The myth continues...

" The Pentagon said on Tuesday that 61 former detainees from its military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, appear to have returned to terrorism since their release from custody."

There are two funny aspects to this and at least one pathetic aspect. I will start with the pathetic, the press. When McCarthy announced he had a piece of paper in his pocket with the names of high-ranking communists in the government... the Press demanded the names. The Press these days just laps up whatever is tossed at them and prints it without investigation. Yes pathetic.
Now for the funny aspect (OK, I have a sick sense of humor) In two months we have gone from false pentagon reports of 30 men "returning to the battleground" to 61 "returning to terror." What is the difference? Well first, they had to stop with the round numbers…too suspicious. However, let us talk about what we know about the first “30” who returned to the battlefield. We never could get all of the names… they released a couple of names and then we drew out a couple of more but that was still only a handful. It was enough however to show what BS this is. We know that only one individual actually returned to a real battleground. We know that two others who the military maintains returned to the battleground were never in Guantanamo and another two who supposedly returned to the battleground were still in Guantanamo. After the number 30 (a nice round number) was bandied about for a while longer we also learned that the battlefield (not unlike the military's definition of Enemy Combatant) had been expanded to include talking to the media. There was a time when the media was part of a battleground but that was then and this is now. We know that the three Uighers who were released to Albania were put on the list because they gave an interview criticizing the US and Gitmo.
But the second funny part is the change in semantics. Why have they changed the terminology from "battlefield" to "terror"? And why does it just "appear" they have returned to the terror? I mean we either know or we do not, right? Or is it that we just cannot tell? Could it be they feel the pressure of maybe having to explain this propaganda to a new administration? In the US today it really is easier to claim someone “appears to be engaged in terror” and you don't have to explain much more...(Hence 95% of the men at Guantanamo staying as long as they have) With those magic words of “terrorism” American's start shaking in their boots and the parrot Press repeats the mantra until a new story gets their attention and the bottom line is that no one has to be found in Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever. I would bet my bottom dollar that several of the outspoken British former detainees are on that list because of their public stands against Guantanamo and US aggression. How about Mr. Kurnaz? He wrote a pretty damning book? Are any of the Guantanamo poets writing more poetry... that would give the appearance of terrorism would it not? I really hope Obama fires this pentagon spokes person and releases all of the background to this propaganda.