Should We Call it Filmfare?

by Kevin Jon Heller

The Public Editor of The New York Times has a nice piece today criticizing the newspaper’s “seriously flawed and greatly overplayed” front-page article “1 in 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad, Pentagon Finds.”  Others have thoroughly debunked similar Pentagon reports — see here, for example.  I just want to call attention to the following paragraph from the Public Editor’s article, which is stunning example of why we need to take anything the Pentagon says about the danger of releasing Gitmo detainees cum grano salis:

In 2007, three men were listed because they participated in an anti-Guantánamo film…. Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said the reports represent the best information the government has at the time and that it changes. He said that just appearing in a film would no longer be considered a return to the battlefield.

Good to know.

http://opiniojuris.org/2009/06/09/should-we-call-it-filmfare/

2 Responses

  1. Shocked I tell you. Since when are those bearded people with funny names allowed to appear in films? Better question still: are they free to express opinions that differ from what the Pentagon says? 

    Not only are we witnessing Pure Pentagon Propaganda, it harkens back to the infamous party line you could not disagree with of those respected democracies situated towards the east of Europe. 

  2. Also, in at least one case the Pentagon’s claim that a former Guantanamo detainee is a “recidivist” to terrorism appears to be based on a confession obtained through torture, Human Rights Watch has said.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

  1. There are no trackbacks or pingbacks associated with this post at this time.