Countdown: KO Debunks Released Gitmo Detainees Propaganda Numbers

[Hissyspit]

Run time: 00:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74wLUb03T-w   Posted on YouTube: January 23, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 23, 2009 By DU Member: Hissyspit Views on DU: 1165

 
MSNBC Countdown w/ KEITH OLBERMANN - Jan. 22, 2009: 'Other Aspect of Torture-Gate'

Keith: "The professor said their numbers have changed from 20 to 12 to 7... Everytime the number has been different... Here's a wild guess. The administration just made the numbers up."

[EFerrari]

1. Btw, the Seton Hall prof was working directly with THE PENTAGON'S OWN NUMBERS.

It's a big fat lie, all of it.

[jeff30997]

2. Keith &R

What a bunch of lying scumbags.

[drmeow]

3. I think they should bring a class-action suit

against every individual member of the administration (the bunch of super-rich f**ks). Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft, etc, etc.

I'd like to see them impoverished and begging on the street.

[underpants]

4. Link to my take (from this Olbermann report) sfexpat's excellent post AND Denbeaux report

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=419021&mesg_id=419021

sfexpat's post on this from last week :thumbsup:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4821536

Seton Hall Law: Department of Defense Wrong Again on guantánamo “Recidivism”
http://law.shu.edu/administration/public_relations/press_releases/2009/shl_defense_dept_wrong_on_gtmo.htm
Home > Public Relations > Press Releases > January 15, 2009

The Seton Hall Center for Policy and Research has issued a report which rebuts and debunks the most recent claim by the Department of Defense (DOD) that “61, in all, former Guantánamo detainees are confirmed or suspected of returning to the fight.”

Professor Denbeaux of the Center for Policy & Research has said that the Center has determined that “DOD has issued 'recidivism' numbers 43 times, and each time they have been wrong—this last time the most egregiously so.”

Denbeaux stated: “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. They have included people who have never even set foot in Guantánamo—much less were they released from there. They have counted people as 'returning to the fight' for their having written an Op-ed piece in the New York Times and for their having appeared in a documentary exhibited at the Cannes Film Festival. The DOD has revised and retracted their internally conflicting definitions, criteria, and their numbers so often that they have ceased to have any meaning—except as an effort to sway public opinion by painting a false portrait of the supposed dangers of these men.

"Forty-three times they have given numbers—which conflict with each other—all of which are seriously undercut by the DOD statement that 'they do not track' former detainees. Rather than making up numbers “willy-nilly” about post release conduct, America might be better served if our government actually kept track of them.”

[EFerrari]

5. Related video: Rachel interviews author of Seton Hall study:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x263761

[EFerrari]

6. I'm going to stick the link to a little write up I did after watching a hearing last summer

where the Seton Hall study was first presented. I was trying to make the point that it's CONGRESS that has a problem with recidivism, not the released detainees. Congress (and to an extent, America) has a problem with holding onto what is known about rendition, detention and torture.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3323015

[EFerrari]

7. One last link. L. Coyote wonderfully posted a link to that hearing last summer:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=136417&mesg_id=136417

Thanks, you guys, for your diligence. :loveya: