Star-Telegram propagated claim that "at least" 61 Guantánamo detainees "have returned to terrorism"
SUMMARY: The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported Texas state Rep. Kay Granger's claim that "intelligence indicates at least 61" Guantánamo detainees "have returned to terrorism," without noting that 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." 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 analysts.
A February 12 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article about Texas Republicans' attempts to keep Guantánamo detainees from being transferred to their state reported that state Rep. Kay Granger "said that more than 500 detainees were released under [former President] Bush and that intelligence indicates at least 61 of them have returned to terrorism." However, the Star-Telegram did not note -- as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented -- that 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."
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 some analysts. 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've 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 Law School professor Mark Denbeaux -- who has written several reports about Guantánamo detainees, including several 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 12 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article:
Officials have said some of the prisoners could be transferred to other countries; the rest would likely be transferred to facilities, probably prisons, in the United States.
Among the places mentioned: Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio; an El Paso-area immigration facility; a disciplinary barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.; and the U.S. Naval Consolidated Brig near Charleston, S.C.
Granger said that more than 500 detainees were released under Bush and that intelligence indicates at least 61 of them have returned to terrorism.
"We still don't know how the Obama administration plans to deal with this problem," Granger said. "But there is no chance I will be supportive of any detainees being released or transferred to the state of Texas, or anywhere in the United States for that matter."
Funny how "as many as 61" has progressed to "at least 61." Next we'll be hearing of "61 confirmed instances" suggesting it's the tip of the iceberg.
Rather than "progressed", I prefer to think that it has "evolved" to as many as 61.
Back when the world was much different than today, as many as 61 was competently equipped to survive. It could easily capture and consume the primitively developed fearful minds of the neo-paranoid era, and was protected from exposure by a layer of unverified authority, and reproduced quickly and often.
However, as its environment changed, as many as 61 would find survival becoming more of a challenge. The fearful minds of the neo-paranoid era on which it fed had developed skepticism cells - due to a genetic mutation caused by an influx of truth factor W - and this feature made them quicker, and harder to capture. They soon reproduced at unprecedented levels while their predators struggled to catch them. As many as 61 began to see its numbers decline, and with it's lack of what was historically it's nutritional intake, its unverified authority no longer sufficed to protect it from the increased exposure of the post-georgian environment.
This new environment, however, has recently observed a rise in the at least 61 population which some are saying shows promise of being able to capture the slow fearful mind holdovers from the neo-paranoid era. Experts, however, doubt that the at least 61 population will grow as the fearful mind descendants are likely to remain listed as endangered, and will not sustain the at least 61 population.
By the way, happy 200th Darwin!!!
If they "returned to terrorism", then that means they were terrorists to begin with and never should have been released by a negligent Bush administration.
I think the lie is all set to go after a few touch-ups. See, it'll all be because Obama closed down Club Gitmo - those 61 (make that >61 then) were all released by Barack Obama, a Muslim Fascist born in Kenya, who cheated his way to the Presidency with the help of MoveOn.org, George Soros, Keith Olbermann, Media Matters, Hamas, and ACORN.
I believe Barney Frank helped these 61 terrorists obtain mortgages to buy homes which they could not afford...and for which they are presently in default. ;>)
keith olberman is too fatuous to have been much help to obama.
yes, but that's so logical, the lizard brains of the intended audience would never pick up on it.
Yeah...
If they'd been tried properly they be in federal penn's right now.
-OR-
They'd have been aquitted and released in a timely manner (because they weren't actually terrorists in the first place) and they wouldn't have BECOME terrorists out of revenge for the US gov't violating their human rights, in violation of the US's own constitution.
(And it says inalienable HUMAN rights, not AMERICAN rights, so don't give me any of THAT BS, you con's!!! One LEADS by example, and I for one would liek to go back to LEADING the free world instead of BULLYING it!)
Instead of showing them that all the thing Al-Q aysa bout us are false, we've gone and VALIDATED their propaganda!!! Nice going, Cheney & co.!
Could you cite the Article or Amendment in the Constitution that says "Inalienable Human Rights"? I do see in the Preamble the words "Constitution of the United States" not Constitution of the entire planet. Need a little help on this one, Nice Guy.
You're playing lawyer-ball with me?!
OK. You're right the words aren't there. And I'm feeling a bit lazy right now, so how about this from wiki...
