Pentagon Releases List of Gitmo Detainees Who Returned to Terrorism
EmailABC News’ Luis Martinez reports: A Pentagon report released today confirms that 14 percent of the 540 detainees — or one in seven — who were released from the detainee center Guantanamo Bay have been known or suspected of returning to terrorist activities. "Based on a comprehensive review of available information as of mid-March 2009, the Defense Intelligence Agency reported 14 percent as the overall rate of former Guantanamo detainees confirmed or suspected of reengaging in terrorist activities. Of the more than 530 Guantanamo detainees transferred from Department of Defense custody to Guantanamo Bay, 27 were confirmed and 47 were suspected of reengaging in terrorist activity. Between December 2008 and March 2009, nine detainees were added to the confirmed list, six of whom were previously on the suspected list," the report states. The full document can be viewed HERE. "Various former Guantanamo detainees are known to have reengaged in terrorist activity associated with the al- Qaeda network, and have been arrested for reengaging in terrorist activities including facilitating the travel of terrorist into war zones, providing funds to al-Qaida, and supporting and associating with known terrorists," the report states. Two of those are Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shihri, who was repatriated to Saudi Arabia in November 2007 and Mazin Slaih Musaid al-Alawi al-Awfi, also repatriated to Saudi Arabia in July 2007. On Jan. 24, a19-minute video was relased showing their leadership within the newly established al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Many of these detainees are nationals of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Russia. Last week, President Obama defended his decision to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within a year’s time, saying it only helped fuel terrorist activities. "Instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained," the president said last Thursday. "So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That’s why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year."
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Well, it should come as no surprise. If they were terorists, after they way they were treated, they would return with more vigor. If they were innocent, and from what I have heard, a lot were, they would become ardent terrorists after they way they were treated. Gitmo was the greatest recruiting tool the terrorists had.
Posted by: solstice21 | May 26, 2009, 6:20 pm 6:20 pm
This is a surprise? I’m surprised it’s only 14%.
Posted by: LongT | May 26, 2009, 6:22 pm 6:22 pm
86% of those release resumed their normal lives. Why were they detained again?
Posted by: Thinking | May 26, 2009, 6:24 pm 6:24 pm
That’s to be expected look how many two and felons (three time losers) there are in USA.
Posted by: antonio | May 26, 2009, 6:32 pm 6:32 pm
Um, the US Federal Prison system has a recidivism rate of 2/3 being arrested within 3 years after release from prison. So, if the 1/7 going back to ‘terrorism’ number is true, it seems that either Guantanamo holds people who aren’t actually bad people (who knows when they haven’t even been charged?) or they are doing an awesome job preventing recidivism.
Posted by: matyra | May 26, 2009, 6:33 pm 6:33 pm
That’s to be expected look how many felons (two and three time losers) there are in USA.
Posted by: antonio | May 26, 2009, 6:33 pm 6:33 pm
Posted by: matyra | May 26, 2009 6:33:03 PM
Very well said. My thoughts exactly.
Posted by: Padma | May 26, 2009, 6:35 pm 6:35 pm
solstice: If they were innocent, and from what I have heard, a lot were, they would become ardent terrorists after they way they were treated. Gitmo was the greatest recruiting tool the terrorists had.
=================
Hmmm. I’m not sure how being held in Gitmo makes an innocent man want to go to Pakistan and blow up 31 innocent people, but there you go.
Posted by: MayBee | May 26, 2009, 6:36 pm 6:36 pm
Here’s the problem, Padma and Matyra.
Who said this:
“We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States that endanger the American people.”
?
Posted by: MayBee | May 26, 2009, 6:45 pm 6:45 pm
MayBee:”Hmmm. I’m not sure how being held in Gitmo makes an innocent man want to go to Pakistan and blow up 31 innocent people, but there you go.”
You don’t see how being held without rights or charge, losing years of your life, what you perceive as your honor and dignity being stripped from you and abusive interrogations (even completely legal, hands off interrogations are not pleasant) might cause young men to want to fight back against the US? Really? You are so completely, utterly devoid of empathy that it doesn’t cross your mind how that could occur?
Last I checked, all of the people suspected of returning to terrorism did NOT go blow themselves up. The actual cited activities are facilitating the travel of terrorists into war zones, providing funds to al-Qaida, and supporting and associating with known terrorists.
