In May 2001, Bennett Roth of the Houston Chronicle -- pointing out that the president had encouraged parents to speak to their children about drug abuse -- asked Fleischer, "How much has he talked to his own daughters about both drugs and drinking? And given the fact that his own daughter was cited for underage drinking, isn't that a sign that there's only so much effect that a parent can have on their children's behavior?" Fleischer asked Roth to respect the president's privacy and later called him, reporting that his question had been "noted in the building."
2 -- Ari Fleischer denounced Bill Maher, saying of news organizations, and all Americans, that in times like these "people have to watch what they say and watch what they do."
To these explicit threats, the members of the media, including Gregory did NOTHING. What should have happened was a rash of negative stories if not a full blown boycott of white house press briefings. Instead it was status quo ante -- Bush is right, everyone march in lockstep, how does my hair look, can I be the anchor of the weekend news?
Bill Maher is a member of the media now? I thought I just saw him on an HBO special circa '89?
Who's next in the "media" club? Britney Spears?
Bill Maher hosts a television show. Television is a form of media.
Maher's weekly HBO show is at least as much as a news/information/entertainment show as the ones Hannity, O'Reilly, or Dobbs put on.
Maher has a great show which is on vacation, but will be back in Feb.. You're welcome...! ;-)
I miss Bill when he's on vacation. I always look forward to my Friday night Real Time fix.
And jj is right.... Bill Maher is just as much a journalist as Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly.
Nerzog, Bill's show starts again Feb 20th. Thought you'd like to know.
If I'd meant "reporters" or "journalists" I'd have said so. I said "members of the media" specifically -- a group that obviously includes Bill Maher, a man who's hosted two TV shows. And yes, fLIEscher threatened Maher.
Fair enough. Just trying to get glimpse of what is considered "real" media over here. :)
Looks like tit-for-tat...
Barry O is threatning Repub's about listnening to Rush!
Barry threatens law makers on the Hill
Hey Tbone,
Can you explain what the "Threat" is?
It looks like he's making a comment about how ignorant and ill-informed the GOP are because they get their info from Rush. But I don't see any threat.
Yeah, I think it's weak also, but no more of a "threat" than Maher got...
When Dances-with-Roves comes on the air I dive for the remote. But thanks, MMFA, for keeping me informed.
Same here. When I saw that video of him cavorting with Douchebag Rove, I knew that we would get no more real journalism out of him.
He should apply for a job at FOX "News"... he'd be more comfortable there.
Rarely have I seen such a group of cowards as these right-wingers. The terrorists have surely won against them.
For a case in point, see LoudCon's post below.
Gregory, has always been a cooter
Did anyone notice that it was Bush that released these former prisoners?
Yes, in some cases through the actions of political appointees. No judicial reveiw either.
Approximately 500 out of 800 original Gitmo detainees have been released. For some reason, the right-wingers were still able to sleep without wetting their beds while this happened, but now all of a sudden they have nightmares about the remaining detainees.
That's because the remaining detainees will have credible stories about the torture they were subjected to, and they will be heard.
Exactly!!! They keep forgetting to mention that little tidbit. According to the right we're all going to hell in a handbasket because Obama isn't sticking with Dubya's terror policies. As an example they note the "fact" that 61 former Guantanamo detainees have "returned to the battlefield". Oops. The only problem there is that they were released by Bush. If their "facts" are accurate (which seems unlikely) it seems to argue against retaining Bush's policies rather than for it.
Somewhere.... Tim Russert is crying in his coffee... ?
No.....Russert would have done the exact same thing as Gregory did.
This whole Gitmo thing is silly, childish and purposeless.
We hold people there outside of any legal cover. I think at some point there were 700 or some number that the Bush admn. said were terrorists.
We later learn that some of them were not terrorists but are still there because their home countries do not want them back.
Then we release some of them because of whatever reason and some of them turn into terrorists.
If they were terrorists why were they let go? If they were not terrorists why were they there in Gitmo? If they were terrorists why were they let go without a trial and punishment?
Just kinda makes you wonder where that torture thing fits into the bigger picture.
