Report: Ex-Gitmo detainee joins al-Qaida in Yemen

[IceBergSLiM]

isn't alqueda largely dismantled anyways?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Seems that one of the problems with closing Gitmo is the fact that the people at Gitmo are terrorists!!!!

How many can you name who have been proven to be "terrorists," let alone the number who have actually "returned to the battle?"

Once again, PJ regurgitates the same lame ultra-right bullshit he's been spewing since he got here. The number of detainees who have "returned to the battle" since being released from Guantanamo has been grossly exaggerated to in their continuing effort pimp paranoia about what would happen if they were released. The title section and executive summary of this report by Seton Hall University School of Law professor, Mark Denbeaux, makes the point:

RELEASED GUANTÁNAMO DETAINEES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE:
PROPAGANDA BY THE NUMBERS?

By

Mark Denbeaux Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law, Director of Seton Hall Law Center for Policy and Research, Joshua Denbeaux, Esq. and R.David Gratz Denbeaux & Denbeaux Counsel to two Guantánamo detainees

Co-Authors

Daniel Lorenzo, Mark Muoio, Grace Brown, Jillian Camarote, Douglas Eadie, Jennifer Ellick, Paul Taylor, Adam Deutsch, Michael Patterson, Gabrielle Hughes and Michelle Fish Research Fellows, Center for Policy and Research

PROPAGANDA AS TERRORISM: RECIDIVISM BY THE NUMBERS

Time and time again, the Department of Defense, the Executive Branch, and other government officials have claimed publicly that Guantánamo Bay detainees who have been released have ?returned to the battlefield? where they have then been re-captured or killed. On January 13, 2009, during a press conference the Department of Defense provided its 43rd attempt to report on the number of detainees released from Guantanamo who returned to the battlefield. This latest report alleges that 61 detainees have returned to the battlefield. This report seeks to examine the last numbers.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The 43rd 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.
   
2. In each of its forty-three attempts to provide the numbers of the recidivist detainees, the Department of Defense has given different sets of numbers that are contradictory and internally inconsistent with the Department?s own data.
   
3. The Department of Defense does not keep track of released detainees nor does it follow their post release conduct.
   
4. The Department of Defense?s previous statements about the post release conduct of former Guantanamo detainees were produced in writing in July 2007 and May 2008.
   
5. The January 13, 2009 press statement identifies no names, dates, places nor any conduct by released detainees. The raw numbers that are cited are unsupported, inconsistent with all other statements and appear to be presented to support the internal Department of Defense purposes.

You can read the entire report if you need the info. Here's more from mediamatters.com:

Media advance falsehood that Pentagon has confirmed that 61 former Guantánamo detainees have returned to battlefield

• Summary: Since President Barack Obama signed an executive order requiring that the Pentagon's detention facilities at Guantánamo be closed within a year, numerous media figures and outlets have repeated or failed to challenge the claim that 61 former detainees held there have returned to the battlefield. In fact, the figure, which comes from the Pentagon, includes 43 former prisoners who are suspected of, but have not been confirmed as, having "return[ed] to the fight."

Since President Barack Obama signed an executive order requiring that the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay be closed within a year, numerous media figures and outlets -- including CNN's Campbell Brown, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Fox News' Sean Hannity, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and ABCNews.com -- have repeated or failed to challenge the claim that 61 former detainees held at Guantánamo have returned to the battlefield. Hannity, the Globe, and the Los Angeles Times, in particular, falsely asserted that the Pentagon has confirmed this figure. In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, 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." Additionally, as Daily Kos contributing editor Joan McCarter noted, Seton Hall University School of Law professor Mark Denbeaux has disputed the Pentagon's figures, asserting: "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."

Media repeating or failing to challenge the claim that 60 or more Guantánamo detainees have returned to the battlefield include:

• During the January 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity, speaking with Kate Obenshain, vice president of the Young America's Foundation, Hannity falsely asserted: "But we know, Kate, 61 Gitmo detainees that have already been released, according to the Pentagon, went right back to the battlefield with their fanaticism."
  
• The Boston Globe falsely asserted in a January 23 article: "Pentagon statistics show that of the hundreds of detainees that have been released from Guantanamo since it opened in early 2002, at least 61 have returned to terrorist activities."
  The Los Angeles Times falsely reported on January 23: "The Pentagon has said that 61 former detainees have taken up arms against the U.S. or its allies after being released from the military prison in Cuba."
  
