Fox News hosts tout myth that 60 or more Gitmo detainees are known to have returned to battlefield
SUMMARY: Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Brian Kilmeade advanced the myth that 60 or more former Guantánamo Bay detainees are known to have, in Hannity's words, "gone back to the battlefield." However, according to the Pentagon, only 18 former Guantánamo detainees have been "confirmed" to have "return[ed] to the fight," while an additional 43 former detainees are "suspected" of having done so. Even the Pentagon's "confirmed" figure has been questioned by analysts.
During the March 10 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity stated of former prisoners at Guantánamo Bay: "[W]e know there's about 60-some-odd detainees that have gone back to the battlefield." The next morning, on Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade similarly asserted, "Sixty have already gone -- gotten released and gone back into action." Hannity and Kilmeade cited no evidence for these claims. However, according to the Pentagon, only 18 former Guantánamo detainees have been "confirmed" to have "return[ed] to the fight," as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented. 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."
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. For instance, 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 has disputed the Pentagon's figures, asserting that 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." Denbeaux has written several reports about Guantánamo detainees, including reports challenging the Pentagon's definition of "battlefield" capture and the Pentagon's published detainee recidivism rates. From a January 15 Seton Hall press release:
Professor Denbeaux of the Center for Policy & Research has said that the Center has determined that "DOD has issued 'recidivism' numbers 43 times, and each time they have been wrong -- this last time the most egregiously so."
Denbeaux stated: "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. They have included people who have never even set foot in Guantánamo -- much less were they released from there. They have counted people as 'returning to the fight' for their having written an Op-ed piece in the New York Times and for their having appeared in a documentary exhibited at the Cannes Film Festival.
In the January 13 Pentagon press conference, Morell discussed how the Defense Intelligence Agency determines whether former detainees are suspected or confirmed of having "return[ed] to terrorism" and asserted that "engagement in propaganda ... does not qualify as terrorist activity."
From the March 10 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: And we continue now with our "Great American Panel."
All right. While we're all paying attention to the economy, we've got the Gitmo detainees -- five of them, charged with planning the 9-11 attacks -- have filed a document with the military commission at Gitmo, expressing pride at their accomplishment and accepting full responsibility for killing nearly 9,000 people -- about 3,000 people.
Why would we ever release these people and give them, for the first time in the history of warfare, give them constitutional rights?
S.E. CUPP (columnist): They're not criminals, so we shouldn't. They're sociopathic terrorists.
HANNITY: They're enemy combatants at a time of war.
CUPP: Absolutely. Absolutely. They don't deserve a Miranda. They don't deserve habeas corpus. They deserve to sit in jail for the rest of their natural lives or until Al Qaeda surrenders. Period. It's not hard.
HANNITY: If the 9-11 Commission report is right, Michael, that they declared war on us and we're fighting a war, and we know there's about 60-some-odd detainees that have gone back to the battlefield, why for the first time ever would we give rights to enemy combatants?
MICHAEL BROWN (Democratic strategist): I don't know. I'm going to agree with you on this one, Sean. I'm --
HANNITY: I am shocked.
BROWN: Are you stunned? It's happened -- it's happened a couple of times, believe it or not.
HANNITY: No, it has.
BROWN: I -- I don't understand --
HANNITY: Bad idea, right?
BROWN: -- I'm with S.E. I think you can give some rights because we still are America, and we deserve to treat people like human beings. But the bottom line is when they committed the acts they committed against us, I don't know why they need to see the light of day again.
From the March 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
KILMEADE: Does it stun you, for someone who's looked Taliban and Al Qaeda in the face and hunted for them on the ground of Afghanistan that we have ignored this, our enemies on Page 17 of The New York Times.
GARY BERNTSEN (former CIA operative): Sadly, I'm not surprised because during the war in 2001 I turned to all my men and said, within five years everyone will be looking for every mistake that we made and people will try to prosecute us because America will forget.
KILMEADE: Sixty have already gone -- gotten released and gone back into action. One is the Southern commander of the Taliban. This guy, Zakir is his new nickname, he is now marshalling up troops, training them, festering that hate. He was given back to the Afghan government in 2007, and they released all five -- 12 of them.
BERNTSEN: Well, he was captured up in Konduz, you know, in the second week of December of 2001. Many of the prisoners, Gitmo folks who have said, oh, we're innocent, we were there doing business. They made up all sorts of excuses and if there wasn't hard evidence because they were captured in such large numbers, people have given them the benefit of the doubt. I'm gonna say something, the Bush administration released him. This was not the Obama administration that released him.
KILMEADE: Because the courts had turned on them.
BERNTSEN: The point was we needed to deal with this a lot faster than we did. We let this thing delay and like a fine wine, it doesn't get better with time.















Note to Media Matters: Morning Joe did the same today.
Yeah, they all sing from the same talking points hymnal pulled straight from Herr Rove's butt.
If FOX knows so much, and if it was really doing its job, it would give us the name, description and last know whereabouts of each of the 60 so we could keep an eye out for them. ;>)
what is mmfa worried these detainees are getting a bad rap from the media, and that we should be extra careful in saying they are "suspected" and not "confirmed" of returning to kill Americans? Even after they express such joy in doing so? me not so worried.
It has very little to do with "suspected" or "confirmed". The republicans are forwarding the lie about the 60 detainees returning to the battle field in order to fearmonger when we're in the process of closing Gitmo. The fact of the matter is that we had nothing hold those detainees on and they were released - sometimes after years of captivity.
Every detainee that has been released was let go by George Bush.
Either they were let go because there was no evidence they were bad - but they're teed off enough at us now for falsely imprisoning them that they've turned bad.
Or they were let go because the Bush Administration trusted that another nation would appropriately punish them - and those nations either weren't trustworthy, or they determined that the bad guys weren't bad enough to keep imprisoned.
Or they were let go because, even though they really were bad guys, the Bush Administration mucked up their detention so badly that they had to let them go.
In all three cases, it was bad judgment or bad actions on the part of the Bush Administration.
Why doesn't every honest media source point this out every time the Republicans seek to gain something by mentioning 60 released?
So called Liberal media my butt!
I'm worried about how many of them came from the battlefield in the first place.
Cash bounties offered by U.S. forces encouraged local villagers to turn in as many people as they could capture. And this is what Abu Bakker and two dozen other Uighurs say happened to them.
John Kiriakou, a top CIA official in Pakistan after 9/11, describes the Americans’ dilemma. “If a Pakistani or Afghan villager comes up to you with a guy he has tied up and says, ‘This is a terrorist; I caught him in my village,’ what are you going to do?” he says. “Maybe he is a terrorist.”
Kiriakou says the only way to sort out the captives was to send them to Guantanamo.
probably because they were unlawfully taken and may not have been terrorists to begin with. but then after being illegaly for so many years with real hardcore guys who were admitted terrorists....they became the very thing they were suspected of being.
so pat yourself on the back
your defending an administration that created a terrorist recruitment camp, violated our own and international laws, and then turned them loose because they could never make a case, and complain that they have now "returned to the battlefield", when it was that very administration that made them. Bravo
if there is another attack god help W. cause if the ones who are involved were Gitmo detainess and released by him? ill look foreward to W. trying to defend himself as to why he let them go.
a trial in a court of law.
Much easier said than done. What will be the standard of proof to convict these guys? What was the standard of proof for the 60 above-mentioned detainees who were released, all of whom are suspected of returning to their religious calling and 1/3 or whom are confirmed to have done so?
>>What will be the standard of proof to convict these guys?
The same as for anyone charged with a crime.
"What was the standard of proof for the 60 above-mentioned detainees who were released, all of whom are suspected of returning to their religious calling and 1/3 or whom are confirmed to have done so?"
You'll have to ask the guy who released them all without taking them to trial: George W. Bush.
I'm not sure it has anything to do with religion. It's probably the culture of “an eye for an eye”. If a country had locked you up for years without charges and possibly tortured you, would you let it go or would you try to get back at the country (especially with a recruitment agency on every corner)?
Confirmed by whom, little factually-challenged fella? Flush?
In other words, your factose-intolerant butt wants to lock up anyone practicing the "religion of peace" until ya can figure out what to charge them with since they may or may not attack us at some future, undetermined date in a location to be named later.
Nice try. No sale.
If you can't charge somebody with something after seven years, ya got bupkis and they never should have been picked up in the first place. Besides, if they weren't terrorists when they were locked up, they may well be when they leave.
to quote an episode of Countdown
"If you had the devils in the cage....why did you release them"
i imagine the same as the milleium bomber bennie norris
First we have to charged them with something.
Oh I don't know, holding them in our supermax security prisons right here in the good ol' US of A doesn't seem like such a bad option. We do, after all, have the best prison system in the world.
Jon Stewart, naturally, said it best:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=216571&title=Guantanamo-Baywatch---The-Final-Season
Yeah, I'll take the system that can hold the brain-eater guy too.
I agree with the premise posed by mmfa...the number "60" is being thrown around for pure political motives and not objective reporting.
Having said that...Prof. Denbeaux is practicing the same thing from the other end of the political spectrum. The link provided to his press release provides charges with no documentation.
It's all a partisan mess...with our national security at stake. There are plenty of juvenile delinquents on both sides of the issue.
>>Having said that...Prof. Denbeaux is practicing the same thing from the other end of the political spectrum. The link provided to his press release provides charges with no documentation.
The very first link is a PDF with tons of documentation.
Sure, a pdf. The ones that wingnuts can't search.Very convenient.
Well, do tell...
See if y'all can guess this song!
I'm too dependant on Rush, too dependant on Rush,
Rush's going to lead me
I have nothing to reply, no need to even try
So clueless it hurts
And I'm too stupid to respond, too stupid to respond
In all of my posts
And I'm too lacking of a fact
Too lacking for your post
No way I'm linking data
I'm a wing nut, you know what I mean
And I write my angry venom on my blog post
Yeah on my blog post, on my blog post yeah
I stamp my little feetsies on my blog post
I'm waiting for Rush to say, waiting for Rush to say
My response for today
And I'm too dependant on that
Too dependant on that, what do you think of that
I'm a wing nut, you know what I mean
And I write illogic statements on my blog post
Yeah on my blog post, on my blog post yeah
I write my factless statements on my blog post
I'm waiting for my Rush, waiting for my Rush, waiting for my
'Cos I'm a wing nut, you know what I mean
And I post my little response on my blog post
Yeah on blog post, on my blog post yeah
I shake my little fisties on my blog post
I'm defending right wing nuts, defending right wing nuts
Poor right wing, poor right wing nut
I'm too dependant on Rush, too dependant on Rush
Rush's going to lead me
And I'm still waiting on my Rush...
Lou Reed's, I'm Waiting on my Man?
No catwalk for you...
I'd say dyam! But the cat won't let me go there anyway.
When are we going to change the color code to the next level, either up or down?
I am worried that Fox news isn't worried about our safety since they never even mention what color we are under today. With all of these criminals released back into the world, one would think the chances of a problem should increase. I suggest that Fox begin each segment of every show with a reminded of todays color.
i still get my 3 day warning of any terror alert from dept of homeland security courtesy of fixed news. and my 20 percent discount at dave's discount house of falafel.
Seems that percentages might be more telling on the significance of this number.
Not to mention that Hannity never tells a story in good faith or accurately or in full. And aside from some superficial, presumptive benefit of having detained these individuals, was anything actually gained from their detention? Highly debatable... Debate, something that Hannity would not approach even if it paid him.
Hannity couldn't debate a ham sandwich.
Not unless he could get the sandwich to take a dive,
As has been said a couple of times here, and by (I think) a couple different posters, the point that shouldn't be forgotten is that these 18 and 43 people, whatever they've returned to, WERE RELEASED BY "THE DECIDER" HIMSELF. (Maybe he wanted to give 'em a chance to 'bring it on' again, to prove how good he was at keeping us safe.)
I'm curious why, if these detainees were so dangerous, they weren't killed by Dick Cheney's secret assassination squad, the Joint Special Operations Command?
http://www.minnpost.com/ericblackblog/2009/03/11/7310/investigative_reporter_seymour_hersh_describes_executive_assassination_ring
Actually, this article is fairly idiotic. Analysts are analysts and I'm quite sure that "analysts" may also find 150 ex-Gitmo prisoners on the battlefield. As a military member, I personally don't care how many terrorists are recycled, when they're captured, the only evidence I have is that they were shooting at me. I didn't read them any rights in Arabic, I just capture them. "suspected", "confirmed" and putting them in quotes will make this a less pertinent smear-site than it already is.
i wish you the best of luck. god bless you
Hey slick,
What's your point? As a military member, I would think you would be very interested in whether we were turning regualkr people into combatants. That would make your life/job harder than it should be.