parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 11:50 am
Cyclo,
The same report by the military that led to her demotion, The Fay report, also classified some of the acts at Abu Ghraib as torture. So even the military thinks US soldiers have tortured prisoners unlike some who claim there is no proof of torture.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 11:51 am
And yet one demotion and some punished non-coms is the only action the army is going to take?

Sickening....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 11:52 am
woiyo wrote:
Just an aside...

How does one "FLUSH" a book...ANY BOOK...down a toilet??

Must be a very tiny book or a very large "trap".


I don't know if you can flush a book, but you can fit a crucifix into a jar of urine.....oh wait, that was done in America.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 11:55 am
woiyo wrote:
Just an aside...

How does one "FLUSH" a book...ANY BOOK...down a toilet??

In the same manner that one eats an entire elephant: in small portions over time.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 11:56 am
Brand X wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Just an aside...

How does one "FLUSH" a book...ANY BOOK...down a toilet??

Must be a very tiny book or a very large "trap".


I don't know if you can flush a book, but you can fit a crucifix into a jar of urine.....oh wait, that was done in America.


Drunk
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 11:56 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Tico wrote:
Just because one is "in charge" doesn't in and of itself constitute oversight of his subordinates' misdeeds.


Oh, I believe it does, don't you?


Didn't I just tell you what I believe?


Cyclops wrote:
What ever happened to being responsible for the conduct of the gentlemen who are beneath you in the chain?


You would apply the doctrine of respondeat superior to criminal law?


Cyclops wrote:
Either the generals ordered the abuse (most likely) or they failed to do the most basic oversight of their troops, which is criminally negligent. That's what responsibility means...

Cycloptichorn


It's a factual question as to whether or not they ordered the abuse (your opinion that it's most likely is meaningless). Perhaps there is no evidence that they did, and that's why no charges were brought? Nevertheless, you insist that they be held accountable?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 12:05 pm
The whole idea that Newsweek is 'lying' is ridiculous. The notion that this one source is solely responsible for stories of Koran abuse is also ridiculous, not that that stops the right wing attack machine for a second...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/15/211444/985

Quote:
1. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, in a U.S. State Dept.-issued press release on May 12, said the Newsweek story isn't a chief cause of the riots: " [H]e has been told that the Jalalabad, Afghanistan, rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process in Afghanistan than anything else."

2. I've found four reports -- with more easily found -- to back up Newsweek's sources on the desecration of Korans belonging to Guantanamo detainees.

The four instances I found:

Quote:
A. From The Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 20, 2005:

Lawyers allege abuse of 12 at Guantanamo
By Frank Davies
Inquirer Washington Bureau

[.......................]

Some detainees complained of religious humiliation, saying guards had defaced their copies of the Koran and, in one case, had thrown it in a toilet, said Kristine Huskey [an attorney in Philadelphia], who interviewed clients late last month. Others said that pills were hidden in their food and that people came to their cells claiming to be their attorneys, to gain information.

"All have been physically abused, and, however you define the term, the treatment of these men crossed the line," [attorney Tom] Wilner said. "There was torture, make no mistake about it." ...


Quote:
B. From the Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City, NY and linked as a footnote in a Human Rights Watch report:


72.They were never given prayer mats and initially they didn't get a Koran. When the Korans were provided, they were kicked and thrown about by the guards and on occasion thrown in the buckets used for the toilets. This kept happening. When it happened it was always said to be an accident but it was a recurrent theme.


Quote:
C. From the Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City, NY and linked as a footnote in a Human Rights Watch report:


74. Asif says that `it was impossible to pray because initially we did not know the direction to pray, but also given that we couldn't move and the harassment from the guards, it was simply not feasible. The behaviour of the guards towards our religious practices as well as the Koran was also, in my view, designed to cause us as much distress as possible. They would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it. It is clear to me that the conditions in our cells and our general treatment were designed by the officers in charge of the interrogation process to "soften us up"'.
D. From the Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City, NY and linked as a footnote in a Human Rights Watch report:


Statement of Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, "Detention in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay," released publicly on August 4, 2004, para. 72, 74, available online at:
http://www.ccr- ny.org/v2/reports/docs/
Gitmo=compositestatementFINAL23july04.pdf,
accessed on August 19, 2004. The disrespect of the Koran by guards at Camp X-Ray was one of the factors prompting a hunger strike. Ibid., para. 111-117.