These words—called by historian Joseph Ellis "the most potent and consequential words in American history"[2]—came to represent an ideal for which the nation should strive, notably through the influence of Abraham Lincoln, who popularized the now-standard view that the Declaration's preamble is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.
OK. There you go. If it's good enough for Abraham Lincoln it's good enough for me, and ought to be plenty good enough for you. And I see the words "all men" not "all american's". If we are to be the county of freedom and liberty that we must live, and die, by that principal. If you don't understand, then you don't understand what America is all about, or what makes it great.
I'm not saying that they have to live by our laws. That's authoritarian BS. (That's the kind of stuff Bush thought he could get away with.) My point is that the Constituition is not just some legal document, with loopholes that you are free to exploit whenever it's convenient. It is a set of pricipals that guide our laws, guarentee our freedom and limit the power of the governement. In as much as it is OUR GOVERNMENT that it applies to, it's protections should apply to all citizens that they deal with. That's NOT asking anything of the rest of teh world (as you imply) that's extending them a courtesy. One that if not extended, we would have no rigth whatsoever to expect.
To claim some kind of loophole in what, in spirit, is meant to be a set of guiding principals is to HAVE NO principals. The US Constituition in inherently good it is what makes the USA great. To abandon it out of fear, or convenience... that's treasonous my firend. And to abandon it's principals... that's un-American.
They better be careful on this. They were released by Bush, not Obama. Bush doesn't rel;ease terrorrists. Or did he ?
**Wing-nut heads exploding**
Every time that happens, I think somebody's making popcorn.
More like a popping balloon (full of nothing but air).
Why didn't she just add, "And as many all 500 former detainees may have returned to terrorism."
BTW, if they have returned to terrorism that suggests we knew, and had confirmed, that these were actual terrorists. Then why the hell did Bush release terrorists?
This has been debunked so often that you have to wonder if it's just laziness, ineptitude or conservative bias on the part of these "journalists" who keep repeating this.
It doesn't take much research to find out that this is a number that somebody just pulled out of their a$$.
Hey, this is Fort Worth, Texas we're talking about...and a Republican state rep who's trying to pass off that old straw man that GITMO prisoners may be released in Texas. Read the article...Don't mess with Texas. Yea, right...
OMG!!! Snoopy's in danger!!!
Watch out for all the unrepentant gay terrorists wielding fresh mortgages, Snoop!!!
You could be too late, Neon. At this very moment, Snoopy may be having Gay Agenda and forced health care rammed down his throat Texas -style.
And his yard has been turned into a Frisbee Golf Course.
But a fabulous Frisbee golf course!
LOL! You said gay agenda and rammed down his throat. Sorry I couldn't resist.
H-man, I always throw that one in. Listen to righty radio sometime when the subject is "the gays". Almost every wingnut (male) caller to the show will get very excited about the Gay Agenda, and without fail, they'll use the phrase "ramming it down our throats". It's very graphic.I don't know if that's a Freudian slip, or what you'd call it, but it always cracks me up.
Snoopy may be having Gay Agenda and forced health care rammed down his throat Texas -style. - Col.
I just hope they don't try that with any "porkulous".
I do not care if only one has returned, that is one to many. That is one person that has the opportunity to kill Americans. Just said you all miss that part of the converstation, but guess their rights are more important then American Lives. What should be do with the others that are in Gitmo, just sent them to Penns. for safe keeping?
How about giving them proper trials to determine if they're actually terrorists or not?
oh puhleaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
that would be like giving someone who's been arrested here a fair trial; if they're in gitmo, surely they're guilty, no trial needed to keep them.
silly boy!
Ok, trials based on Geneva Convention. Not U.S. Laws, they are not U.S. Citizens.
The Geneva Convention should be dismissed as "quaint", or did you not get the memo?
How many innocent people would you be willing to imprison to keep yourself safe from the guilty one?
Nerzong "return[ed] to the fight." Means they were fighting before! Good try.
"return[ed] to the fight." Means they were fighting before!
Assumes facts not in evidence. All we know was that they were imprisoned; what is yet to be determined is if they actually were "in the fight" in the first place, which would be the point of trials. Is your reasoning always circular, or does it go oval occasionally?...
But how do you know that any of the people in Guantanamo are guilty?
