About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Politico falsely reported that 61 former Guantánamo detainees "have been found to have returned to terrorism"

February 06, 2009 8:13 am ET

SUMMARY: The Politico falsely reported: "The Pentagon said earlier this month that 61 former Guantanamo inmates, out of the more than 700 who had been held at the facility, have been found to have returned to terrorism." In fact, the Pentagon has acknowledged that its figure of 61 detainees includes 43 former prisoners who are only suspected of, but have not been confirmed as having "returned to terrorism." Moreover, even the Pentagon's claim that it has confirmed that 18 former Guantánamo detainees have "return[ed] to the fight" has been questioned by experts.

44 Comments

A February 5 Politico article about Democratic reaction to former Vice President Dick Cheney's recent comments concerning President Obama's executive order closing the Guantánamo Bay prison within a year falsely reported: "The Pentagon said earlier this month that 61 former Guantanamo inmates, out of the more than 700 who had been held at the facility, have been found to have returned to terrorism, up from 37 in March." In fact, the Pentagon has acknowledged that its figure of 61 detainees includes 43 former prisoners who are only suspected of, but have not been confirmed as having "returned to terrorism." 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."

Moreover, even the Pentagon's claim that it has confirmed that 18 former Guantánamo detainees have "return[ed] to the fight" has been questioned by experts. CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen stated on the January 23 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 that "returning 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, as Media Matters has noted, 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."

From the February 5 Politico article headlined, "Dems angered by Cheney warnings":

Richard Clarke, a former counterterrorism official at the National Security Council, has taken issue with the claim -- repeated by Cheney -- that holding hardened terrorists on U.S. soil is too dangerous.

"Convicted terrorists have for some time resided at Supermax," the nickname for the maximum security federal prison in Florence, Colo., Mr. Clarke argued. He added that the U.S. Justice Department has a long record of arresting terrorists overseas and successfully prosecuting them in American courts.

But that argument does not address what to do with the remaining 245 inmates at Guantanamo, some of whom are considered the most dangerous prisoners the U.S. holds. Cheney called them "the hard core."

Obama issued an executive order shortly after taking office that calls for closing Guantanamo within a year. But that will require sending as many as possible to other countries and figuring out another place to hold those who cannot be transferred. Even Obama administration officials admit this is a problem they have not yet solved.

The Pentagon said earlier this month that 61 former Guantanamo inmates, out of the more than 700 who had been held at the facility, have been found to have returned to terrorism, up from 37 in March. If more of the remaining detainees are released, Cheney contended that the recidivism rate would be "much higher."

But several experts noted that Obama is not talking about releasing any of the most dangerous Al Qaeda members at the prison, including several involved in the planning of the Sept. 11 attacks. With a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president, new legislation and other steps can be taken in the next year to ensure the worse prisoners are tried and held, they said.

"Yes, closing Guantanamo is going to be hard, but I think the year framework is realistic," said Harman. She added that most of the cases could be resolved in either U.S civilian or military courts and the remaining cases might require legislation establishing special procedures for trying and holding the prisoners.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by jjamele2880 (February 06, 2009 8:47 am ET)
         

      Well, is it safe to assume this means the Bush Administration is due for a round of sharp criticism for returning these "terrorists" "back" to the "battlefield?"  You know, like if Obama ordered the release of "terrorists" who "returned to the fight?"

      Or if a liberal governor of a Northern State approved a weekend furlough for a murderer who then used that time to rape and murder someone else?

      Just asking.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (February 06, 2009 9:07 am ET)
         

      Is there a firm plan or set of plans for the detainees in Guantanamo, coming up to the closing? Are we going to have trials? Redistribute them across the US and hold them there?

      The media isn't reporting any of this.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by jjamele2880 (February 06, 2009 9:18 am ET)
           

        Haven't you been listening to Hannity, Humphries, Beck, Liddy, O'Reilly, and Gibson?  The detainees will be put in jails right outside our home towns, where they will be given weekends off and we are likely to bump into them in our grocery store parking lots.  That is, until they escape to kill our children and blow themselves up on our local Ride-Ons.