Update [2005-5-16 9:36:46 by SusanHu]:

The Who Hijacked Our Country blog makes perceptive remarks about the extremists:

Quote:

Newsweek is starting to hedge its bet and "qualify" its story. But these allegations have been leaking out since last Spring. And they go hand in hand with some of the other abuses and tortures committed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.

Extremists on both sides are milking this for every last drop. Radical Islamic leaders are using it to fan the flames and turn the protests into riots. And here in the U.S., the Far Right wingnuts have found another hot-button issue to get themselves worked up over.

Right wing pundits and bloggers are in their tightest lockstep formation since the Terri Schiavo case. And what are they all chanting in unison? It's Newsweek's fault. Newsweek caused these riots! Duuhhh!!!

It figures. Last year when the Abu Ghraib tortures were first publicized, rightwing Neanderthals were up in arms. Were they furious that some inbred prison guards were violating the Geneva Convention and putting other American soldiers at risk? Nope. They were furious at the media for airing the story.



Jackassery all around is all this is, yaknow....

The fact is that there are far more allegations than this one story. To claim that Newsweek is responsible for causing riots is ridiculous...

Cycloptichorn

On Preview, Tico:
Quote:
It's a factual question as to whether or not they ordered the abuse (your opinion that it's most likely is meaningless). Perhaps there is no evidence that they did, and that's why no charges were brought? Nevertheless, you insist that they be held accountable?


There's no way to know if there is evidence or not, is there? You can't trust these people to self-police, why would they? It's in noone's best interest on the top ranks to conduct a witch hunt. Without an independent counsel, don't be on ever hearing the truth on this one...

There should have been an independent investigation from day one, but does this Administration believe in such things? Nope.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 12:12 pm
http://www.juancole.com/2005/05/guantanamo-controversies-bible-and.html

Quote:
Informed Comment
Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan


Monday, May 16, 2005
Guantanamo Controversies
The Bible and the Koran

The report in Newsweek that the US military desecrated the Koran as part of an attempt to break the Muslim prisoners there with humiliation techniques has provoked demonstrations, angry sermons, riots, and over a dozen deaths in Afghanistan, with demonstrations also in Gaza, Pakistan, Indonesia, and now Yemen. Both the chief Sunni Muslim cleric in Lebanon and its Shiite Grand Ayatollah, Muhammad Husain Fadlallah have now condemned it. The former threatened jihad or holy war. The latter said, "The desecration of the holy Koran in the terrifying Guantanamo detention center that America created under the title of fighting terrorism against the Muslims who have been arbitrarily rounded up there, is one of the American methods of torture . . . This is not an isolated act carried out by an American soldier but is part of an American program...of contempt for Islam, to disfigure its image in the minds of American." Shaikh Muhammad Sayyid al-Tantawi, the rector of al-Azhar seminary and the chief Sunni authority in Egypt, called the desecration of the Koran "a great crime." But he dismissed it as the work of "a bunch of kids, criminals . . ."

The Pentagon has claimed that the incident did not occur. Although the corporate media are now reporting that Newsweek had "backed off" the report, that isn't true.

Newsweek explains that in response to Pentagon queries,


"On Saturday, Isikoff spoke to his original source, the senior government official, who said that he clearly recalled reading investigative reports about mishandling the Qur'an, including a toilet incident. But the official, still speaking anonymously, could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the SouthCom report."


Isikoff's source, in other words, stands by his report of the incident, but is merely tracing it to other paperwork. What difference does that make? Although Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita angrily denounced the source as no longer credible, in the real world you can't just get rid of a witness because the person made a minor mistake with regard to a text citation. It is like saying that we can't be sure someone has really read the Gospels because he said he read about Caiaphas in the Gospel of Mark rather than in the Gospel of John.

