including mis-reports that activists were being forced to deploy to military sites. It was also at this point that some of the British volunteers were to return to London along with the two double-decker red buses and their owner, which were originally meant to have left soon after arrival. The paranoia that rose up around Hashimi's announcement and the reports that the buses were leaving Iraq slowed the influx of activists into Iraq, and caused some of those already there to leave Iraq, believing they had lost credibility through Hashimi's actions. The Iraqi authorities, on the other hand, saw Kenneth O'Keefe, Sloan, and other organisers as constantly challenging Hashimi's authority and being deliberately disruptive, and that some would-be shields were taking too long to deploy to sites. Five of the 'trouble makers' were then asked to leave the country. Many activists stayed on, however, and remained at the chosen sites. It is claimed that eighty human shields stayed in the Baghdad area throughout the bombing campaign. Analysis and effects of the human shields On 26 February 2003, Senior CNN Pentagon Correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, commented that the "Pentagon says they will try to work around human shields" as long as they were not deployed to military sites. Of all the shielded sites, only the Al Mamun Telecommunications Facility – arguably a legitimate target under the Geneva Conventions – was eventually bombed, one day after the human shields pulled out of it. For violating a U.S. prewar travel ban, human shields from the U.S. faced fines and/or imprisonment. On the day after the departure of the human shield convoy, White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, released a statement condemning the action and Fox News reported that U.S. leaders were considering prosecuting U.S. human shields for war crimes. Criticisms The Human Shield Movement was criticized for what many saw as being an overt act of aiding Saddam Hussein's governance. Charges of the shields being "dupes" and "useful idiots" for Saddam were widespread in the U.S. The participants argued that while various governments around the globe carry out acts of aggression, the human shield action was aimed at averting one. Human Rights Watch stated that "civilians acting as human shields, whether voluntary or not, contribute indirectly to the war capability of a state. Their actions do not pose a direct risk to opposing forces. Because they are not directly engaged in hostilities against