• On January 23, the San Francisco Chronicle uncritically reported: "Republicans also claimed that 61 detainees already released have been 'found back on the battlefield.' "
  
• During the January 22 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull, Cliff May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, asserted of Guantánamo detainees, "Many hundreds have been released. About 60 of them -- a little more than that -- have returned to the battlefield." Brown did not challenge May's assertion.
  
• During the January 22 edition of MSNBC's Hardballl, Matthews failed to challenge Sen. Kit Bond's (R-MO) claim that "we know already that more than 60 of the people who have been released have been killing our troops, our Americans and civilians on the battlefield."
  
• A January 22 ABCNews.com article by Jake Tapper, Jan Crawford-Greenburg, and Huma Kahn uncritically reported House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-OH) statement: "Do we release them back into the battlefield, like some 61 detainees that have been released we know are back on the battlefield?"

By contrast, The New York Times reported on January 23 that "[a]lthough the Pentagon has said that dozens of released Guantánamo detainees have 'returned to the fight,' its claim is difficult to document, and has been met with skepticism."
.
.
(continues)

When you're done with that, you may want to consider that the U.S. may never be able to prosecute any REAL terrorsts held at Guantanamo because they were tortured by your epic failure EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents.

You did a heck of a job, Bushie. :roll:

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: Denithor

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
@ profjohn:

We regularly let criminals out of jail that served their time, and we let go criminals that were found innocent. Some of those criminals go back and commit another crime. What makes this different? Do you want to lock up all "suspected" murderers, rapists, and other criminals forever on the chance that they *might* commit a crime?

From the latest reports, only about 4% of released detainees have done anything. Are you really proposing to lock up permanently the other 96%? Seriously?

The fact that these criminals are terrorists who will try to kill 3,000 or so of us and aren't afraid to die in the attempt...

First off, isn't the OP doing a textbook troll? Posting a link and run, and never coming back to the thread?

And to response to Denithor, under US law, it's the same thing. Are you saying you support breaking our laws? Terrorists are criminals, there is no difference. Again, 96% don't do anything. How can you support locking up hundreds of innocent people forever, just so you can sleep at night? That's not very American of you.

People have rights. You really want to lock them up forever, get Congress to pass a law that says that anyone we think is a terrorist or might hurt us can be locked up forever without proof. Then we can vote out anyone that votes "yes". Plus, be prepared for 1/2 the country to be locked up very quickly, as either paranoia or abuse of the system takes place.

Really, grow up. There a *lot* of things more dangerous then a terrorist. You are more likely to die from a lot of things before terrorism comes up. Breaking the law for this isn't right. You want to lock up all possible murderers just so you won't have to worry about being murdered by a "regular" criminal? I didn't think so.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The internet tough guys in this thread think waggy should be in jail with his kids in a foster home: waggy beats his kids!

And a bit of waterboarding will get the truth out of him in no time.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Denithor
The fact that these criminals are terrorists who will try to kill 3,000 or so of us and aren't afraid to die in the attempt...

You might want to learn the difference between "fact" and "accusation". That alone will make you stand out from the forum's other war mongers.

 

[Deeko]

hahahaha ProfJohn, you've outdone yourself.

You just linked to a terrorist George Bush released, and then used it to attack Obama! Let me try and clear this up for you. I apologize for this being repetitive.

This guy was released by George Bush, President elected from the Republican Party.

Just to be sure we're clear on that - George W Bush's administration let this man go, who is now working with terrorists. Not Barack Obama. George Bush.

Does it makes sense now? Are you prepared to type a 500 word essay apology for making a fool of yourself? To be safe, better make it 750.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: jonks
This guy was released under Bush, not Obama. Obama isn't ordering the release of everyone held at Gitmo, merely that we close the gulag and similar sites and provide humane treatment of people being held indefinitely without charges. And McCain also stated he would close Gitmo had he won.

This article doesn't change the fact that you cannot hold someone indefinitely in a prison without charging them with something. If he was involved in terrorist acts then charge the mofo. If he planned, procured, ordered, organized, conspired, some fucking thing, then present some evidence to a court or tribunal and charge the dick. But we cannot lock up anyone we want forever without giving them a chance to defend themselves. It's the definition of anti-american.

you're comparing club gitmo with the gulag? :roll:

They did something in gitmo called the 'frequent flyer' program where prisoners were woken every hour on the hour and moved from one cell to another. And they did that to some of them for MONTHS. Imagine not being able to get an hours sleep for months on end? It's just shocking these people were committing suicide in there. You'd be crying for your mommy every night tough guy. Other prisoners were regularly beaten and subjected to our "friendly interrogations". Club gitmo my fucking ass.

