1
   

Pentagon: "Ok, ok... Some soldiers DID disgrace the Koran"

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 09:05 am
sozobe wrote:
Yep, there was nothing about spreading Democracy and freedom in the Middle East, freeing them from that sadistic tyrant Saddam (who, like, tortured people to death) in the going-to-war rhetoric.


When the US went to war with Germany in WWII, we did it to stop the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis, right? Or was that just a nice by-product of our efforts?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 09:09 am
Heh, McG. This is where the current line of discussion jumped off:

Brandon wrote:
While we're all treating our prisoners properly, do ask the Iraqi insurgents to stop cutting their prisoners' heads off, won't you? And shooting survivors in a helicopter they downed was probably a bit of a no-no.


(Emphasis mine.)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 09:12 am
Tico, not sure what you're asking. My point is that this whole invasion of Iraq presupposes that we are bettter than them. That we're better than those who cut prisoners' heads off and shooting survivors of a helicopter crash. There is nothing meaningful in saying, "Well they do it too..."
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 09:29 am
sozobe wrote:
Tico, not sure what you're asking.


My questions were rhetorical, soz. I wasn't seeking a response from you. I was hoping to be transparent in that regard.

soz wrote:
My point is that this whole invasion of Iraq presupposes that we are better than them. That we're better than those who cut prisoners' heads off nand shooting survivors of a helicopter crash. It means nothing meaningful to say, "Well they do it too..."


I didn't realize that was the point of your post, and it certainly wasn't the point I was responding to.

But as to your point ... of course we are better than those who cut prisoner's heads off. But as to your suggestion that it isn't worth pointing that out, I say "hell yes it is." But pointing that out is not to say that if they do something we can do it too. I'm not suggesting that, I and don't think anyone else is either.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 09:32 am
I guess I just don't read as well as I used to.
"
Quote:
But pointing that out is not to say that if they do something we can do it too. I'm not suggesting that, I and don't think anyone else is either
."
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 09:33 am
dyslexia wrote:
I guess I just don't read as well as I used to.


I understand dyslexia will do that to you.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 09:34 am
Tico, I knew they were rhetorical, but I didn't know what direction you were going/ what you were trying to elicit. Thanks for clarifying.

Again, this is where this started.

Brandon9000 wrote:
goodfielder wrote:
tommrr wrote:
Ok, guys, some of you were bad, now don't do it again. Now can we get on with life and stop acting like a book is the most important thing in the whole friggin world?


The first time I ever went to Washington DC I went to the National Archives and saw the founding documents that are precious to the US as a nation...It's just about respecting the artifacts of someone's culture.

If that doesn't matter to you then not much more can be said.


While we're all treating our prisoners properly, do ask the Iraqi insurgents to stop cutting their prisoners' heads off, won't you? And shooting survivors in a helicopter they downed was probably a bit of a no-no.


What is Brandon's point here? What is the meaning in terms of how we treat our prisoners?

If it's just that we're all agreeing that we should treat our prisoners at least somewhat humanely -- in accord with the Geneva Convention, say, and preferably not torturing them to death -- cool.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 09:45 am
sozobe wrote:
Tico, I knew they were rhetorical, but I didn't know what direction you were going/ what you were trying to elicit. Thanks for clarifying.


If my direction is still opaque to any, my point is that stopping the Holocaust of the Jews was but a happy by-product of our war with Germany, not the reason for our war with Germany. Stopping Saddam's torture chambers was similarly not the reason for our invasion, but a result.

soz wrote:
Again, this is where this started.

Brandon9000 wrote:
goodfielder wrote:
tommrr wrote:
Ok, guys, some of you were bad, now don't do it again. Now can we get on with life and stop acting like a book is the most important thing in the whole friggin world?


The first time I ever went to Washington DC I went to the National Archives and saw the founding documents that are precious to the US as a nation...It's just about respecting the artifacts of someone's culture.

If that doesn't matter to you then not much more can be said.


While we're all treating our prisoners properly, do ask the Iraqi insurgents to stop cutting their prisoners' heads off, won't you? And shooting survivors in a helicopter they downed was probably a bit of a no-no.


What is Brandon's point here? What is the meaning in terms of how we treat our prisoners?

If it's just that we're all agreeing that we should treat our prisoners at least somewhat humanely -- in accord with the Geneva Convention, say, and preferably not torturing them to death -- cool.


I'll ask Brandon to clarify his own point, but as I read it, -- and I've said this before ... perhaps not on this thread -- it appears his point is that the critics of the US ought to have a little perspective on what's going on. Yes we shouldn't pee in the wind perchance a droplet might light upon a sacred text of a prisoner .... but when the liberal media trumpets the fact that a US guard intentionally kicked a Koran 3 years ago on its front page, it should be borne firmly and clearly in mind how the "terrible and horrible treatment by the US of its prisoners" compares in relative terms to the treatment US prisoners get at the hands of their captors. So while the media can bemoan 5 cases of mistreatment of Korans, Brandon and I might continue to point out that we aren't cutting the heads off these folks, and when all is said and done, kicking a book isn't that big a deal.

Perspective.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 09:51 am
How about when we string innocents up by their wrists and beat them to death over the course of a few days?

Is THAT a big deal?

Perspective.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 09:53 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
How about when we string innocents up by their wrists and beat them to death over the course of a few days?

Is THAT a big deal?

Perspective.

Cycloptichorn


Yes, it is.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 09:53 am
OK, two things.

First, I came into this discussion to agree with patiodog about the Koran stuff being a distraction. The Koran stuff is certainly bad, but torturing an innocent Afghani taxi driver to death is worse. Perspective.

Second, I don't think there is anything particularly useful in "keeping in mind" what kind of treatment US prisoners get at the hand of their captors. If anything, it's more likely to cause more breaches of the Geneva Convention -- which I think is pretty clearly NOT a good thing.

It is a given that there are terrible things going on. However, I think what is very important is how the US reacts to that. Strongly, decisively, and humanely, fine. Getting down to their level doesn't help one thing, and should not be brushed off.

(And where was the liberal media trumpeting this? The whole thing started with a buried snippet in Newsweek, and then when people started saying "it's a lie!!", it became well is it a lie or isn't it... which was the story. Meanwhile, the liberal media hasn't said a whole heck of a lot about Bagram. Which is to me the much worse offense.)
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 11:59 am
Intrepid wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
goodfielder wrote:
tommrr wrote:
Ok, guys, some of you were bad, now don't do it again. Now can we get on with life and stop acting like a book is the most important thing in the whole friggin world?


The first time I ever went to Washington DC I went to the National Archives and saw the founding documents that are precious to the US as a nation...It's just about respecting the artifacts of someone's culture.

If that doesn't matter to you then not much more can be said.

While we're all treating our prisoners properly, do ask the Iraqi insurgents to stop cutting their prisoners' heads off, won't you? And shooting survivors in a helicopter they downed was probably a bit of a no-no.


Grow up Brandon. If you consider stooping to the levels of others the appropriate course of action then you are no better than those you stoop to. Rolling Eyes

1. I am not considering stooping to their level.
2. I am not suggesting that those of our people who disgrace the uniform by doing these things should not be disciplined or prosecuted.

You are forced to attribute a position to me that I don't take, because you cannot argue with me on the basis of my actual position. I just think it's very odd that your crowd has such an eagle eye for any possible American transgressions, but never mentions or acknowledges that the people we are fighting behave just immensely worse. This is an odd practice for people as patriotic as you folks usually claim to be.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 12:02 pm
Intrepid wrote:
Tico,
I take his point to mean that we should do it because they do it even though we may not be doing it! Why don't we ask Brandon for a clarification? Although he would not have the opportunity to put it into a context that suits his purpose.

That is absolutely not my point, nor have I said it was my point. That is simply your straw man argument for me. We should discharge or prosecute those of our people who do these things. See my last post.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 12:04 pm
sozobe wrote:
Tico, not sure what you're asking. My point is that this whole invasion of Iraq presupposes that we are bettter than them. That we're better than those who cut prisoners' heads off and shooting survivors of a helicopter crash. There is nothing meaningful in saying, "Well they do it too..."

I most certainly never said that. Such practices on our side are deplorable. I merely think it odd that the patriotic liberals on this site point out every real or imagined fault or failure of the US, but without the perspective of acknowledging that the other side behaves almost infinitely worse.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 12:10 pm
sozobe wrote:
...Second, I don't think there is anything particularly useful in "keeping in mind" what kind of treatment US prisoners get at the hand of their captors...

What's useful is trying to understand certain members here who crow with delight about everything any American might have done wrong, any setback or difficulty our troops may be experiencing, frequently attribute conspiracies and lying schemes to Americans, but seem utterly disinterested in immensely worse behavior on the other side. I mean just that, no more no less. I am not implying that people on our side who behave disgracefully shouldn't be stopped and disciplined.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 12:32 pm
sozobe wrote:
(And where was the liberal media trumpeting this? The whole thing started with a buried snippet in Newsweek, and then when people started saying "it's a lie!!", it became well is it a lie or isn't it... which was the story. Meanwhile, the liberal media hasn't said a whole heck of a lot about Bagram. Which is to me the much worse offense.)


The "it's a lie!" response came after the false article appeared to have caused rioting in the streets of Afghanistan. It wan't a lie, and I've never claimed it was. But it was inaccurate, and sloppy reporting. The resulting flurry of news reports of the Pentagon's internal investigation was certainly "trumpeting" in my view. And the resulting impression left with some appears to be that the Newsweek story was correct all along -- which it certainly wasn't.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 12:42 pm
WHEN NEWSWEEK REPORTED that a Guantanamo Bay guard had flushed a detainee's Koran down a toilet, the Muslim world erupted in protests, some of which turned violent. Newsweek later retracted the story. More significantly, so did the detainee who made the original allegation--a fact that went largely unreported. Nevertheless, the U.S. military commissioned Brigadier General Jay Hood to look into allegations of Koran mishandling at the Guantanamo facility. General Hood delivered his report on June 3; it can be accessed here. The report, read together with the ensuing press coverage, suggests how far our public discourse has diverged from any realistic understanding of war, prisons, or human behavior.

The Hood report documents an exquisite concern for the religious sensibilities of Guantanamo's detainees. Consider the implications of this incident:

On 18 AUG 03, two detainees complained that the guards had violated the Koran search policy when they touched the surgical masks used to hang detainee Korans from cell walls during a security, safety, and welfare inspection. The incident was recorded in the electronic blotter system. The guards stated in the blotter log that they were not violating Koran search policy because they did not actually touch the Koran when they squeezed and felt for bulges in the surgical masks. The SOP in place at the time of the incident did not address searching the Koran through the masks.

Or this one:

On 5 JAN 03, a translator was called to translate during a search of a cell. The detainee residing in the cell refused to show his Koran during the search. The guards informed the detainee that if he did not show his Koran they would be forced to search it. The detainee did not comply. The MPs put on clean latex gloves and used a clean towel as they conducted the search. During the search, detainees in nearby cells continuously threw water at the MPs. As the translator departed the cell, the detainee spat on him. The translator recorded the incident in a sworn statement.

Or this:

On 18 AUG 03, at 1220 hours, a guard conducted a routine search of a detainee's cell. During the search, the guard accidentally knocked the detainee's Koran out of its holder (a surgical mask) and onto his bunk. The block NCO responded to the cell and explained to the detainee that the incident was an accident. The ICRC asked MG Miller, Commander JTF-GTMO, about the incident during a meeting on 09 OCT 03. MG Miller told the ICRC that he had investigated the incident and determined it to be an accident. A guard recorded the incident in sworn statement.

There can't be a single instance, in all of human history, where the spiritual sensitivities of captured enemy combatants have been so scrupulously regarded. This is borne out by those few cases where "abuse" was actually found; they are, in the words of the often-puzzling cliché, exceptions that prove the rule. Consider what the apology and disciplinary action taken in this instance tell us about the rarity of such events:

On 25 JUL 03, a contract interrogator apologized to a detainee for stepping on the detainee's Koran in an earlier interrogation. The memorandum of the 25 Jul 03, interrogation session shows that the detainee had reported to other detainees that his Koran had been stepped on. The detainee accepted the apology and agreed to inform other detainees of the apology and ask them to cease disruptive behaviors caused by the incident. The interrogator was later terminated for a pattern of unacceptable behavior, an inability to follow direct guidance and poor leadership. We consider this a confirmed incident.

