ABC's Gibson repeated myth as fact that "some 60 former [Guantánamo] detainees ... have reappeared on foreign battlefields"
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: ABC's Charles Gibson baselessly claimed that "some 60 former detainees ... have reappeared on foreign battlefields." In fact, according to the Pentagon, 18 former Guantánamo detainees have been "confirmed" to have "return[ed] to the fight."
On the March 11 broadcast of ABC's World News, anchor Charles Gibson claimed that former Guantánamo prisoner Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul "is among some 60 former detainees who have reappeared on foreign battlefields." Gibson cited no evidence for this claim. In fact, according to the Pentagon, 18 former Guantánamo detainees have been "confirmed" to have "return[ed] to the fight," as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented.
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: "[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 the March 11 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
GIBSON: A former Guantánamo prisoner has emerged as a leader of the Taliban in Afghanistan. He is apparently in charge of operations against U.S. forces there. Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul was released in 2007 and is among some 60 former detainees who have reappeared on foreign battlefields. President Obama has pledged to close Guantánamo, but has yet to determine what to do with the nearly 250 prisoners who are still there.
SO, MMFA is ok that 18 have returned to fight, so the others may be just holed up in a cave making plans for others to fight?
mark, it is not ok......problem is...Bush let them go.
Exactly. It's not OK that 18 have returned, that's not what MMFA is commenting on here. What they are commenting on is the fact that 60 of them haven't returned to the battlefield. Also, they are using this bit of "information" to make it look like closing Gitmo is a bad thing, and that Obama is just going to let everyone down there loose on the streets of AnyTown USA.
Now, for all of you folks out there who always like to claim that Bush has kept us safe from terrorists, how do you square this issue?
If it's Bush's fault and makes the previous administration look bad, then why is MMFA reporting on it?
Because the Republicans are using this as a scare tactic to keep Guantanamo open and saying that none of these guys deserve any kind of trial because of their capture. The Republicans think they are tougher on terror than the Dems and are using it to say that even we let 60 go who have returned to "the fight" imagine how many will be released by Obama and those soft dems.
The decision on Guantonimo is clear, is it not? McCain also said he would close it if he were elected President if I'm not mistaken.
You're right, Bruce, but that doesn't stop some on the right who will blame its closing for those released later.
The truth is that 18 is signifigantly less than 60. The reason that 60 is used in the media is that it will cause a greater fear and in thnis case all those who are reporting this number are fear mongering.
ugh......of all people why has charlie gibson now sold his soul for this crap
-- Seton Hall Law School professor Mark Denbeaux -- mmfa
This statement is way too funny...considering the constant harangue by mmfa concerning complete disclosure of peoples affliations.
Case in point...the Cavuto article directly above this one:
-- Cavuto Did Not ID Lott As Energy Company Lobbyist, Even As Lott Touted Specific Issues For Which He Lobbies --
Well, let me take a stab at helping mmfa with a headline:
-- Mmfa Did Not Id Denbeaux As Legal Counsel For Gitmo Detainees, Even As Denbeaux Touted Specific Issues Which He Represents --
Do you see a difference between doing pro bono legal work, and being a lobbyist for an energy company?
If not, do you see the difference between being a news organization and being a openly partisan media watchdog organization?
Probably not.
Well, wait a minute. If you're working on someone's defense, you're obligated to provide the best defense you can, or work for their best interests. That's not an objective viewpoint, while quoting a law professor makes it sound objective. What he says may be true, but people should be aware that he has a personal connection to the matter.
As far as the difference betweena news organization and a partisan media watchdog group, that doesn't extend to going by completely different sets of rules. MMfA can come from an ideological perspective but should still comply with journalistic ethics.
One more time: In order to "return" a person must have been there before.
Until the Pentagon can present proof that any person held at Gitmo or anywhere else was actually a fighter - and not some poor taxi driver sold by bounty hunters or a family enemy or some poor joker who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or wasn't the right nationality etc., etc. - how can it claim that anyone "returned?"
Newz - Come on now, don't let something as trivial as "the facts" get in the way of the notion that these guys are "terrrrists" and must be locked up indefinitely; whether they actually were or not.
I gotta admit, I never thought of that way. But it's important: maybe they weren't insurgents before we captured them!