AP disputes Reid on Guantánamo "terrorists" but let GOP falsehoods slide
SUMMARY: The AP quoted Harry Reid saying, "We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States," and then reported: "No one, of course, was talking about releasing terrorism suspects among the American populace." However, the AP has repeatedly reported claims from Republicans without noting the falsehood.
In a May 20 Associated Press article, reporter Laurie Kellman wrote that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), at a May 19 press conference, "mangled his party's position on the congressional news of the day, that Senate Democrats would join their House counterparts in withholding the money President Barack Obama needs to close the Guantanamo Bay prison until Obama comes up with a plan for relocating its prisoners." Kellman quoted Reid saying, "We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States," and then reported: "No one, of course, was talking about releasing terrorism suspects among the American populace. Imprisoning them, perhaps, but not releasing them." However, Republicans in Congress have repeatedly claimed that closing Guantánamo will result in "terrorists" being released into the U.S.; in reporting their claims, the AP has not commented that "[n]o one, of course, was talking about releasing terrorism suspects among the American populace."
The Obama administration has consistently maintained that suspected terrorists will not be released into the United States. For example, at a January 27 hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Robert Gates responded to a comment by Rep. John McHugh (R-NY) about the administration's detainee policy by saying, "I can't imagine a situation in which detainees at Guantanamo who were considered a danger to the people of the United States would simply be released here." Similarly, during a May 7 Senate hearing, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) asked Attorney General Eric Holder: "Do you have the authority under the law to do this, to bring terrorists into this country and bring them into the community?" Holder responded, "[W]ith regard to those who you would describe as terrorists, we would not bring them into this country and release them, anybody who we consider to be a terrorist, as I think you're using the word."
A May 7 AP article on the hearing reported: "The Obama administration will not release terrorists from Guantanamo Bay into neighborhoods in the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress on Thursday as he sought to reassure worried lawmakers." Nonetheless, two days later, the AP uncritically quoted Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) as saying, "The American people have a right to know exactly what the White House plans to do with these terrorists. ... Americans don't want these terrorists in their neighborhood." The article continued: "Bond, in his radio address, said the president 'has no plan for what to do with these killers' and that the administration has suggested some of them may come into the United States." The May 9 AP article gave no indication that, in Kellman's words, "No one, of course, was talking about releasing terrorism suspects among the American populace."
Other instances in which the AP uncritically reported Republicans' suggestions that the Obama administration might release terrorists into the United States include:
- A May 5 article reported: "Referring to the potential release of detainees now at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, which Obama has pledged to close within a year, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., asked recently: 'Will these trained terrorists be allowed to travel freely anywhere in the United States? What will their status be? Will they be allowed to stay here permanently?' "
- A May 4 article reported: "Top Republicans such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky have suggested that holding terror detainees in the United States would represent a security threat." The article quoted McConnell as saying, "The American people want to keep the terrorists at Guantanamo out of their neighborhoods and off of the battlefield."
- An April 30 article reported: "Congressional Republicans -- already critical of Obama's move to close the detention center -- criticized Holder for announcing Guantanamo decisions to European audiences rather than in the U.S." The article quoted Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) as saying, "Releasing terrorists endangers American lives both here and abroad."
- An April 27 article reported: "Republicans in Congress say Guantanamo should remain in operation and are mobilizing to fight the release of any detainees into the United States."
They won't be tried under rules of evidence that could result in their being found "not guilty"?
You are comfortable with them being held until hostilities in what could be a multi-generation conflict have ceased?
Okay! Golly! I sure had the wrong impression about where you Progressives stood on this. thank you for clearing this up!
Criminal trials require the application of standards of evidence and proceedure that apply to criminal charges. Most of these detainees were not Mirandized. Most were Not given access to an attorney. Most were not allowed to make phone calls. Most were searched without warrants. Most were denied their right to a speedy trial. They can probably be tried in military tribunals where the rules of evidence and process are different. But they will also have rights of appeal through the U.S. Courts. If their treatment is deemed unlawful they may be recharged, but in any fair trial, none of us can predict the outcome before the evidence is seen and the verdict rendered. Some may be ordered released. They can then be held by the INS pending deportation. But they can appeal that detention. If no country will take them, they cannot be held simply because of that. There will be no grounds to keep them in prison, so they'll be released.
MMFA has assured us that that isn't going to happen. the only alternative I know of that may be legal would be to view them as enemy combatants in a conflict that is still continuing. In that case they can be held until the end of hostilities. I just want to clarify if this is the expectation and preferred outcome for supporters of MMFA.
And so should every elected official that says 'I don't want these terrorists in my state'.
In american jails, where somehow, they have failed to escape to terrorise everybodies Grandmothers. What's up with that?
Sure, Obama isn't releasing terrorist into our towns, but he is not going to prevent terrorist organizations from existing. He will be seen as weak by terrorists. I am afraid we will be attacked again.
How dare you suggest that I, being on the right, wants to starve children and allow the poor to die. I have personally provided health care to many families and assisted more poor people that I can count. It's called charity and voluteering. I volunteer time and money to help people who can't afford health care. I do it without government mandate. I give money directly to people who have lost houses, property and lives to seemingly unlimited varieties of misfortune. I do it because I hate to see suffering. I do it on my own conscience. And most importantly, I do it without increasing to power and influnce of government. What I do is part of the American dream. The left is correct in principle. The poor, hungry, sick people should be assisted. Where you are wrong is that every one should be forced to do it. I don't consider my self financially rich, but my family is able to many things because our hard work to earn a living and do with it what I please (the majority of it anyway). And it pleases me very much to help others. Some millions of people in this country would be much better off if they weren't forced to fund so many programs that don't even help in the long run. You can pigeon hole me how ever you want, but if you accuse me of being selfish, or heartless or that I want people to starve and die, you are just showing your ass. I don't think you have any idea what it is to truly get on the ground and actually help people. I think you have spent to much time in a class room thinking about ways to make other people help the poor because you can't be bothered with such trifles. I also think that this is the problem with the left. I believe liberty and capitalism are the only way to advance every one's lives, despite their financial or social background. And I believe a powerful central government is not only detrimental to liberty, but dangerous to the live of people who become dependant on goernment programs. I believe that Liberty, morality, personal responsibility and charity are the foundation of a civil society. And I also believe that these thing are not the duty of our government, but of the people. And if I'm not sure of an issue, I will always take the side of indvidual Liberty.
I beleive the left to be arrogant and short sighted. I want you who have the means to act responsibly and charitibly. I want all people to enjoy the fruits of their labor in a free life. And I want those who are down to be free to pick them selves up and better themselve though their own ambition. Of course there will always be need of charity. I won't nullify my little speech by claiming that every will be saved and cured by capitalism. For my part I will continue to be charitable and compassionate and I will do it without Barrack Obama or any other person or government forcing me to.
Since you don't seem to know I'll enlighten you. Our rights come from nature and nature's God. If you don't believe in God then just say nature. Government did not give them. Government can not take them away. In the 230 plus years of this country the right to bear arms has not cost the taxpayers of this country one dime. Nor has the right of free speech, press, assembly or the right of me to run around my house naked if I want to. I would like our country to retain the principle it was founded on and reject at every turn any one who would seek to pervert them for the sake of power.
P.S.- I don't know if you care, but I detest George W. Bush.