I think Keith Olbermann made a great point last week. There is no way to know if these guys were already terrorists or if we made them terrorists by incarcerating them for years without a trial. If somebody did that to me, I'd be a little peeved, too.
Despite the insipid mewlings of jingoistic jerks, terrorists are made, not born. Sure, some are taught by their fanatical parents or other adults, but generally, terrorists are pi$$ed off about something, justified or not. For example, if you look objectively at the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Palestinians have a lot to be angry about. (And, no, that doesn't mean they're justified in blowing up school busses).
If we acknowledge that basic fact, we'll be one step closer to solving the problem. This "good vs. evil" crap will get us NOWHERE.
What about the 2 showing up in Yemen and working with Al-Quada there?
They know that 18 are active in terrorism and we should suppose the other 43 that they can't account for are doing what???? Saving kittens caught up in trees? Preaching tolerance of homosexuals and fair treatment for women and children?
Leftists in this country want to believe that this world is stuck on 9/10 and that if we just reach out with love to these people, why they will just love us back! These islamofacists are probably doing what islamofacists do best, ......trying to figure out how to kill, how to make bombs that kill and how to keep leftists doing their bidding.
We are still waiting for the president what he plans to do with these sweet, cuddly terrorists once he does close gitmo.
Why did we let the 2 go?
I have no idea what to make of your second paragraph. Please explain.
Why did the previous President not get all terrorists into Gitmo and why did he relase the ones he did? Why did he get whoever he did to Gitmo instead of just killing them? To give them a party?
AFAIK, current President has not released any sweet, cuddly terrorist. Everyone released so far has been by Pres. Bush.
And why did our friends in Saudi Arabia release some of these guys if they were considered dangerous?
You're creating a false choice between sticking them in Gitmo without trial until they die, and releasing them and pretending they will never harm a fly.
The real choice is of course keep them in Gitmo or put them on trial if the evidence is sufficient - just like we do with other criminals and have done with other terrorists.
I have no idea why you right-wingers are so terrified of these guys that you're willing to throw out one of the cornerstones for this nation's very existence. But one thing is clear, you're really letting the terrorists win (to speak in simple terms that you might understand).
Well, what they're doing is quite simple, really. They're using a classic con used by soothsayers and psychics... i.e. the shotgun approach. They will continue to wring their hands and predict that one of these turrists is going to get free and attack us. Even if they're wrong 99% of the time, the one time they're right will make them look prescient.
If even one of these Gitmo detainees is released and lobs a grenade at our troops, they'll jump up and down and say "SEE! I TOLD YOU SO!"
They are shameless.
No one is talking about releasing terrorists. What is being discussed is how to deal with those who've been caught in the very wide net of our fishing for "terrorists" program.
Like good free marketeers, we've outsourced the job to war lords and tribal chiefs. Many were rounded up on hearsay and to settle personal scores. We used illegal interrogation techniques on many and the images released have been the number two recruitment tool for our enemies. The first being the ill conceived War in Iraq.
We need to have a dialogue,not a shouting match. You been around long enough to know that using "leftist" as an slur isn't going to get much of a response other than more insults in return.
The world shouldn't be stuck on 9/10, whatever that means, but it must be stuck on the rule of law and more than two hundred years of honorable treatment of our friends and enemies. Too many have fought and died to protect liberty and to prove to the world that America isn't just a bunch of slogans repeated while hiding behind the comfort of a flag.
NarcissisticNeanderthal, say it ain't so.... you didn't just accuse us of having a "September 10th" view of the world, did you?
That talking point was lame the first time the Troglodytes trotted it out.
The problem with you guys is that you refuse to admit the basic fact that our actions have consequences. If somebody points out that obvious truth, you accuse us of "blaming America" first.
The age of "Freedom Fries" is over, and the smart guys admit it.
Grow up.
And why did our friends in Saudi Arabia release some of these guys if they were considered dangerous?
Heck, if Saddam was so dangerous why didn't Saudi Arabia participate in the "Coalition of the Willing"?
Seems we're the only ones worried.
This is nothing new. Meet the Press has always tossed marshmellow guestions at the right and hammered the left.
Of course Gregory LIED. It's what he does best. Look up the truth? Totally beyond his abilities. He's a coward who is terrified of Neo Clowns more than anything and will, of course do nothig to have them get mad at him.
