Newsweek Lied, People Died

By TIM GOLDEN
Published: May 22, 2005
Despite autopsy findings of homicide and statements by soldiers that two prisoners died after being struck by guards at an American military detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, Army investigators initially recommended closing the case without bringing any criminal charges, documents and interviews show.

Along the Chain of Command, Confusion and ContradictionWithin days after the two deaths in December 2002, military coroners determined that both had been caused by "blunt force trauma" to the legs. Soon after, soldiers and others at Bagram told the investigators that military guards had repeatedly struck both men in the thighs while they were shackled and that one had also been mistreated by military interrogators.

Nonetheless, agents of the Army's Criminal Investigation Command reported to their superiors that they could not clearly determine who was responsible for the detainees' injuries, military officials said. Military lawyers at Bagram took the same position, according to confidential documents from the investigation obtained by The New York Times.

"I could never see any criminal intent on the part of the M.P.'s to cause the detainee to die," one of the lawyers, Maj. Jeff A. Bovarnick, later told investigators, referring to one of the deaths. "We believed the M.P.'s story, that this was the most combative detainee ever."

In a note to readers last week, Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker said the information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source," and before the magazine published the item, writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry sought comment from two Defense Department officials. One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Quran allegation, Whitaker said.

THE NATION

Newsweek Changes Rules on Sources

Senior Bush administration officials reacted with outrage to a Newsweek report that U.S. interrogators had desecrated the Koran at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility, and the magazine retracted the story last week. But allegations of disrespectful treatment of Islam's holy book are far from rare

I wonder why Newsweek is back-pedalling so hard. The story stands up. They must be under huge pressure (from advertisers? Government?)

I also wonder where all those copies of the Koran came from, that the guards and interrogators used. I don't imagine the prisoners could bring much with them.

Were they brought in specifically for the purpose of psychological torture? Dog collars and leads evidently were.

...I was going to say prisoners but prisoners have rights under the Geneva Conventions, so, hmmmmm. well anyway, those folks got these things I mentioned.

JTT wrote:

...I was going to say prisoners but prisoners have rights under the Geneva Conventions, so, hmmmmm. well anyway, those folks got these things I mentioned.

Actually, the convention has criteria as to which prisoners it covers and which it does not.

Would you care to tell us which prisoners it does not cover, Brandon?


Part 3; Section 1; Aricle 17 reads <in part>

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Who is not covered by this?

Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, Taliban detainees are not entitled to POW status. To qualify as POWs under Article 4, al Qaeda and Taliban detainees would have to have satisfied four conditions: They would have to be part of a military hierarchy; they would have to have worn uniforms or other distinctive signs visible at a distance; they would have to have carried arms openly; and they would have to have conducted their military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, Taliban detainees are not entitled to POW status. To qualify as POWs under Article 4, al Qaeda and Taliban detainees would have to have satisfied four conditions: They would have to be part of a military hierarchy; they would have to have worn uniforms or other distinctive signs visible at a distance; they would have to have carried arms openly; and they would have to have conducted their military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.