Times GITMO Recidivism Story Immediately Cast In Doubt

Yesterday, the New York Times' led with a big splashy report that the Pentagon was in possession of a document that made a claim that was sure to cramp the style of GITMO-closure advocates: that one in seven GITMO detainees released by the Bush administration "returned to terrorism." Obviously, this is far too high a cost to risk actual recognizable justice being rendered in these detainees' cases, so all of them obviously must stay on Free Colonoscopy Island Forever. Sorry about that, six-out-of-seven guys who didn't return to a life of terrorism and that -- who knows? -- maybe weren't terrorists in the first place! Y'all need to realize that America is an EXCEPTIONAL nation!

Anyway, this isn't the first time these stories of high recidivist rates have cropped up, and they've previously been disputed by no less a Communist than Defense Secretary Bob Gates, so it was of particular interest to me how long this story would hang together under fresh scrutiny. As it happens, NOT LONG!

As I noted yesterday, by nine in the morning, Spencer Ackerman was already finding cause for concern:

This, however, doesn't inspire confidence:

The Pentagon has provided no way of authenticating its 45 unnamed recidivists, and only a few of the 29 people identified by name can be independently verified as having engaged in terrorism since their release. Many of the 29 are simply described as associating with terrorists or training with terrorists, with almost no other details provided.

We also made note of Talking Points Memo's Justin Elliot, who found the very reporter who wrote the story walking it back:

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."

Appearing on MSNBC today, Bumiller said "there is some debate about whether you should say 'returned' because some of them were perhaps not engaged in terrorism, as we know -- some of them are being held there on vague charges."

Since then, the Times' headline changed from "1 in 7 Detainees Returned To Jihad, Pentagon Says" to "Later Terror Link Cited for 1 in 7 Freed Detainees." And via Elliot, the lede has been changed as well, from:

"An unreleased Pentagon report provides new details concluding that about one in seven of the 534 prisoners already transferred abroad from the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has returned to terrorism or militant activity, according to administration officials."

To:

"An unreleased Pentagon report concludes that about one in seven of the 534 prisoners already transferred abroad from the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, are engaged in terrorism or militant activity, according to administration officials."

Oh, and further doubts? Got some! Via Spencer Ackerman:

Human Rights Watch claims in a press release that at least one "recidivist" GTMO detainee counted in the Pentagon's "recidivism" report confessed to his post-GTMO crimes after they were beaten out of him.

Anyway, the question now is whether or not all these caveats, and the walking back done by the piece's own reporter, will garner as much attention as the original report. I distinctly remember Joe Scarborough, for example, being really excited about this report yesterday and praising the New York Times for giving it placement on the front page. To Morning Joe's credit, the show acknowledged today that the New York Times was "revisiting" the story and exploring both the possibility that the imprisonment itself bred militancy, as well as whether or not all the charges of post-detainment terror activity were credible. Kudos to them. Their example should be followed.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[oldedinthailand]

06:04 PM on 05/22/2009

Am I the only stupid person (having been in AF) that hasn't heard about people just turning people for the bounties. As a rough guess I would Say 75% of the Terrorists there had no idea what was happening ( somebody didn't like them & got a bounty for turning them in). Too me, being an American I would want a speedy trial. In my little pea brain I would say put them there terrorists on trail today so we can hang them. Though if I thunk maybe thet ain't not guilty I leave them in jail and never have a trial. Then I tell ya how good they are livin & how you poor people ain't not got it good like them there terrorists. Makes it for me.

[Deparis]

04:38 PM on 05/22/2009

The New York Times is truly becoming a joke. Thank goodness i saw that coming in mid-November of last year and closed my wallet.

[OneLiberalLady]

04:28 PM on 05/22/2009

Well, the Times has as much blood on their hands for helping to get America into Iraq as any MSM outlet. So everything they say should be taken with healthy skeptism. Peter Baker's "analysis" of Obama's versus Cheney's speech in today's paper was particularly vapid.

[felisa11]

04:22 PM on 05/22/2009

It is becoming painfully obvious how the republicans work.

They manufacture and fabricate news stories.

After the fake news had been printed or reported on, they used the fake news as talking points.