Newsweek has, in other words, confirmed that the source did read a US government account of the desecration of the Koran.

Nor is this the first such indication of this sort of incident. On August 18, 2004, ANSA, the Italian news agency, wrote of the families of detainees from Bahrain at Guantanamo:


"The families' anxiety grew after the publication of a report by the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR), which contained information about tortures and maltreatment of prisoners. The report, based on testimony by three former Guantanamo prisoners,
Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmad, defines as brutal the methods of the U.S. jailers. According to the report, prisoners were brutally beaten and compelled to watch other prisoners sodomising each other by force. The 150-page document says reptiles were taken to the cells in an attempt to force prisoner confessions, while the Koran was thrown into the toilets before the eyes of the detained."


This diary and discussion at Daily Kos gives a number of other newspaper and other citations for the practice of Koran desecration.

Of course, one can hardly take the word of jihadis reporting on the United States, which they hate and would be happy to defame. But Newsweek had an independent source for the incident, a US government official, who continues to maintain that he saw documentation of it.

Moreover, Guantanamo translator Erik Saar, in his co-authored Inside the Wire indicates that techniques of religious humiliation were used at Guantanamo. The Christian Science Monitor reports:

'In his book, Saar describes a tumultuous atmosphere made more intense than usual because of religious tensions. US personnel, he wrote, routinely tempted detainees to look at pornographic magazines and videos, which Islam forbids. Female interrogators, sometimes dressed provocatively, violated Islamic strictures by rubbing against detainees and even leading one to believe he was being wiped with menstrual blood. "Had someone come to me before I left for Gitmo and told me we would use women to sexually torment detainees to try to sever their relationships with God, I probably would have thought that sounded fine," writes Saar. "But I hated myself when I walked out of that room.... We lost the high road.... There wasn't enough hot water in all of Cuba to make me feel clean." The Army, which cleared Saar's book for publication, says the policy is to treat detainees humanely, and an investigation into his allegations is under way. '


As a professional historian, I would say we still do not have enough to be sure that the Koran desecration incident took place. We have enough to consider it plausible. Anyway, the important thing politically is that some Muslims have found it plausible, and their outrage cannot be effectively dealt with by simple denial. That is why I say that Bush should just come out and say we can't be sure that it happened, but if it did it was an excess, and he apologizes if it did happen, and will make sure it doesn't happen again (if it did).

The controversy, however, seems to me to have focused on all the wrong things. The question is why all those prisoners are still being held at Guantanamo. Saar makes clear that the majority of them just had the misfortune to be dragooned onto the battlefield by the Taliban, and aren't dangerous terrorists. There are very bad characters among them, who should be tried and kept behind bars.

A reader with military experience in this area wrote me his own experience, with the Bible being trashed in a similar way. I was able to google this reader in such a way as to compare autobiographical statements and dates (stripped from the below) to the Web record, and they all check out. Even the history of attitudes, as revealed in letters to the editor, are confirmatory. So I'm sure of the authenticity of these comments.




"I'm a former US [military officer], and had the 'pleasure' of attending SERE school--Search, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape.

The course I attended . . . [had] a mock POW camp, where we had a chance to be prisoners for 2-3 days. The camp is also used as a training tool for CI [counter-intelligence], interrogators, etc for those running the camp.

One of the most memorable parts of the camp experience was when one of the camp leaders trashed a Bible on the ground, kicking it around, etc. It was a crushing blow, even though this was just a school.

I have no doubt the stories about trashing the Koran are true.

I'm sure you must also realize that Gitmo must be being used as a "laboratory" for all these psychological manipulation techniques by the CI guys. Absolutely sickening . . .

1. My gut feeling tells me that the SERE camps were 'laboratories' and part of the training program for military counter-intelligence and interrogator personnel. I heard this anecdotally as far as the training goes, but have not dug into it. This is pretty much common sense.