Oh the horror the torture they woke me up every hour :roll: :roll: oh noes they poured water on my face!

Oh no the terrorists might feel bad! Give em a lollipop and a hilton suite.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Oh no the terrorists might feel bad! Give em a lollipop and a hilton suite.

Hey look, another internet tough guy.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Deeko
hahahaha ProfJohn, you've outdone yourself.

You just linked to a terrorist George Bush released, and then used it to attack Obama! Let me try and clear this up for you. I apologize for this being repetitive.

This guy was released by George Bush, President elected from the Republican Party.

Just to be sure we're clear on that - George W Bush's administration let this man go, who is now working with terrorists. Not Barack Obama. George Bush.

Does it makes sense now? Are you prepared to type a 500 word essay apology for making a fool of yourself? To be safe, better make it 750.

All the more reason not to release the other 800. Eventually they'll die or commit suicide.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Many years ago when I was an officer cadet on a ship I had a sadistic Captain who had come up through the ranks and hated cadets (he had never been one). As punishment for something we did (we were 4 cadets on board at that time) he kept me on 2 hours steering - 2 hours off - round the clock. (Yeah those were times one could get away with such bullshit)

This went on for 2 weeks till we reached the next port. I can tell you after 1 week I was like a zombie - just getting whatever sleep I could before being woken up again. Forget about doing any chores like laundry etc. It was just steer, eat, sleep round the clock. Till today I can fall asleep within seconds of hitting the pillow. And no, he did not manage to break my spirit. I was 21, hot headed and more defiant after that. Fortunately I was transferred to another ship or I don't what I would have done to that asshole.

I would not wish such treatment on anyone. If they did the 1 hour rotation at Gitmo for months it would drive them nuts. ....

In all seriousness, that can literally be true. Sleep deprivation can be extremely destructive. Those who so blithely dismiss its impact are clueless.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: JS80
oh noes they poured water on my face!

Hey, have you heard of John McCain?

No?

Ok, John McCain is a US Senator from Arizona, member of the Republican party. He recently ran for President of the United States! What a swell guy. As it turns out, back in his younger days, McCain was a POW and was a first hand witness to torture. REAL torture.

How is this relevant? Oh, this true American Patriot publicly stated that waterboarding is torture and should never be used by our military.

You're right though. oh noes, they poured water on my face!

Strike one, slugger.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Deeko
How is this relevant? Oh, this true American Patriot publicly stated that waterboarding is torture and should never be used by our military.

You're right though. oh noes, they poured water on my face!

Strike one, slugger.

The CIA is not the military. Thanks.

 

[SSSnail]

I can see how they'd join the other side if they're released. If they weren't, they do have damn good reasons and I don't blame them.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Deeko
How is this relevant? Oh, this true American Patriot publicly stated that waterboarding is torture and should never be used by our military.

You're right though. oh noes, they poured water on my face!

Strike one, slugger.

The CIA is not the military. Thanks.

hahah, I KNEW that would be the response! I even considered adding CIA or government, but I wanted to see which one of you sniveling worms would pull that. Fitting that it was you.

Why is it not ok for the army to torture, but it IS ok for the CIA to torture? Don't bother answering, there is none.

I truthfully think you're either a bot or you are just trying to piss people off for fun. There is literally no one that possibly thinks like you.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Deeko
How is this relevant? Oh, this true American Patriot publicly stated that waterboarding is torture and should never be used by our military.

You're right though. oh noes, they poured water on my face!

Strike one, slugger.

The CIA is not the military. Thanks.

hahah, I KNEW that would be the response! I even considered adding CIA or government, but I wanted to see which one of you sniveling worms would pull that. Fitting that it was you.

Why is it not ok for the army to torture, but it IS ok for the CIA to torture? Don't bother answering, there is none.

I truthfully think you're either a bot or you are just trying to piss people off for fun. There is literally no one that possibly thinks like you.

It's not a matter of being ok or not. It's a matter of necessity. If we need more interrogators, then we can train people accordingly.