        Why should the News Media cover the likely fate of the detainees?  Right Wing radio is doing fine. :>/

        Report Abuse
        • Author by neon desert (February 06, 2009 9:33 am ET)
             

          See, the main problem here is that Guantanamo was merely another example of our failing incarceration system.  Once released, what else did these folks have to return to BUT terrorism?

          We should have spent the past 7 or 8 years by focusing on vocational training at least equal to torture therapy.  Upon release because of lack of evidence, the detainees would have had a vocational alternative to terrorism, and returned to their respective countries with not only a better attitude toward America, but a trade to boot.

          A program of waterboarding AND applied industrial plumbing would have made the United States safer.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by MiddleLeft (February 06, 2009 10:16 am ET)
               

            See, the main problem here is that Guantanamo was merely another example of our failing incarceration system.  Once released, what else did these folks have to return to BUT terrorism?

            Some were released after years of incarceration and harsh treatment because they were not found to be guilty of any crime.  We MADE THEM into terrorists.  They should be counted seperately

            Report Abuse
            • Author by philib (February 07, 2009 9:50 am ET)
                 

                 What person did we capture and torture and made that person "become" a terrorist?? Is this another lie from the left? Please provide proof of your claim.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (February 07, 2009 12:11 pm ET)
                   

                The ones we released (because we apparently didn't have evidence to try them as terrorists, so in the eyes of the law they are innocent).

                Now they are part of the "61" that the fear mongers are saying have "returned to terrorism".

                Not that difficult if you read the paragraph above.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by philib (February 08, 2009 8:59 am ET)
                     

                     That's a pretty generalized statement; "the ones we released". Who are they? You don't know who they are and you don't have any proof of their capture or release? Go figure. You people are just making things up to be able to whine about something. Bring some proof of who these people are before you start whining about them be tortured illegally.

                     Since when do we need to have evidence to prove we captured someone on the battlefield? I don't seem to remember any trials going on during WWII or Korea or VietNam wars to determin whether captured enemy were "innocent" or not. Do you have some proof of this requirement? Provide it!

                  Report Abuse
          • Author by dexteritas0071418 (February 06, 2009 11:42 am ET)
               

            I think we should teach them x (x= english/french/russian/spanish) if we're going to teach them job skills. If you read a bunch of interviews of Palestinians, for example, you see a lot of "..said Hamid Ahdi, a 27-year old unemployed computer programmer" or "..mentiond Muhammed Yahd, a 31-year old unemployed carpenter".

            Report Abuse
            • Author by neon desert (February 06, 2009 12:43 pm ET)
                 

              Seven new 7-11's in Afghanistan, that's all it would have taken.

              At a cost of $743k/unit, each unit accounting for three 8-hour shifts, it works out to an initial investment of a little over $5.2 mil to keep America safe from terrorists.  And the 7-11's will pay for that initial investment themselves.  Once we plant the seeds of convenience in Afghanistan, it will spread across the middle east and make the whole world a safer place.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by mary59 (February 06, 2009 1:46 pm ET)
                   

                This could work!!!  Especially if these 7-11s sell the right stuff and accept poppies as payment.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by philib (February 07, 2009 9:53 am ET)
                     

                     You people are incredibly racist! You expect every middle easterner to be an employee of 7-11.  But, it IS what we've come to expect from the left----lies and hatred and racism.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by foghornleghorn (February 07, 2009 12:12 pm ET)
                       

                    False outrage alert!

                    You apparently are sarcasm-deficient.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by MickD (February 07, 2009 12:15 pm ET)
                         

                      And to think one of the talking points is that progressives are humorless.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mary59 (February 07, 2009 1:25 pm ET)
                           

                        And I love the "you people" thing. 

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by philib (February 08, 2009 9:55 am ET)
                             

                             I thought you might. But, my statement isn't the racist statement that you provided for us. Mine is based solely on political leanings. Which is different than saying if you're middle eastern then you are only capable of working at 7-11 and being drug dealers. Mary, is that what your Christianity teaches you?

