NYTimes Reporter Casts Doubt On Own Claim That I In 7 Detainees Returned To Jihad

Talking Points Memo:

New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller is now casting doubt on the claim in her front page story today, pounced on by the right and quickly picked up on cable, that one in seven detainees released from Guantanamo "returned to terrorism or militant activity."

Read the whole story: Talking Points Memo

Comments

[Acidic]

I wouldn't mind getting sen to GITMO, I'm in dire need of quality health care!

[Acidic]

Some of the " terrorists " that have been rounded up are nothing more than the middle east version of the Salem Witch Trials. If someone in a given village had enemies, that person was offered up as a " terrorist ". This was an easy way for people to get rid of their political enemies and all we did was do them a favor by wisking them of to gitmo.

[BOin08]

Ay more than 0 returning detainees to "Jihad" is too many. Families will hold those responsible for freeing GITMO terrorists for the death of their loved ones. Do you want to be responsible for freeing the next suicide bomber?

[Acidic]

Fear mongering 101

[bongstradamus]

It was based on a phone poll of likely terrorists within the specified demographic. Move along.

[WindySailor]

When was the last time something published in the NYT could be counted on for accuracy, truthfulness, and objectivity?

It is past time for this rag to go away.

[GKJames]

What continues to amaze is how, in this day and age, purportedly sophisticated reporters and their editors can still get spun. One would think that any adult who's been paying attention would, at a minimum, treat information coming out of government with a respectful skepticism, seeing it merely as the beginning of the inquiry, as a motive for more detailed questions. Instead, like stenographic clerks, they simply repeat what they're told (which also happens to be a convenient route to exculpation of they get it wrong; "hey, that's what they said; I'm not sayin' it's true, but it is what they said).

Possible explanations: First, these people are motivated by the financial imperative behind the scoop; accuracy, schmaccuracy. Second, they have an agenda. Third, they're clueless about the role of the Fourth Estate. Or, fourth, they're just not very bright.

[Acidic]

A third approach might very well be that they think we are dumb enough to believe it.

[uvymopka]

I hope the New York Times checked this out better than they usually do. I would trust Hollywood gossip more than the NYT.

[StillAmused]

Uh-oh... here we go again. Another one of those challenging brain-teasers where you actually have to pay attention and be capable of critical thought.

... as opposed to embracing the Disney version of reality (originally intended only to entertain children).

First, everyone you dislike ISN'T a "terrorist".

Second, everyone who dislikes America ISN'T a "terrorist".

Third, if they locked up your Aunt Bessie and abused her for a few years with no charges and no trial, she WOULD become a "terrorist".

See how that works?

[vernonbc]

It's amazing that not every single detainee that's been released hasn't joined a group to seek revenge against the terrorists (the U.S.) that held him hostage for seven years.

[Acidic]

Well said

[arvay]

One more example among many of why no one should mourn the demise of the New York Times.

It's always been a blend of arrogance and intellectual dishonesty.

Let the tress live, we can get our information elsewhere.

[andhakari]

If we just imprisoned everybody in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, we'd certainly get most of the terrorists. Then we just leave them all in prison without due process till the cows come home. Surely, that will teach all those naughty folk how wonderful democracy is.

[JerryLevy]

These arn't "detainees," these are hate filled, hate obsessed, terrorists. Can we just call them "suspects" or "terrorist suspects" since they were picked up fighting for the Taliban. You know, the group seeking world domination of Sharia law and who calls for the end of education for women.

[dancingstu]

Actually, as she acknowledged right off the bat in that interview, a number of these people who were detained weren't engaged in terrost activities to begin with. And you clearly have no idea how easy it would be for an innocent civilian to get caught up in an enthusiastic intelligence agency's dragnet. How do we identify a terrorist? Well, his neighbor (who hates his guts because he offended him years before and wants to get back at him) said so. Oh, I'm sorry, did you miss the part about our informant being biased? Did you miss the part about our informants being paid to give us intelligence?

No. I must have missed the news that we captured Osama bin Laden.

[Marcospinelli]

I'm taking bets, step right up.

What's Obama going to announce tomorrow so that his "prevention detention" proposal in today's speech (and military tribunals, and a dozen other promises he broke this week) isn't the topic of the Sunday talk show?

It's 'Take Out The Trash'-day. What's it going to be? His nominee for the Supreme Court? This "imminent" LGBT policy announcement?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbslm1h8xjI

[Bettysdad]

If they know who has gone back to doing things we don't like, why don't we just pick them up?

We know who they are and what they're doing, but not where they are? Typican intel CYA, just in time to make Obama look bad.

BTW, that's a lower recidivism rate than any US prison.

[rizvisa1]

I am getting impression that you are thinking they are living in some organized city like we have here. I am sure few have a postal address, so it would be hard to pick them up. Also I dont know how they are able to get this sort of result that 1 in 7 or even 1 in 100 or 1 in 2. I think they just throw the numbers as the stock guys they do

[noaxe397]

74 detainees return to jihad. Assume it's true. Why are the Republicans so scared? They don't want detainees in America, they don't want them in US prisons, they are afraid they will escape and blow up a building, why should they get 3 hots and a cot at taxpayer expense, Obama wants to give the detainees drivers licenses and food stamps and voter id cards. What a bunch of pansies.

This is the party of "bring 'em on?" In the US is exactly where they belong so we can convict them and keep them locked up, just like the first WTC terrorists are right now.

Republicans don't fear the detainees, they fear the rule of law, because it works but it is not sexy and glamorous, like rows of freshly uniformed troops and video game like pictures of bombs dropping.

Since 9/11 only 3 detainees have stood trial. One was OBL's driver and he was convicted of what he confessed to: being OBL's driver. Sentence 5 years. With time already served he's done.
Why has no one focused on why for 7 years under Bush the detainees did not have their tribunals? Could it be they are more useful to GOP as potential terrorist threats? So Cheney can have something to scare people with? Like he did today? Or maybe of the 200+ in detention only a tiny fraction have actually commited a terrorist act?

[Tommygun264]

The torturers and their apologists are just looking for a socially acceptable excuse to march all the scary brown men into a pit and put bullets in their heads.

[lungfish]

I am sure that of the 500 plus detainees that were released, many were not jihadists but after their mistreatment and incarceration without legal process at the hands of the US they became jihadists...

If someone came here, occupied my country, hauled me off on some trumped up bs, "softened" me up for interrogation, maybe abused or killed a few people around me, put me through the crap that happened at Abu Ghraib, Bhagram and Gitmo... I would probably go to the other side and do my best to kill the oppressors. It isn't such a hard path of logic to follow...

[SiberianRat]

Yep.

[rizvisa1]

yup, NYT changed the wording to now suggest they are involved in such activities where as before they claim that they went back to such activities. Subtle difference but backs what you suggest.