2. Looking at Gitmo in the 'big picture', you have to wonder why it is still in operation though they know so many are innocent of major charges. A look through history at the various 'experimentation' programs of the DOD gives a ready answer. The camp provides a major opportunity to expose a population to various psychological control techniques. Look at some of the stuff that has become public, and this becomes even more apparent. Especially the sensory deprivation--not only sleep, but there are the photos of inmates in gas masks or sight/hearing/smell deprivation setups. There has already been voluminous research into sensory deprivation, and it seems this is another good opportunity for more. One note is that sensory deprivation is used to some degree in military basic training and to a greater sense in the advanced training courses--Rangers, SEALS, etc. All part of the 'breakdown' process before recruits are 'remade'.

3. This incident with the bible trashing. Camp was [in the late 1990s]. It was towards the end of the camp experience, which was 2-3 days of captivity. We were penned in concrete cell blocks about 4' x 4' x 4'--told to kneel, but allowed to squat or sit. There was no door, just a flap that could be let down if it was too cold outside (which it was--actually light snow fell). Each trainee was interrogated to some extent, all experienced some physical interrogation such as pushing, shoving, getting slammed against a wall (usually a large metal sheet set up so that it would not seriously injure trainees) with some actually water-boarded (not me).

The bible trashing was done by one of the top-ranked leaders of the camp, who was always giving us speeches--sort of 'making it real' so to speak, because it is a pretty contrived environment. But by the end it almost seemed real. Guards spoke English with a Russian accent, wore Russian-looking uniforms. So the bible trashing happened when this guy had us all in the courtyard sitting for one of his speeches. They were tempting us with a big pot of soup that was boiling--we were all starving from a few days of chow deprivation. He brought out the bible and started going off on it verbally--how it was worthless, we were forsaken by this God, etc. Then he threw it on the ground and kicked it around. It was definitely the climax of his speech. Then he kicked over the soup pot, and threw us back in the cells. Big climax. And psychologically it was crushing and heartbreaking, and then we were left isolated to contemplate this.

And all of these moods and thoughts were created in this fake camp--just imagine how it is for these guys at Gitmo.

So many have tried to commit suicide....by now they all must have some serious psychological problems. This is without a doubt torture. Premeditated, planned....a fine lot of criminals we have in charge of the USA these days. Gitmo is so Orwellian--so Room 101. They are playing on the deepest feelings and fears."



This informed former officer has suggested the real reason for which some in the Pentagon are so angry about the Newsweek story. It may well so focus international outrage on Guantanamo that Rumsfeld will lose his little psych lab.

posted by Juan @ 5/16/2005 06:25:00 AM


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 12:15 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
On Preview, Tico:
Quote:
It's a factual question as to whether or not they ordered the abuse (your opinion that it's most likely is meaningless). Perhaps there is no evidence that they did, and that's why no charges were brought? Nevertheless, you insist that they be held accountable?


There's no way to know if there is evidence or not, is there? You can't trust these people to self-police, why would they? It's in noone's best interest on the top ranks to conduct a witch hunt. Without an independent counsel, don't be on ever hearing the truth on this one...

There should have been an independent investigation from day one, but does this Administration believe in such things? Nope.


I agree there should be an independent investigation. But since you agree you have no evidence, why say it's "most likely"?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 12:21 pm
We all know that there was a significant amount of pressure from above to get results from interrogations. I can link you if you like. You don't believe this had anything to do with the measures taken to GET said results?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 01:35 pm
"May 23 issue - Did a report in NEWSWEEK set off a wave of deadly anti-American riots in Afghanistan? That's what numerous news accounts suggested last week as angry Afghans took to the streets to protest reports, linked to us, that U.S. interrogators had desecrated the Qur'an while interrogating Muslim terror suspects. We were as alarmed as anyone to hear of the violence, which left at least 15 Afghans dead and scores injured"

They were ALARMED to hear of violence???
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 02:45 pm
Yea, why couldn't they be alarmed?
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 05:04 pm
I get it. "Newsweek lied, people died." What an oh-so clever play on the original phrase.

