Pentagon won’t name 60 percent of detainees it says returned to terrorism By John Byrne June 10, 2009 RAW STORY

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/10/pentagon-wont-name-60-percent-of-detainees-it-says-returned-to-terrorism/
Pentagon won’t name 60 percent of detainees it says returned to terrorism

By John Byrne

Published: June 10, 2009

According to an analysis by a New Jersey law professor, the Pentagon’s recent survey alleging that one in seven Guantanamo Bay prisoners return to terrorism is deeply flawed.

His analysis also reveals the Pentagon has refused to identify 60 percent of the men they claim have returned to terrorism, saying the information is classified.

The latest Pentagon recidivism analysis documents 74 recidivists, but lacks 45 names, adding that of the 29 names given, only half are labeled “confirmed” recidivists. Seton Hall University Professor Mark Denbeaux, who wrote the report, also alleges the analysis includes men who were never held at Guantanamo.

All told, 45 of 74 is 61 percent.

The Defense Department “has issued ‘recidivism’ numbers again, and again they are wrong and make no sense either independently or in comparison with the DoD’s previous numbers, definitions, names or reports,” Denbeaux said in a statement.

Along with his son, Denbeaux has authored several reports on Gitmo detainees, analyzing transcripts and records to attempt to reconstruct what they believe is a more honest accounting of prisoner statistics (their reports can be read here).

Pentagon spokesman Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon dismissed Denbeaux’s analysis when asked to comment by the Associated Press.

“We fundamentally disagree with the conclusions drawn by Professor Denbeaux and his students,” Gordon quipped, possibly attempting to undercut Denbeaux’s research by alluding to his younger researchers. “The return to terrorism analysis made public by the Defense Department is based on classified information, to which he had no access.”

Denbeaux’s complete report — and other recent reports he’s compiled — can be read here.

Just Saw this..

A desperate ploy: claiming recidivism but not substantiating it. Bottom line is how many Gitmo convictions for 9/11? Just a lot of noise and a couple of torture confessions to seemingly back the official lie. They can detain and accuse, but the one thing they can't seem to do is CONVICT. (for 9/11... but they might be able to convict someone for an embassy bombing....)

The latest ploy seems to be convicting someone who was involved in the 1998 African Embassy bombings. Nothing wrong with that per se, since there does seem to be evidence that "al Qaeda" was involved. I guess this is supposed to IMPLY that they did 9/11 as well and Gitmo is justified. If I'm right, a big deal will be made about a trial or two convicting an "al Qeada' operative for one of African embassy bombings.

Something to clearly understand

When Israeli soldiers fell into the hands of a Palestinian mob in Ramallah, a few years ago, they were literally lynched.

Why? Apart from the moral question of what happened there, I mean this in the sense of: why is this Palestinian mob willing to do such a thing and capable of doing such a thing?

Now transfer that question onto somebody who is innocent, but has nevertheless been kept captive on an island in a secretive torture prison for many years.

What are the feelings of such a man? What is his mental state? To me there is no doubt he'd be stone crazy. So the notion that these people are somehow not dangerous is ridiculous. We have turned them into tortured animals. Tortured animals attack indiscriminately. Even IF the freed captives refrain from using deadly force on Americans or Europeans, the rest of their lives will be a living hell.

THAT's what the Bush rule has accomplished, and while we glorify revenge in Hollywood, somehow it seems far-fetched here. We're seriously deluded.

Does that mean I oppose freeing those prisoners and closing Guantanamo? No, ABSOLUTELY not.

In fact, I propose a life sentence in a maximum security prison without privileges for those involved in the creation and management of Guantanamo Bay.

What does this mean then? That I am willing to take the risk of setting loose the Gitmo captives I described above? Yes. That is what I mean, and that is what it means to accept a system of fair justice.

But make no mistake as to who is responsible for the mental state sustained by these captives. As it stands, even Mother Teresa would be a dangerous terrorist after years of incarceration in this legendary torture fortress hell hole.