The fact that even one has returned to the battlefield is one to many. Proves these are bad guys that need to stay in jail.
Well, of course. It's always better to imprison 60 innocent men than to put one guilty man on trial. What could be more American?
Another scared neocon, willing to shred our country's constitution, values, and institutions. Willing to act preemptivily upon any possible vague danger. That our treatment of these people might have radicalized them is of no note. That our actions have made being a fighter against our inhuman acts more and more popular some how irrelivent. If they somehow manage to strike again in any manner, its someone else's fault. Accept what your acts cause and move on to a more realistic exsistence.
Eweston, we treat those individuals at Gitmo better then we treat our own soldiers whom may or may not have committed crimes. The Red Cross has even stated that the individuals at Gitmo are well treated. The Constitution is about American Citizens, where as the Geneva Convention is about Gitmo detainees. I think you forgot the Preamble of the Constitution - We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
So you're saying we torture with not only God on our side, but the constitution?
Worrier, where did I use the word torture? I am stating that they are not citizens, so they are not held to same rights. They are to be held to the Geneva Conventions standards, guess you missed that statement.
Are you actually claiming that the Constitution, the highest law of our land, does not apply to foreigners that are in the United States?
Yes, I am saying that the U.S. Constitution is for the citizens of the United States, these are prisoners of war, and are to be held to the Geneva Convention.
I guess we can apply the same logic to domestic convicts, right? Since a certain percentage will always return to a life of crime, that "proves these are bad guys that need to stay in jail".... no?
If that is your standard of proof, we can save millions in court costs. Every conviction for any crime brings a life sentence... period. I mean, we can't take the risk of allowing even one convict to commit another crime, can we? Better to imprison a thousand innocent men than to release one guilty one.... wouldn't you agree?
I'm glad you've solved our criminal justice problem.
Nerzog, as usual you go off on some random thought. These are not domestic convicts, these are individuals that were caught on the battlefield. I did not say that they should not be tried, but I do think that if found guilty of crimes against U.S. soldiers they should be held in our prison in Gitmo until they are to be released. It is not like the government just went around and picked up random folks and placed them into Gitmo.
You're correct. The government didn't pick up random folks and put them in GITMO. In some cases, we had our friends the warlords do it for us.
"if found guilty of crimes against U.S. soldiers "
But that would require a trial of some kind, wouldn't it?
You said that, and I quote, "The fact that even one has returned to the battlefield is one to many. Proves these are bad guys that need to stay in jail. "
In one instance, you claim that the activities of previously released detainees is enough to hold these individuals indefinitely, then you say they should be tried.
You're the one meandering here, not me.
Nerzog, yes if one returns to the battlefield, means that they were once there. The Geneva Convention has guidelines on trying these individuals, and we should follow those guidelines. I do not beleive in torture, I beleive that these individuals should be held, tried and then released based upon those guidelines. I am not saying hold them indefinitely, ( I did not say that) but just relseasing them to their based countries with out first trying them does not make much since either.
Well, I think we agree on that. I don't think any of them should be released without trial or hearing. I don't know of any serious liberal who is advocating that.
I think the biggest sticking point has been that they are being held without having been convicted of anything. Some have been there for 7 years without a trial of any kind.
I don't think our Founding Fathers would approve.
Nerzog, your correct, our Founding Fathers would not apporve, the detainees have a picnic compared to those of our founding fathers time. Most back then were simply hanged without trial for being considered traitors. - this from one web site about the POW of our Founding Fathers Time - Prisoners received their rations twice a week: one-half pound of biscuit, one half pound of pork, one-half pint of peas, one-half gill of rice, and a half ounce of butter. [xi] They were allowed one fire every three days on which to cook their food. Guards would sell old beef bones and other types of garbage to the Americans. They slept in bare rooms with no straw or hay on which to lie. Their water was brought to them in chamber pots. They became afflicted with lice and other vermin. "As a consequence, the men began to die like rotten sheep, with cold, hunger and disease as constant comrades."