                          Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (February 06, 2009 9:34 am ET)
           

        Haven't you read the terms of the stimulus package now in the Senate?

        Each detainee will get a lump sum of $250,000 and a plane ticket to the American city of his or her choice. They'll be given lifetime memberships in ACORN and jobs at chemical and nukular plants throughout the nation but most will be near our largest population centers.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (February 06, 2009 9:43 am ET)
             

          There's also a little known provision to hire them to teach scrapbooking in public schools.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by philib (February 07, 2009 9:57 am ET)
             

          "nukular plants throughout the nation but most will be near our largest population centers."

             That's probably the best news. We all know that liberals congregate near large cities (because they can't find real work), so if an ex-detainee should decide to 'do' something in one of these large cities, they would mainly hurt liberals. So, actually, that would probably be a good idea for every detainee. You could kill two birds with one stone...so to speak.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (February 07, 2009 1:26 pm ET)
               

            Now let's see, is your philosophy based upon the gospel of Nero?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by philib (February 08, 2009 9:59 am ET)
                 

                 So, you issue racist statements, earlier, now you want me to adhere to some gospels? What branch of Christianity are you? I want to remind myself to avoid that one ..... the one that is racist, yet loves the liberal philosophy.

              Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 06, 2009 9:36 am ET)
           

        My understanding is that everything is on hold while they revue the cases.

        Of course, the media will descend into a palpitative frenzy over the dropping of charges against the suspected USS Cole bomber.  He's not being released, and can be tried later, but watch;   the talking head douchebags will be reporting that Obama has pardoned him before the weekend is over.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (February 06, 2009 9:47 am ET)
         

      The unemployment rate is estimated between 25-40% in Iraq, 40% in Afghanistan.  It could be that some of these guys have been seen just hanging around with "undesirables" on the streets.  That was probably included on Darth Cheney's list of "terrorist activities".

      Report Abuse
    • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 06, 2009 9:48 am ET)
         

      I don't understand this talking point.  If they were terrorists when we detained them, why didn't they get a trial and a conviction?  In most cases, why didn't they even get a trial?

      If the detention process was so sloppy that evidence was either not used, lost, mismanaged, etc, wouldn't that be the fault of those who did all of those things?  Why is this an ominous sign for closing Guantanamo?  At least now all the cases will be reviewed before decisions are made.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (February 06, 2009 11:53 am ET)
           

        fried,

        I do believe that military tribunals have been started. You remember the whole issue was held up during the appeal process. I may be wrong, but think that is partially the reason some have not yet been completely adjudicated. However I am not aware of how long the military tribunals last nor how many have been completed since they began.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 06, 2009 1:02 pm ET)
             

          AA,

          I am talking about the guys who have been released and are now "terrorists."  I don't understand why they were released if they were terrorists.  I don't understand why the 61 or whatever number it is being used to caution against Guantanamo.

          Also, if they were terrorists when arrested, why were they released?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (February 06, 2009 2:11 pm ET)
               

            Excellent question.  I know it's been mentioned before, but this is quite a logical dilemma for the Troglodytes. (Isn't everything?)

            If they know that these guys "returned" to terrorism, that means they were terrorists before, so why were they released?  If they weren't terrorists, why were they taken and held for years?  If the answer is "we just didn't know", then how do they know that those currently being held are terrorists?

            As with most Troglodyte reasoning, it's intellectual quicksand.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Mrs. Teufelshunde (February 06, 2009 4:52 pm ET)
                 

              Oh come on.  The answer is, "It's Obama's fault."  You know that.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by philib (February 07, 2009 10:03 am ET)
                 

                 Well, gee nerzog, what exactly should we do with people we catch while they are shooting at US/UN soldiers? Should we shoot them right on the spot or capture them until the hostilities are over? Maybe we should cut their heads off (like they do to captured soldiers), maybe we should drag their bodies through the streets?