Mark,
If they returned to the fight that means the Bush administration botched the evidence and released terrorists. If there was enough evidence on record to call them "terrorists," why weren't they tried and convicted?
How many innocent people?
How many you got?
"That is one person that has the opportunity to kill Americans"
Wow. I just realized what a ridiculous statement that is. How many people have the "opportunity" to kill Americans? I'd say that wherever you find Americans, you will find people who have the "opportunity" to kill them.
Nerzog, you just showed me how you could care less about a solider's life. You sent a cold chill up my spine. I am sure your the type of person that call them baby killers and would not think twice about spitting on a solider as they return from Iraq.
Are all Americans soldiers? Did you specify soldiers? Did I? A$$wipe.
Any American can quite easily kill another American if that's what he intends to do. Americans kill Americans on a daily basis.
Nerzog didn't mention American soldiers.
And please, retire the spitting on soldiers bit. it wasn't true in the seventies and it's not happening today.
Well, to give him due credit, WK, this is what he actually said:
spitting on a solider
Now, a solider (more solid?) what, I can't say. I'm sure he'll explain if you ask nicely...
whoa there crazy. How in the world did you make THAT mind leap?
This site is exhausting sometimes in the connections the "voices of opposition" make.
I guess when these cretins run out of rational arguments, they desperately toss out the "you-don't-support-the-troops" grenade to cover their retreat.
Mrs, once they are released, they will go back to the middle east and join the fighting. Now, simple concept here for everyone to grasp. We have soliders fighting in the middle east, these individuals have been shown to join groups taht are fighting our soldiers. So if they are fighting our soldiers, they would be the ones that get killed. Does that help, sorry I was not so simple in my first post. I would hope you all would understand that those held in Gitmo are from that region. They are not holding american citizens gitmo, they are holding individuals that were captured during fighting.
they are holding individuals that were captured during fighting.
Actually, they are holding individuals who were sold to us by rival warlords to get rid of their competition.
They are also holding a 14-year old who admitted (probably under torture) to reading about building a bomb in Rolling Stone.
but guess their rights are more important then (sic) American Lives.
Then why didn't you complain to Bush about his having released them?
I did, he was getting so much pressure from the left, he gave in. They should still be in the camps.
Really? Why those "61" then? Were they chosen at random? Musical stress positions? You really believe that W caved to pressure from the "left"? You keep it up mr. "flat tax", it's amusing.
Ben, I proved you wrong so, so many times on the Flat Tax Issue, get over it and move on. I am sure you played in noncompetitive sports as a child, where they never keep score and everyone got a trophy for playing. Another example of how wrong society is these days, unable to accept defeat. If you like, I will be happy to talk to your mom to explain how you lost. How about I do this for you, I will just wrap up one of my many First Place Trophies and send it over to you so you can feel better. I will wrap it with all the news articles I found talking about the flat tax in Hong Kong, be some nice reading while on the ……
>>
I've followed this debate, and it is you who have been proved wrong. Again, you don't know what flat tax means.
Funny, I posted several iteams from the economic advisor in Hong Kong, calling his tax system a Flat Tax. I will beleive the man whom oversees the program and his words before I beleive anyone here.
Your quote mentioned a "maximum" tax of 15%. That would indicate that there are other rates below that. That, my dear, is not a flat tax.
And here is the link from the CATO institue:
link
Steve Moore and Bruce Bartlett were advisers to Jack Kemp's tax reform commission in 1995, and I was research director. Asked by one commissioner about Hong Kong's "flat tax," I replied that the tax on salaries is not flat but steeply progressive. There are four marginal tax brackets of 2 percent, 8 percent, 14 percent and 20 percent. I would prefer a single tax rate, for reasons I explained last November in "The Case for One Tax Rate." But any tax with a top rate of 20 percent is hard to fault.
Posters have tried to explain this to you before. If there are different rates for people who make different incomes, then the tax system is not flat. It is really that simple. A flat tax means the same rate for everyone. That is why it is a flat tax.
The fact that you don't grasp this shows you aren't even trying to understand and don't even want to conduct an honest debate.
I fear all this is futile, but hey.
I'm sorry Mark. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to throw in your "first place trophies". I know you worked so hard in the 8th grade for them. And when the other kids smirked and said "but your dad is the coach" you knew the truth.