How...cute. Rolling Eyes

(can we get a head count on how many died from the lies of each?)
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 05:10 pm
I haven't read beyond the first few posts. I believe Newsweek retracted the story to quell the situation, figuring it best to take some heat to avoid so much bloodshed.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 05:16 pm
very interesting commentary and yet I sit here and wonder, was the Newsweek article accurate or not? Well that and does it really matter to anyone?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 08:42 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It wasn't a lie.



Funny how you're not angry, Gunga, about how Bush's WMD lies led to thousands of deaths in Iraq.




I keep hearing this pinko mantra about there being no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; somehow or other it rings totally hollow.

In the case of nuclear weaponry there appears to have been a three-way deal between Saddam Hussein, North Korea, and Libya in which raw materials from NK ended up in Libya to be transmogrified into missiles pointed at Europe and America by Saddam Hussein's technical people and with Iraqi financial backing (your oil-for-terrorism dollars at work), while Kofi Annan and his highly intelligent and efficient staff kept the west believing that their interests were being protected:

http://homepage.mac.com/macint0sh/1/pict/amos/amos.jpg

Muammar Khadaffi has since given the **** up and renounced the whole business. That sort of thing is one of the benefits of having our government back under adult supervision since 2001. The NK government in all likelihood will not survive this year.

Then there's the case of 9-11. The Czech government is sticking with its story of Mohammed Atta having met with one of Saddam Hussein's top spies prior to 9-11 and there are even pictures of the two together on the internet now:

http://thexreport.com/atta_and_al-ani_photo_and_analysis.htm

http://thexreport.com/alani14.jpg

Then there's the question of the anthrax attack which followed 9-11. Saddam Hussein's the only person on this planet who ever had that kind of weaponized anthraxs powder.

http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html

Thus it should surprise nobody that the first cases of anthrax turned up in neighborhoods where the 9-11 hijackers lived. The odds against that if there were no connection to the 9-11 hijackers are astronomical.

Moreover it does not take hundreds of tons of anthrax powder to create havoc.

The sum total which was used was a few teaspoons full. In other words, a lifetime supply of that sort of thing for a guy like Saddam Hussein could easily amount to a hundred pounds worth, and I guarantee that I could hide that in a country the size of Iraq so that it would not be found.

The question of whether or not Hussein had 1000 tons of anthrax powder is simply the wrong question. The right questions are, did the guy have the motive, the technical resources, the financial wherewithal, the facilities, and the intel apparatus to play that sort of game, and the answers to all of those questions are obvious.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 08:44 pm
dyslexia wrote:
very interesting commentary and yet I sit here and wonder, was the Newsweek article accurate or not?



FDR would have hanged their asses for publishing such a thing in 42 whether it was accurate or not. The idea of the interests of the United States never entered the minds of the cretins running Newsweek.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 08:45 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
I haven't read beyond the first few posts. I believe Newsweek retracted the story to quell the situation, figuring it best to take some heat to avoid so much bloodshed.



Or maybe it dawned on them that some of the blood might turn out to be theirs....
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 09:10 pm
gungasnake wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
very interesting commentary and yet I sit here and wonder, was the Newsweek article accurate or not?



FDR would have hanged their asses for publishing such a thing in 42 whether it was accurate or not. The idea of the interests of the United States never entered the minds of the cretins running Newsweek.

Probably true and Churchill blasted the beeb for broadcasting the truth as they saw it at the time, tried to shut them down in fact, but then the beeb is still there which, I think, demonstrates that the people want the truth even more than they want propaganda. You prefer propaganda gunga?
0 Replies
 
smog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 09:18 pm
I almost felt informed today when this issue came up in the course of my daily discussions. Unfortunatley, I hadn't actually clicked on any of the links, so I couldn't really add much. That'll teach me to be so lazy! (And interestingly, similarly, I didn't really add much here. I never fail to disappoint!)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 07:57:19