Back in May, the Pentagon told the press that 1 in 7 Guantanamo detainees "returned to terrorism or militant activity." The New York Times ran with this lead, without even requesting a definition of "returned to terrorism or militant activity." Weeks later, the New York Times had to run a correction, essentially blaming the whole confusion on not receiving documents from the Pentagon. This was, of course, a ridiculous excuse. The Pentagon responded to my request for documentation in a matter of hours, with a pdf that described, entirely, how they define whether or not someone is suspected of returning to the battle field:
Definition of "Confirmed" - A preponderance of evidence-fingerprints, DNA, conclusive photographic match, or reliable, verified, or well-corroborated intelligence reporting-identifies a specific former Defense Department detainee as directly involved in terrorist activities.
Definition of "Suspected" - Significant reporting indicates a former Defense Department detainee is involved in terrorist activities, and analysis indicates the detainee most likely is associated with a specific former detainee or unverified or single-source, but plausible, reporting indicates a specific former detainee is involved in terrorist activities.
You see, the claim is absolutely "unverified" (according to the Pentagon).
So you would imagine my surprise to see CBS running with this same "unverified" information as if it is true. That is pure crap, calling itself journalism. Once again, these journalists could not even manage to ask the Pentagon, how do you define that? This must be the "making stuff up" that Sarah Palin was so upset about.
STATE BLOGS
