Newsweek Lied, People Died

Pakistan Frees 17 Ex - Guantanamo Inmates

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 27, 2005
Filed at 3:44 p.m. ET

LAHORE, Pakistan (AP) -- Pakistanis freed from Guantanamo Bay claimed Monday they saw American interrogators throw, tear and stand on copies of Islam's holy book, and one former detainee said naked women sat on prisoners' chests during questioning.

The Pentagon denied the accusations and said al-Qaida training manuals instruct prisoners to make such false charges....

The claims of the men, who spoke to reporters after joyful family reunions outside the jail in Lahore, could not be confirmed independently. The Associated Press briefly interviewed six of the men separately, sometimes interrupted by Pakistani officials who appeared anxious to keep the men from making the allegations.

All six said they were arrested in Afghanistan after going there to fight the U.S.-led coalition that ousted the hard-line Taliban regime in late 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network.

''During interrogation, whenever I would make a reference to the Quran they would hit me in the face with a copy (of it). They would tear it into pieces. They would tell me that Quran teaches us terrorism,'' said Salahuddin Ayubi, a 31-year-old from Rajanpur in eastern Pakistan.

''They would throw the Quran against the roof, which would tear it into pieces and they would say 'This is the real source of terrorism,''' Ayubi said. ''This happened several times in my interrogation.''

Hafiz Ahsan, a 26-year-old Lahore tailor who said he was arrested three years ago in southern Afghanistan during the ''jihad'' against America -- claimed he saw interrogators stand on the Quran and throw the book in urine.

Center for Victims of Torture Seeks Probe
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 27, 2005
Filed at 6:44 a.m. ET

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -- A group that helps international victims of torture called for an independent investigation into allegations of prisoner abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The Minneapolis-based Center for Victims of Torture said it is sending letters to President Bush and the Minnesota congressional delegation, asking for an independent commission. The group also said Sunday that the U.S. must provide torture victims with legal help and medical and psychological rehabilitation.

... and one former detainee said naked women sat on prisoners' chests during questioning.

Quote:

Pakistan Frees 17 Ex - Guantanamo Inmates

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 27, 2005
Filed at 3:44 p.m. ET

LAHORE, Pakistan (AP) -- Pakistanis freed from Guantanamo Bay claimed Monday they saw American interrogators throw, tear and stand on copies of Islam's holy book, and one former detainee said naked women sat on prisoners' chests during questioning.

The Pentagon denied the accusations and said al-Qaida training manuals instruct prisoners to make such false charges....

The claims of the men, who spoke to reporters after joyful family reunions outside the jail in Lahore, could not be confirmed independently. The Associated Press briefly interviewed six of the men separately, sometimes interrupted by Pakistani officials who appeared anxious to keep the men from making the allegations.

All six said they were arrested in Afghanistan after going there to fight the U.S.-led coalition that ousted the hard-line Taliban regime in late 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network.

''During interrogation, whenever I would make a reference to the Quran they would hit me in the face with a copy (of it). They would tear it into pieces. They would tell me that Quran teaches us terrorism,'' said Salahuddin Ayubi, a 31-year-old from Rajanpur in eastern Pakistan.

''They would throw the Quran against the roof, which would tear it into pieces and they would say 'This is the real source of terrorism,''' Ayubi said. ''This happened several times in my interrogation.''

Hafiz Ahsan, a 26-year-old Lahore tailor who said he was arrested three years ago in southern Afghanistan during the ''jihad'' against America -- claimed he saw interrogators stand on the Quran and throw the book in urine.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Pakistan-Guantanamo.html

I believe it to be lies. I also believe we should shoot these men if we find them in Iraq next.

How do you feel about this blatham? I believe it to be lies. I also believe we should shoot these men if we find them in Iraq next.

Quote:

How do you feel about this blatham? I believe it to be lies. I also believe we should shoot these men if we find them in Iraq next.

I don't know they are lying. I don't know they are speaking truthfully. They were released by American forces, which seems a pretty clear indication they were jailed and held without sufficient reason (and folks get jailed and kept with very little reason at all). To just toss a blanket justification out that 'terrorists are trained to say this therefore anyone who makes such a claim must be lying' is a travesty of both justice and of reason.

My suspicion is that at least some of these testimonies are factual. The Pentagon and civilian leadership has little credibility any longer. I do not trust either body to be truthful.

The refusal to allow Red Cross and other NGO representatives into various sites has no justification other than deceit. The refusal to appoint a non-Pentagon committee to do a full investigation of the sites and the documentation has no justification other than deceit.

blatham wrote:

Quote:

How do you feel about this blatham? I believe it to be lies. I also believe we should shoot these men if we find them in Iraq next.

I don't know they are lying. I don't know they are speaking truthfully. They were released by American forces, which seems a pretty clear indication they were jailed and held without sufficient reason (and folks get jailed and kept with very little reason at all). To just toss a blanket justification out that 'terrorists are trained to say this therefore anyone who makes such a claim must be lying' is a travesty of both justice and of reason.

My suspicion is that at least some of these testimonies are factual. The Pentagon and civilian leadership has little credibility any longer. I do not trust either body to be truthful.

The refusal to allow Red Cross and other NGO representatives into various sites has no justification other than deceit. The refusal to appoint a non-Pentagon committee to do a full investigation of the sites and the documentation has no justification other than deceit.

Well, you are certainly entitled to think that way.


Can I use your post as evidence of liberals taking the word of terrorists over the word of government officials?

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:

tico said

Quote:

"tactic," Deb?
Throughout this thread I've read various liberals -- including blatham -- state that Newsweek's source for Toiletgate was credible. This, you will recall, is Newsweek's unnamed government source (whom they cited as "sources") who believes he read something about a Koran being thrown in a toilet, but he can't recall where he read it. He maintains the anonymous and unsure source is corroborated by the accounts of suspected terrorists interviewed by the Red Cross. Now, when Newsweek posts another story, this one pointing out that throwing Korans in the toilet appears to have been a tactic of certain Muslims at Gitmo, but in this story they name their source, and it is a spokeman for the Defense Department, blatham responds by indicating the source is NOT credible.
Perhaps not so much a "tactic"?

Of course a top defence department official is NOT a credible source regarding a negative story about defence personnel. For verification of that, phone Pat Tillman's father, for christ sakes. Please stop being so damned dull tico.

...

Okay ... just answer me this: Everything else being equal, which would you find more credible ... a Defense Department spokesperson, or a suspected terrorist?

Now there is a question begging an answer. You frame it such that only one answer makes any sense tico. But nothing like that framework exists in this instance. I might just as well ask you...all else being equal, would you consider an Abu Ghraib guard more credible than a priest? The answer one gets is useless.

Or are you just checking to see if I hate American military/government people so enthusiastically that I think Osama ought to run Alabama?

I'd still like to know what your answer is.

In my estimation, a minority of Abu Ghraib guards are dishonorable, and a minority of priests are dishonorable. There are obviously bad apples in every barrel. But as a general statement, I can tell you that in answer to your question, I would find a priest to be more credible. I think most priests heed a calling to serve a higher power, and live honorable lives to a high moral standard. I think most prison guards are basically good people as well, but all other things being equal, I would trust the priest over the prison guard. But I acknowledge it was a fairly tough call.

On the other hand, it isn't even close when I try to answer the question I posed to you. Are you still having difficulty deciding your answer?

My quite unvaluable answer would be that I would presume it more likely that the terrorist suspect was the least credible, given I had trust that his categorization was other than completely random.

Quote:

It strikes me that you are making quite a leap from my simple observation that blatham is at a place in his life where he chooses to believe a terrorist over a US military spokesperson.

Well, here's an interesting thing: the terrorist is far more reliable than the military spokesperson.

I can't recall ever having been lied to by a terrorist, personally; they are usually pretty straight-forward about why they are blowing you up. What's the point of lying about why they are blowing you up?

On the contrast, our military is completely unreliable these days when it comes to self-examination; just look at the fact that noone got punished for AG at all, or the myriad lies our military has been wrapped up in over the years.

It is somewhat bizzare, isn't it?

Cycloptichorn

Sure you can McG as long as you accurately quote Blatham saying that. Of course you can also say anything else you like, I've not noticed your care about accuracy in reporting before so why should you need permission now?

He does not admit to believing terrorists over the Bush Administration (that was Cyclops)

It was a Barbara Bush lookalike. Think again.

McGentrix wrote:

au1929 wrote:

Woiyo
Could it be they never found anything because there was nothing to find.

U.S. Uncovers Vast Hide-Out of Iraqi Rebels

Remember this? Not too long ago, right? Who knows if there are more of these. Maybe the one holding all the unaccountable WMD's will be found tomorrow who knows. We know Saddam had them, We know Saddam failed to account for them, we know the inspection teams have not found them. I suspect space aliens did not take them, therefore they are somewhere.

The "unaccountable" WMD? Don't you mean the "FICTIONAL" ones?

Cite the ones that Saddam FAILED to account for with the evidence that he had them. Suspicions he MAY have produced Anthrax don't count as facts he had them. When you read the UNSCOM reports of failed to account for bio and chemical agents, they are almost all speculative based on what he COULD have done. Yeast was missing that was capable of growing Anthrax. Yeast isn't exactly a WMD.

parados wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

au1929 wrote:

Woiyo
Could it be they never found anything because there was nothing to find.

U.S. Uncovers Vast Hide-Out of Iraqi Rebels

Remember this? Not too long ago, right? Who knows if there are more of these. Maybe the one holding all the unaccountable WMD's will be found tomorrow who knows. We know Saddam had them, We know Saddam failed to account for them, we know the inspection teams have not found them. I suspect space aliens did not take them, therefore they are somewhere.

The "unaccountable" WMD? Don't you mean the "FICTIONAL" ones?

Cite the ones that Saddam FAILED to account for with the evidence that he had them. Suspicions he MAY have produced Anthrax don't count as facts he had them. When you read the UNSCOM reports of failed to account for bio and chemical agents, they are almost all speculative based on what he COULD have done. Yeast was missing that was capable of growing Anthrax. Yeast isn't exactly a WMD.

The above is an example of McG failing to back up a claim. Its a fun read when McG gets to the point of claiming that Saddam was a real threat and no probability in the form of "MIGHT" to it.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=53805&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=source&start=40

Funny thing is, he stopped posting to the thread without ever answering the question by providing a source.

Captain Underpants is pretty funny.

Would I take the word of a terrorist over that of the present administration or the Pentagon? No. But what a standard!

To be both rational and careful though, you can't use the term 'terrorist' in this case as you have no knowledge that the term is accurate. And if the US forces set them free, then it seems rather certain or at least probable that they were not terrorists.

As such, their testimony becomes more credible.

On the other hand, the Pentagon and administration have a clear interest in deception/deceit on these matters if they believe their goals would be damaged given release of unhappy truths. Both have now a history of obstruction and of deception and deceit. Because of that, their credibility has been done great damage.

I backed up my claim with a link to Powells UN speech which gave a full accounting of the reason we invaded. Your decision to either believe or disbelieve those reasons is immaterial. The single reason we have evidence to disprove some of the reason's Powell gave come as a result of our invasion. A bit of catch-22, huh? Our reason to invade was to find out if we had a reason to invade,

Your failings are not mine Parados. Please stop projecting your failure to understand as my failure to explain.