 

[Deeko]

No, that's not the point. The question at hand here isn't if its ok to torture, you're right. The question is, is waterboarding torture? The person with much more authority on the subject than any of us here says yes, it is. So we can't even try to deny that its torture. Its already established by both our court system as well as international law that we (including the CIA) are not to torture. Therefore, if waterboarding is indeed torture, the CIA should not be waterboarding.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Deeko
No, that's not the point. The question at hand here isn't if its ok to torture, you're right. The question is, is waterboarding torture? The person with much more authority on the subject than any of us here says yes, it is. So we can't even try to deny that its torture. Its already established by both our court system as well as international law that we (including the CIA) are not to torture. Therefore, if waterboarding is indeed torture, the CIA should not be waterboarding.

It's a good thing were a sovereign nation and our executive orders signed by our President are more important than some United Nations castoff. The waterboarding ban was vetoed.

 

[Deeko]

You have selective reading this time. Missed the part about our own court system, huh? I think our courts have a pretty good authority there, slugger. Strike 2!

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Deeko
You have selective reading this time. Missed the part about our own court system, huh? I think our courts have a pretty good authority there, slugger. Strike 2!

When did the courts specifically declare waterboarding to be torture?

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Deeko
You have selective reading this time. Missed the part about our own court system, huh? I think our courts have a pretty good authority there, slugger. Strike 2!

When did the courts specifically declare waterboarding to be torture?

teehee now you're backpedaling! Its so cute to watch you try to argue when you're in a corner with no way out.

Make up your mind - first it didn't matter if waterboarding was torture, we can torture if we need to. Oops, that's not true, our courts don't allow that. So now you're going back to debating whether or not waterboarding is torture?

To the best of my knowledge, the courts have not specifically ruled on if waterboarding is torture or not. However, you've yet to comment on Senator McCain's thoughts on the matter. Do you dare put forth someone more qualified than he on the matter? A long time US Senator, near US President, who has been tortured himself?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Obligatory: "He was a good man before he was in Gitmo. He is only joining AQ to get back at us"

Many people at Gitmo are 'innocent'. Some people are people who are innocent but because they have been so badly abused, are now understandably people we have turned into enemies (hey, let's kill them, to further wrong them). Some people in Gitmo are dangerous people and belong in custody.

You people on the right are too idiotic, ignorant, hypocritical to have any idea about justice for the groups you dehumanize, the groups you demonize.

Unable to udnerstand anything about justice, you mock the arguments lkke children. They say 'absolute powr tends to corrupt absoutely', and you prove them right.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Deeko
You have selective reading this time. Missed the part about our own court system, huh? I think our courts have a pretty good authority there, slugger. Strike 2!

When did the courts specifically declare waterboarding to be torture?

teehee now you're backpedaling! Its so cute to watch you try to argue when you're in a corner with no way out.

Make up your mind - first it didn't matter if waterboarding was torture, we can torture if we need to. Oops, that's not true, our courts don't allow that. So now you're going back to debating whether or not waterboarding is torture?

To the best of my knowledge, the courts have not specifically ruled on if waterboarding is torture or not. However, you've yet to comment on Senator McCain's thoughts on the matter. Do you dare put forth someone more qualified than he on the matter? A long time US Senator, near US President, who has been tortured himself?

You're the one who blankly stated that the court system has established something...and now it hasn't. Look who's backpedaling. :laugh:

And I never said anything of the sort.

John Mccain is 1 senator out of 100. His opinion counts accordingly.

 

[Deeko]

Hmmm? I said the courts banned torture. I didn't backpedal anywhere, sport. You tried to weasel your way around that until I deftly backhanded you back into place where you belong. I'm going at the issue head on with facts, you're dancing around them with rhetoric.

So what are you getting at there with McCain? We should have a Senate vote? In a Democrat-controlled Senate, with at least one well-known Republican Senator well versed in torture opposed to waterboarding? Are you REALLY sure that's how you want this issue decided, champ?

For how often you play these games, you aren't very good at them.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Skitzer
I say close down Gitmo and let them all go.
Then institute a policy of "Take No Prisoners"
That solves all of our problems with terrorists.

Evidence how 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'. You sound exactly like a Japanese person talking about Chinese in WWII, a Nazi talking about the groups they oppressed.

You would turn the US into a monstrous and immoral nation.

You are the enemy of humanity.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The price of freedom, you idiot, is not in what rights you squander to expediency, but what you will suffer for the ideals of freedom for others.

Now this is the best bumper sticker material I've seen since "Secular Humanist and Armed".

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: