When is the number 61 not the number 61? When it's used by the DoD...

[acroyear]

Stranger Fruit: It is an act of terrorism to write a NYT op-ed.:

Apparently the Department of Defense’s claim this week that “61, in all, former Guantánamo detainees are confirmed or suspected of returning to the fight” is purely imaginary. States Professor Mark Denbeaux of Seton Hall University:

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.

No surprises.

One week left and they still can't and won't tell the truth about anything at all...

Comments

OMG

[eiredrake.livejournal.com]

You mean the government lies? But they all seem so honest to me!

[klytus.livejournal.com]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
~ Benjamin Disraeli (but popularized in the U.S. by Mark Twain)

[uncle-possum.livejournal.com]

Over the weekend, saw on either CNN or MSNBC a graph, showing that the number of such dangerous folk cited by the DoD has not always been 61--it seems to vary over time, both up and down. (Too $%()! close to the Manchurian Candidate for me).