Funny, wow, very good I am surprised you even knew about CATO. Let me help you out here, Steve Moore, Bruce Bartlett and Jack Kemp are American Citizens, they do not live in Hong Kong. I love how you only took out the part of Alan Reynolds article that helps you defend yourself. Nice cut and paste job. You may not call it a flat tax, but in Hong Kong they do, fine with me. I will be with the "some sources" that follow Hong Kongs idea, you can stick with yoru other sources.
Hong Kong Some sources claim that Hong Kong has a flat tax,[37] though its salary tax structure has several different rates ranging from 2% to 20% after deductions. Taxes are capped at 16% of gross income, so this rate is applied to upper income returns if taxes would exceed 16% of gross otherwise.[38] Accordingly, Duncan B. Black of Media Matters for America, says "Hong Kong's 'flat tax' is better described as an 'alternative maximum tax.'" [39] Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute similarly notes that Hong Kong's "tax on salaries is not flat but steeply progressive."[40] Hong Kong has, nevertheless, a flat profit tax regime.
Flat profit tax does not equal flat tax.
Nice, now you have actually posted something that undermines everything you've previously posted. Funny how you accuse others of cutting and pasting dishonestly when you just did exactly that. YOU cut and pasted from wiki. And what is the headline above what you cut & pasted "Countries reputed to have a flat tax".
And then just above that we have...
Countries that have flat tax systemsNow lets put that ball back on the tee and give you another cut slugger.
These are countries, as well as minor jurisdictions with the autonomous power to tax, that have adopted tax systems that are commonly described in the media and the professional economics literature as a flat tax.
Sorry, here's the link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax
So, Bush caved to the left and released known terrorists? He just threw out all of the evidence he had and said screw it? Are you seriously making this argument?
Yeah! And then you could torture them to death just to be sure...
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Unredacted_documents_reveal_prisoners_tortured_to_0212.html
Left Wing Nutball New Source. Not reliable.
Silly markbooty...
http://www.aclu.org/images/torture/asset_upload_file293_38710.pdf
Now before you go freaking out about the ACLU, this is the actual document from the Church Report.
ACLU, your are correct nutballs. Ben, first time I think you have agreed with a Church, not normal for you. I thought all church going individuals were right wingers.
Are you trying to obtuse? The Church report refers to Vice Admiral A.T. Church III USN.
Nah, you aren't obtuse, just full of the stupid.
>>ACLU, your are correct nutballs. Ben, first time I think you have agreed with a Church, not normal for you. I thought all church going individuals were right wingers.
Are you just trolling now? Obviously, Old Benjaim (who, to his credit posts carefully and thoughtfully) is right again.
But with very poor grammar. =>
Thanks.
That's a common mistake. The majority of Americans are religious. The majority of Americans recently voted for a liberal Democrat for president and while they were at it, replaced quite a few Republican congresspersons and senators too.
You might want to rethink your statement and your misguided insult directed towards Ben.
...misguided insult directed towards Ben. - WK
That's all he's got. Water off a ducks back. And I know shouldn't gum up these threads with this, he posts such stupidity I can't help mocking it.
Thanks
Guess what? We all have the ability to kill Americans.
hey, i just had a brilliant (ok, maybe that's a bit of a stretch) idea: we'll just declare the entire middle-east a dentention center! everyone there is presumed to be a suspected terrorist. we can just send all the gitmo detainees back, since they'll be headed to another center, just lots farther away.
problem solved.
"have returned to terrorism"
Have returned to terrorism from what? I mean, what act of terrorism is it that they originally engaged in, that they are now returning to?
The great vague and undefined lie that George W. Bush and his administration and all their supporters want you to believe, is that Guantanamo "detainess" were "terrorists", and in particular (and the most insulting aspect of their lie), that those "detainees" had something to do with September 11 2001.
It's a lie.
And seeing as the discovery of a lie begins with a detailed examination of it, I'd ask again:
What "terrorism" is it these former "detainees" are returning to? I do not mean what is it they're doing now, or will plan to do in the future: I mean, what thing was it it they did in the first place, what "terrorism" was it, they are now returning to?
OUT, have a good night.
Off to kill those whom you don't agree with?
No he's going home to polish his first place trophies from junior high. He may even break out his most improved ribbon from 4th grade.
And all I ever got was a "participant" ribbon.
Your school probably didn't have a Competitive Failing team like Markbfoot's.