Actually I think the Gitmo crowd falls under the definition of Unlawful Enemy Combatants and therefore fall out of the Geneva Conventions. That is why we are able to hold them there and is the crux of the debate.
I do agree that the tribunals should have taken place by now. It would have helped nip this in the bud so to speak.
You seem to be willing to take the risk of releasing these men. Seriously, where do make your distinctions here? Should Taliban fighters be captured and brought to trial here in the United States? Should a person captured after killing Americans in a firefight be arrested and brought to trial? This whole notion that this is a law enforcement issue rather than a military issue is puzzling to me. Those men in Gitmo were brought there for what appeared to be legitimate reasons. It would have been foolish to take a chance otherwise. Most of them have been let go anyway. It is good to know that those guys have advocates here in America.
I'm willing to take the risk of giving these men a trial, or at least a hearing. Why does that scare you so much?
I think you know that not all of these guys were captured in battle. If that were the case, couldn't they just take testimony from the soldiers who captured them?
Isn't it most likely true that a large percentage of these people were arrested based on intelligence, and they don't want to reveal where that intelligence came from?
By the way, it is both a military issue and a law enforcement issue. It is just as foolish to ignore the law enforcement side as to ignore the military side.
Al Qaeda resembles a drug cartel more than it does the Wiermacht. Why you Conservatives can't grasp that is puzzling to me.
Hey, why don't we lock up EVERYBODY--that way nobody will be free to attack us!
You put me in jail for six years on the unsubstantiated word of a guy who hates me and can make some cash by fingering me, I'm going to do something to hurt you when I get out. Tell me you wouldn't do the same.
And have you ever considered that the existence of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, and credible reports (h*ell, confirmed by Cheney and Shrub) of torture have been extremely effective recruiting posters for al Qaeda?
I find it really disturbing that one of Boner's chief concerns is that if detainees are brought on to American soil the might be given (gasp) rights. God forbid anyone should have rights. Only Americans deserve rights, right? What a tool.
I think this debate lays bare the intellectual vacuity of the NeoClown view of the world.
Indeed. If we believe (and I do) that our judicial system is the best in the world (flawed at times, but still the best, again, in my opinion), then why don't we bring them here? Give them rights, and a fair trial, and prove that they are either bad men, or let them go. Let them be judged by a jury, and tried by a fair and impartial court. Show the REST of the world, that we are fair, and honest.
They are Unlawful Enemy Combatants. They are not affored the same rights as a Lawful Enemy Combatant under the Geneva Conventions. Also the Third Geneva Convention allows the holding of Enemy Combatats until hostilities cease.
So I think the key here is end the war. Then there will be no argument.
How many would it take for it to be too many?
Too many what?
How many innocent men imprisoned would be too many? 50%? 75%? 85%?
Is it worth imprisoning 99 innocent men to keep one guilty man from going free?
In open media, by one Admin account, Gitmo held 765 "detainees", of which 520 were released prior to Bush leacing office, and in the same statement decried that 61 of them (a dubious figure at best) have returned to the fight.
Most credible critics consider this figure highly exagerated but, even so, by their own (gov) accounts, only 10-11% posed any credible threat. That's a 9 out 10 false imprisonment rate. Are they protecting "intelligence" sources, or once again, trying to conceal the failure rate thereof? It's WMD deja-vu all over again.
One brilliant jurist (OW Holmes?) declared that by United States law, a hundred guilty men should go free before one innocent man is convicted. At the verry birth of our nation, we declared that "All men are created equal". Apparently, the previous Admin did not hold this truth to be self-evident
Please pardon the above typo's. I'm generally an excellent speller, but also a struggling typist. Once again, declining visual acuity and haste have conspired against me...
It's simple. David Gregory is no Tim Russert. In fact, if you threw everyone from NBC news into a blender and then skimmed off the creamy democratic idealism, there wouldn't be enough to fill a shot glass. NBC is like all the other corporate networks; they are neocons right down to their bottom line. Gregory is shilling for them because he wants the job, but he doesn't want the reponsibility of doing what's right by the voters who put the Democrats back in the driver's seat. He's a Brian Williams in training, a baby neocon that will look very much like a dinosaur within 2 years. The world is changing and the republicans are stuck in their ideological tar.