You can’t imagine how being (in your mind) unjustly robbed of your liberty by being imprisoned and abused for years might cause you to try to raise money to support the avowed enemy of the country that did that to you?
It’s this sort of incredible inability to understand basic human motivations that made the Republican’s foreign policy such a disaster. They even managed to tick off our allies.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 26, 2009, 6:47 pm 6:47 pm
‘m not sure how being held in Gitmo makes an innocent man want to go to Pakistan and blow up 31 innocent people, but there you go.
Posted by: MayBee
that’s silly, everyone knows that all the prisoners being held at Gitmo are guilty, that’s why they are there in the 1st place, they’re guilty..
Under American justice, which is always right, it’s impossible that innocent people would be held held for years without a trial.
right?
Posted by: Oh Yeah | May 26, 2009, 6:52 pm 6:52 pm
You don’t see how being held without rights or charge, losing years of your life, what you perceive as your honor and dignity being stripped from you and abusive interrogations (even completely legal, hands off interrogations are not pleasant) might cause young men to want to fight back against the US?
==========
That isn’t what I said.
How is blowing up 31 innocent Pakistanis in Pakistan fighting back against the US?
Posted by: MayBee | May 26, 2009, 6:52 pm 6:52 pm
MayBee:”How is blowing up 31 innocent Pakistanis in Pakistan fighting back against the US?”
ANY support of Bin Laden is stupid. Do you have trouble believing there could have been innocent but also stupid young men who are easily conned into acting like, well, stupid young men?
And out of 500 or so released there surely will be a few guilty among them. Once upon a time, the US believed it was better that a guilty man go free than the state rob an innocent man of his freedom (it was considered one of those unalienable, not just American citizen, rights).
Posted by: jhw539 | May 26, 2009, 7:05 pm 7:05 pm
jhw- read the link. Abdullah Mahsud. Directed the bombing in Pakistan that killed 31 people in 2007. Kidnapped 2 Chinese engineers. Claimed responsibility for a 2004 Islamabad hotel bombing.
Posted by: MayBee | May 26, 2009, 7:05 pm 7:05 pm
ANY support of Bin Laden is stupid. Do you have trouble believing there could have been innocent but also stupid young men who are easily conned into acting like, well, stupid young men?
==============
I can’t believe you are reducing someone who engages in multiple bombings as someone easily conned into acting like a “stupid young man”.
Posted by: MayBee | May 26, 2009, 7:07 pm 7:07 pm
MayBee:”I can’t believe you are reducing someone who engages in multiple bombings as someone easily conned into acting like a “stupid young man”.”
Did you misunderstand what I meant when I said “out of 500 or so released there surely will be a few guilty among them.” ?
Or are you being deliberately obtuse? First off, the vast majority (6 out of 7) have returned to a normal life. And secondly, most of those 1 out of 7 are suspected of ‘associating with terrorists.’ And yes, a few guilty were let go.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 26, 2009, 7:12 pm 7:12 pm
Other than hear say no one can confirm that Guantanamo is a tool to recruit more terrorits.Is like saying that putting people in jail in the US is used as a tool to recruit more criminals in the USA. These guys have been doing this recruiting thing long before Guantanamo existed.So I must say bolognee..show me the facts and stop the political farse.
Posted by: Frank | May 26, 2009, 7:16 pm 7:16 pm
Once upon a time, the US believed it was better that a guilty man go free than the state rob an innocent man of his freedom (it was considered one of those unalienable, not just American citizen, rights).
An unalienable right are those universal rights that we, through the instrument of the constitution, must strive to protect for eachother, US citizens.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | May 26, 2009, 7:30 pm 7:30 pm
I guess it is not worth pointing out that these detainees were released under Cheney/Bush. Kinda spoils a few arguments.
Posted by: doug | May 26, 2009, 7:33 pm 7:33 pm
“Once upon a time, the US believed it was better that a guilty man go free than the state rob an innocent man of his freedom (it was considered one of those unalienable, not just American citizen, rights).”
-jhw539
jhw-
An unalienable right are those universal rights that we, through the instrument of the constitution, must strive to protect for eachother, US citizens.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | May 26, 2009, 7:34 pm 7:34 pm
First off, the vast majority (6 out of 7) have returned to a normal life.
Posted by: jhw539
————————–
Really? How do you know?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 26, 2009, 7:35 pm 7:35 pm
“I guess it is not worth pointing out that these detainees were released under Cheney/Bush. Kinda spoils a few arguments”
No, its always worth pointing out the facts whether the right wing accepts them or not.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 26, 2009, 7:39 pm 7:39 pm
jhw:Did you misunderstand what I meant when I said “out of 500 or so released there surely will be a few guilty among them.” ?
=======
I guess I did, preceded as it was about young men being conned into acting stupid when I asked (several times) about bombing Pakistanis.
And yes, I’d guess several guilty people were let go.
If it is the American ideal, as you say to let guilty men go free rather than hold 1 innocent man, I will repeat my earlier comment that the problem THEN becomes President Obama’s promise that:
“We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States that endanger the American people.”
Posted by: MayBee | May 26, 2009, 7:42 pm 7:42 pm
I guess it is not worth pointing out that these detainees were released under Cheney/Bush. Kinda spoils a few arguments.
============
Not really.
The problem facing us is what to do with the detainees who are left. They are supposed to be the tough cases. And President Obama has promised not to release anyone dangerous.
So considering the supposedly easy people to release did turn out to be dangerous in some cases, what are we going to do to get everybody cleared out of Guantanamo in 8 months?
Posted by: MayBee | May 26, 2009, 7:45 pm 7:45 pm
Not much different than other incarcerated individuals who reoffend within 48-hours unless supportive services are in place for reintegration. If this is a terrorist who is being dispatched back to his homeland than what do we truly expect?
Posted by: Rob | May 26, 2009, 7:58 pm 7:58 pm
Obama has made an utter mess of this. Closing GITMO is a huge mistake and he is letting his pollyanna view of the world interfere with common sense. The constitution is not a suicide pact.
Posted by: brian | May 26, 2009, 8:06 pm 8:06 pm
So liberals, they’re are gitmo detainees being released, one is guilty and one is not guilty, but for the one not guilty person to be released a guilty person does too because no one knows which one is good and which one is not, so then the one guilty one goes off and blows himself up killing a couple American soldiers…Should the two gitmo detainees should still of been released?
Posted by: Dan | May 26, 2009, 8:12 pm 8:12 pm
The Pentagon is prepared to leave fighting forces in Iraq for as long as a decade despite an agreement between the United States and Iraq that would bring all American troops home by 2012, the top U.S. Army officer said Tuesday.
Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, said the world remains dangerous and unpredictable, and the Pentagon must plan for extended U.S. combat and stability operations in two wars. “Global trends are pushing in the wrong direction,” Casey said. “They fundamentally will change how the Army works.”
Posted by: whatif | May 26, 2009, 8:12 pm 8:12 pm
“I guess it is not worth pointing out that these detainees were released under Cheney/Bush.”
Sure IS worth pointing out. Many people on here chose to blame the current President for everything, especially ‘endangering America’.
Clearly it was Cheney and Bush who released these people, not Obama.
Posted by: danita | May 26, 2009, 8:14 pm 8:14 pm
1 in 7. That’s 14%. Give em jobs to keep em from returning
Posted by: kowalsistanley | May 26, 2009, 8:18 pm 8:18 pm
Just make em Govt. civil servants with 6 figure salaries. We got plenty of those around.
Posted by: kowalskistanley | May 26, 2009, 8:22 pm 8:22 pm
The article states that 1 in 7 have been known or suspected of RETURNING to terrorist activities. My question is, if there was KNOWLEDGE of some of these people participating in terrorist activities, why did the bush cheney administration release them? It seems that if there were proof of someone participating in terrorist activities, they should have been tried and imprisoned, not released.
Posted by: sean | May 26, 2009, 8:31 pm 8:31 pm
We call them terrorists. They consider themselves insurgents?
Posted by: FedUp | May 26, 2009, 8:34 pm 8:34 pm
This indecision on the part of the judiciary and legislature has put us at a stalemate, where the military operate as freely as it should. This is giving th enemy time to regroup and move and plan, and giving the legislature, the jusdiciary, and the public a false sense of security. Without aggressive action on the civilian side to support the exectuive branch, there will be a round II, eventually, much more difficult, if not impossible, to stabilize.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | May 26, 2009, 8:38 pm 8:38 pm
The typos are a blog software glitch. Apparently. Only the mispellings are mine.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | May 26, 2009, 8:41 pm 8:41 pm
I can’t help thinking if the rate would have been as high, had the Bush administration taken more of a law enforcement approach, with emphasis on gathering evidence, building strong cases and NOT engaging in illegal activities like torture.
If I had been one of the 9/11 victims I would have wanted justice to be served. And locking people up more or less at random, treating them like dirt without knowing for sure if they are, and then five-six years later having to release them for lack of evidence so that 14 percent of them can go back and do more harm – that to me is not justice.
Posted by: El_Pajaro | May 26, 2009, 8:43 pm 8:43 pm
OK, I’m going back to my estate. Good Luck America.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | May 26, 2009, 8:44 pm 8:44 pm
14%? That’s a rather impressive recidivism rate. U.S. prisons have a rate well over 60%, for inmates re-arrested within a few years of their original incarceration. So if you put those numbers in perspective, “one in seven” seems like a remarkably low number.
Posted by: Derek | May 26, 2009, 8:44 pm 8:44 pm
1 in 7 or 14% does NOT seem like a large number to me. Plus, that’s an estimate not based on fact, but instead on guess work. After having kept people in solitary confinement, torturing them on occasion and then finally releasing them because we had no evidence against them, well, I would think the number would be much, much higher. If I was treated the same way, I know I would come out hostile to America to say the least.
Posted by: JR | May 26, 2009, 8:52 pm 8:52 pm
So heres a thought. Dont release them.
Posted by: lookforananswer | May 26, 2009, 9:37 pm 9:37 pm
Cheney and Bush made the decision to release those individuals. That is their responsibility plain and simple.
Posted by: danita | May 26, 2009, 9:38 pm 9:38 pm
Once again, here is a columnist who believe his fellow Americans are too stupid to be able to put things together. So, 14% return to terrorism? Wow… Well, considering that 67% of American criminals are rearrested within 3 years of being released from prison, that’s a pretty low rate. Oh, but we are all too stupid to understand that a 14% return rate is low. Why do guys like this hold their fellow Americans in such contempt?!?!? Oh, that’s right because they have used fear to control us so well in the past.
Posted by: EML | May 26, 2009, 9:43 pm 9:43 pm
This story states “one in seven of the released Gitmo detainees are SUSPECTED.” The key operative word is “SUSPECTED.” Most people “SUSPECT” that there are aliens out there, far advanced beyond our own species. SUSPECTING is NOT “knowing” with any degree of reliable certainty. Watch what you read very carefully. Someone is always trying to slip one past you while you’re sleeping. Why isn’t this article or any U.S. media disclosing what percentage of Gitmo detainees was released for “lack of evidence” after many, many years of unlawful confinement under horrific abusive conditions? We know it is a very large percentage. Is that why the media won’t focus down on the IMPORTANT, meaningful facts that surround the Gitmo issue? The media in this country absolutely sucks out load.
Posted by: Reflecting_Pool | May 26, 2009, 9:47 pm 9:47 pm
jaj,
You didn’t, but nice try.
First, Bush/Cheney put some terror SUSPECTS in gitmo. Some were terrorists, some were innocent. And because of the way Bush/Cheney handled this, the question of guilt was subsequently very hard to answer beyond reasonable doubt.
“Libs cry, it’s not fair to these poor innocent people to sit in prison w/no justice!”
I’ll go with that. But I guess by “innocent” you mean terrorists, right? We libs try to differentiate between the two; innocent people good, terrorists bad. Twisted liberal logic, I know.
“to appease those crying liberals, Bush/Cheney release some terrorist”
Cheney appeasing liberals? Hardly. This one you should blame on the Supreme Court, not the liberals.
And yes, I am partly blaming Bush/Cheney for those who went back to the battlefield, because Bush and Cheney are the ones who f—ed up the legal cases against them with their above-the-law approach.
Posted by: El_Pajaro | May 26, 2009, 9:59 pm 9:59 pm
El P,
You didn’t mention what was done to AQ suspects BEFORE Bush/Cheney.
The fact is, they were taken to 3rd countries like Egypt,Jordan,Morocco,etc. where they were routinely tortured.
CIA didn’t use the ‘take’ from these ‘interrogations’ because they knew these people were tortured.
That was the Clinton rendition program, my friend.
Go to cspan and watch Micheal Scheuer’s testimony in front of Rep. Delahunt’s ‘rendition’ committte and see for yourself.
Now, this White House is back to the same Clinton program,i.e., sending them ‘away’ and not incarcerating them.
Posted by: J House | May 26, 2009, 10:05 pm 10:05 pm
And this statistic is a surprise to whom? Even if every one of the Gitmo people were innocent sheep before being picked up, I’d expect more than this percentage to want “revenge” upon release. That’s the Catch-22 of this situation.
Posted by: Tyrone | May 26, 2009, 10:07 pm 10:07 pm
MarkLeavanworth:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ”
Rights just for citizens that pre-exist the institution of governments? Funny way of reading you have there.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 26, 2009, 10:16 pm 10:16 pm
J House,
I agree with you on the extraordinary renditions program. I don’t know enough about Clinton’s role in it, but I am not one who view all this strictly as a partisan issue.
Posted by: El_Pajaro | May 26, 2009, 10:19 pm 10:19 pm
MarkLeavanworth:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ”
Rights just for citizens that pre-exist the institution of governments? Funny way of reading you have there.
———————————–
jhw539-
I regret that I took a glance back to see this, but I guess we all have to take steps back at some point.
The trouble seems to be that when the natural and true ideals upon which governments are built are taken by the governed as being the proof of the natural state of their government, that then the governed take on a false sense of security that they can handle the reigns of government with nothing more than the adherance to the truth of the natural ideals. It is to SECURE these ideals for ourselves that governments are instituted. They do not secure themselves, neither should we pretend that we have the right to secure them for those whom we do not govern.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | May 26, 2009, 11:02 pm 11:02 pm
Takes less than .002% to push a button..
Posted by: Parallax View | May 27, 2009, 12:41 am 12:41 am
But it takes a majority to let a perfectly viable republic fall to the whims of their nature.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | May 27, 2009, 12:47 am 12:47 am
Absolutely incredible, we have a President who approves the bombing of innocents on a daily basis and yet the focus of dissent is based on our treatment of enemy combatants captured on the field of battle. Where is the outcry?
Posted by: Dennis London | May 27, 2009, 8:03 am 8:03 am
It’s easy .. just change the spots on the leopards .. before you let them back into the wild…
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 27, 2009, 8:08 am 8:08 am
Bush and Cheney Released them, Just like they Invaded Iraq with no exit plan, and opened Gitmo with no plan. Thank god those bumbiling idiots are gone. Cheney wants to go around touting he and Bush kept us safe meanwhile 911 Happened on their watch, and they released terriost back to terriost what idiots!
Posted by: Angie in Pa | May 27, 2009, 9:15 am 9:15 am
Angie..I find your comments offensive and primitive at best; as well as, inacurrate..Yes, 911 did in fact TAKE PLACE on Bush’s watch; HOWEVER, the planning took place on Clinton’s watch. The murderers were in Country under Clinton’s watch taking flight lessons with the help of the “Wall of Silence” between the CIA and FBI… PROOF you demand??? Who really knows, check Sandy Berger pants for the classified documents of the assessment of terrorist threats in 2000, you know Samuel R Berger the national security adviser to President Bill Clinton ..Did the Dems prevent: World Traded Center attack; U.S. Embassy attacks; The Cole attack; complete mis-handling of the Black Hawk Down affair.
This terrorism should not be assigned to any political party EVERYONE MESSED UP AND EVERYONE WILL MESS UP IN THE FUTURE the goal is too minimize the damage..Gitmo will be one of Obama’s bad decisions..Should have found a place for them before shutting them down…
Posted by: Parallax View | May 27, 2009, 1:17 pm 1:17 pm
This was not supposed to happen. The utopians showed “rule of law”. Short sighted leftist dems and their “lets talk” policy.
Posted by: Reflect08 | May 28, 2009, 3:15 pm 3:15 pm
I just thik it was amazingly brilliant to tag them all with micro GPS locator devices. (shrug)
Posted by: DobermanSpencer | June 2, 2009, 12:52 am 12:52 am