                 Maybe, just maybe...you can't answer a simple question because you aren't capable of answering. That's why you consistantly blame r/w media for all the worlds troubles.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by mary59 (February 07, 2009 1:27 pm ET)
                   

                Don't think you understand the question here.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by philib (February 08, 2009 10:01 am ET)
                     

                   "If the answer is "we just didn't know", then how do they know that those currently being held are terrorists?"

                     That's the question I replied to. Is there another one you wanted answered first?

                  Report Abuse
      • Author by philib (February 07, 2009 10:05 am ET)
           

        "I don't understand this talking point."

           Duhhhh!!!   How about you do some research on 'why' detainees are released. Aren't you tired of expecting others to do the work for you?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Brian in FL (February 06, 2009 10:07 am ET)
         

      I hope people caught Olbermann's Special Comment on Gitmo/Cheney/Terrorism last night. It laid out exactly why the Gitmo system has failed. As jjamele2880 has already pointed out, if there are "terrorists returning to the battlefield" then why did the Bush administration release them??? Republicans keep pointing out the number returning to terrorism in defense of keeping Gitmo, but they fail to realize those terrorists are a sign of the FAILURE of Gitmo.

      Also, how do we know these men did not go into Gitmo as hardened terrrorists, but later became hardened terrorists because of the way they were treated, because of all the contacts they made, and because Al Qaeda will see them as having proven their loyalty?

      And of course, as Keith pointed out last night, we have sent hardended terrorists to our regular prison system countless times in the past, including cases under the Bush administration.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 06, 2009 10:36 am ET)
           

        Yeah, this line of propaganda can only work on the most brain-dead of the Fox/am radio audience, those who don't question nay contradiction in the information they're getting, as long as it conforms to their idea of what they want to hear.

        Next we'll be hearing hypothetical scenarios about libruls defending evildoers who, after committing two terrorist attacks and being placed on probation, get busted stealing a slice of pizza on a third strike technicality.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by princeofwheels (February 06, 2009 10:55 am ET)
             

          Recently, the devil appeared on Fox and said that he is breaking all relationships with Cheney. He does not want Cheney back in hell, too disruptive.

          Gitmo is being reviewed over the next year. For all the Cons that fear these terrorists, don't worry, the libs will take case of Bushs' mess. Just like every other mess he left. So just sit back and enjoy the ride. YOU LOST

          Report Abuse
          • Author by TopekaMan (February 06, 2009 1:50 pm ET)
               

            LOL....Things tend to get disruptive when someone is trying to steal your job.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (February 06, 2009 12:36 pm ET)
         

      As a few others have said.

      If they have returned to terrorism, then it's Bush's fault. I never see any mention of that by the mouth breathing news readers who insist that if we close Gitmo, there'll be more of this. Who was responsible for it in the first place? Umm, that would be your boy hero, George W. Bush. Funny, I never see those same guys excoriate Bush for doing this, but put it in terms of if we close Gitmo, we'll see MORE of this.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (February 06, 2009 12:56 pm ET)
         

      True or false they were all released by Bush so why are they using this as a stick to hit Obama.  This meme will not die. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 06, 2009 1:03 pm ET)
           

        "why are they using this as a stick to hit Obama"

        Because the Corporate Media Whores let them.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by foghornleghorn (February 06, 2009 1:12 pm ET)
         

       If more of the remaining detainees are released, Cheney contended that the recidivism rate would be "much higher."

      Why is this war criminal given a forum to continue spreading fear?  As Olbermann stated so clearly, Cheney is a terrorist.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (February 07, 2009 11:30 am ET)
         

      I see Phils on a troll run this morning. I can see them cast in bronze, somehow, somewhere, somenurtz.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (February 07, 2009 1:28 pm ET)
           

        You people are all alike.  Get yerself to a big city so you can prove Phibber right.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (February 07, 2009 2:58 pm ET)
             

          Hey I went to big city Bremerton today. The library wasn't open. The art gallery was, so it wasn't a total waste of gas.

          I did see a couple of nucs, but they won't let me touch them anymore.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by philib (February 08, 2009 10:06 am ET)
             

             That's funny coming from the person who says middle easterners are only capable of working at 7-11's and being drug dealers.

          Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.