[1murillo]

03:18 PM on 05/22/2009

The recidivism rate in the US, using the means in the original story, would probably be above 90%. As noted in the blog, the retraction - or "walking back" - of the story will never be as powerful as the original headline.

But, so it goes. All the more reason to demand good journalism. The NYTimes is certainly not a liberal paper, but many of us know that right-leaning politicians accuse it of being such only when it's convenient for them to say so.

[1murillo]

03:13 PM on 05/22/2009

Linkins,

You suggest the key when you write, "Sorry about that, six-out-of-seven guys who didn't return to a life of terrorism and that -- who knows? -- maybe weren't terrorists in the first place!"

The men imprisoned in Cuba were not convicted of "terrorism" so the premise that they will "return" to terrorism is false. It's not merely a play on words to speak this way; these are lives that we've (US) in many ways ended because of a reactionary fear of ... something.

If these men were ever tried and convicted, served their sentence, and then found guilty of "terrorism" then we could understand the recidivism rate (whatever it would be).

[PoliticalAmazon]

03:12 PM on 05/22/2009

It would be interesting to see what "associating with terrrorists" actually means. Do they attend the same mosque? Work at the same place? Have kids that go to the same school?

[rich3324]

02:31 PM on 05/22/2009

Gitmo did not rehabilitate some of these “terrorist?” Hard to believe.

[dwillisno1]

02:11 PM on 05/22/2009

I am what I consider a non violent person. I often wonder what I would be like if I was incarcerated, denied counsel, tortured, degraded, held without trial, and given the impression I would just languish the rest of my life there. Would I still be a non violent person upon release? The recidivism issue is dicey just as it is in the normal prison system. I'm guessing somewhere there is a general principle that the recidivism rate is in direct relationship to the treatment while in prison. Criminals are not the only ones to blame for recidivism.

[JohnTalbutt]

02:19 PM on 05/22/2009

I see your point. Cheney has made it clear that if he get the chance he will torture again..

[tokenconservative]

02:01 PM on 05/22/2009

I'm going to reference this article the next 10 times you post some vitriolic drivel about how Morning Joe is conspiring to ruin the country.

[Hopeington]

04:20 PM on 06/06/2009

The only thing Morning Joe is conspiring to ruin is MSNBC's ratings.

[mmfleming]

01:49 PM on 05/22/2009

So 85% didn't "return" to terrorism? Either they were never in it or got the urge beat out of 'em. Not a bad record. But if we know so much about these 74 guys--45 of whose names we don't know--and perhaps didn't at the time--where's Bin Laden?

The real story is that apparently Bush-Cheney found foreign 'homes' for 534 of these characters but now treat us daily to warnings about how impossible it is to find homes for the rest and how incompetent our high security prisons are to incarcerate even one of them legally and domestically. If I lived in Kansas and the Governor went on tv to tell me Leveanworth couldn't be relied on to lock up a criminal, I'd be wondering why the warden there still had a job.

[blood1]

02:59 PM on 05/22/2009

Excellent point!

So the question remains: how did the Pentagon come up with these numbers? Maybe they used the same logic as why we went to Iraq?
Did we put monitors on them? Implant tracking devices with cameras so someone could see who they were "conspiring" with?

For the Pentagon to come up with a number is what someone got paid to do, but the question of proof still remains.

[southpaw2015]

03:02 PM on 05/22/2009

well guess what ? I was listening to NPR the other day and the Kansas Gov was on and said the Gitmo guys can't be locked up @ Leavenworth because HE doesn't consider that prison to be a maximum security prison.... even though it meets the definition of max security prison. He claims the other ( I guess "not so bad") prisoners will be put at risk by them being housed there.
Here's the link
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104406499&ft=1&f=1022

[CitizenIndie]

01:37 PM on 05/22/2009

Everything is just... spin.

Years from now, we'll be in a big hole and wondering why more people didn't stand up and speak the truth rather than trying to win television and internet arguments.

[llykes]

02:00 PM on 05/22/2009

Yes!

[Cakey4814]

01:35 PM on 05/22/2009

In other words Times is what Whoopie said Glen Beck is..