In one widely-reported incident, several copies of the Koran got wet when guards tossed water balloons into the detainees' compound:

On 15 AUG 03, two detainees complained to the swing shift guards (14002200 hrs) that the detainees' Korans were wet because the night shift guards had thrown water balloons on the block. The swing shift guards recorded the complaints in the block blotter log in accordance with normal procedures. We have not determined if the detainees made further complaints or if the Korans were replaced. There is no evidence that this incident was investigated. There is no evidence that the incident, although clearly inappropriate, caused any type of disturbance on the Block. We consider this a confirmed incident.

The Hood report doesn't explain what led up to the water balloon bombardment, but in the murderous context of Islamist terrorism, it's hard to get exercised about "torture" via water balloons.

The other incident that was widely reported
following the Hood report's issuance involved an unlucky soldier who couldn't wait to relieve himself until he went off duty, and chose an unfortunate spot:

On 25 MAR 05, a detainee complained to the guards that urine came through an air vent in Camp 4, and splashed on him and his Koran while he laid near the air vent. A guard reported to a Block NCOIC that he was at fault. The guard had left his observation area post and went outside to urinate. He urinated near an air vent and the wind blew his urine through the vent into the block. The Sergeant of the Guard (SOG) responded and immediately relieved the guard. The SOG ensured the detainee received a fresh uniform and a new Koran. The Joint Detention Operations Group (JDOG) commander reprimanded the guard and assigned him to gate guard duty where he had no contact with detainees for the remainder of his assignment at JTF-GTMO. This incident was recorded in a series of contemporaneous sworn statements made by Camp 4 guard force members. There is no record that this incident caused any type of disturbance in the block. We consider this a confirmed incident.

Read in its entirety, the Hood report documents an extraordinary level of sensitivity to the detainees' religious concerns. Altogether, the investigators confirmed five instances where intentional or unintentional mishandling of the Koran apparently occurred, and four more where the guards' conduct "may have been inappropriate." This superlative record should be seen as a tribute to the training and discipline of the Army's guards and translators.

The Army did find, however, 15 instances of blatant Koran abuse at Guantanamo. All were committed by detainees. For example:

On 14 MAY 03, a guard observed a detainee rip his Koran into small pieces. The guard recorded the incident contemporaneously in a sworn statement.

On 5 JUN 03, a guard observed two detainees accuse a third detainee of not being a man. In response, the detainee urinated on one of their Korans. The detainees resided in adjacent cells. The event was recorded in FBI FD-302s, on 5 JUN 03 and 19 JUN 03.

On 19 JAN 05, a detainee tore up his Koran and tried to flush it down the toilet. Four guards witnessed the incident and it was recorded in the electronic blotter system.

On 23 JAN 05, a detainee ripped pages out of his Koran and threw them down the toilet. The detainee stated he did so because he wanted to be moved to another camp. Four guards witnessed the incident and it was recorded in the electronic blotter system.


If one were to sum up the Hood report in a headline, it might be: "Army Documents Extraordinary History of Respect for Koran." Or, "No Truth to Claims of Koran Abuse." Or perhaps: "Koran Abuse? Blame the Detainees." But that isn't how the story was played. Here were the headlines in England: "U.S. Admits Koran Abuse at Cuba Base", and "US Admits Guard Soiled Koran at Guantanamo". The London Times, not normally noted for anti-Americanism, led off with this summary:

An American guard at Guantanamo Bay urinated on a copy of the Koran while others kicked, stepped on and soaked copies with water balloons, the Pentagon admitted last night.

In India, the headline was "Guantanamo Guards Guilty".

Reuters' story on the report omitted any mention of the detainees' treatment of the Koran, and began:

The U.S. military for the first time on Friday detailed how jailers at Guantanamo mishandled the Koran, including a case in which a guard's urine splashed onto the Islamic holy book and others in which it was kicked, stepped on and soaked by water.

Anti-Americanism in foreign news coverage is perhaps not surprising. Here at home, however, the slant was not much different. The San Francisco Chronicle, not previously known for its solicitude for things spiritual, headlined: "U.S. Tells How Koran Was Defiled". The Los Angeles Times echoed, "Pentagon: Koran Defiled". Newsday wrote, "Quran Abuses Verified", while ABC headlined, "U.S. Confirms Gitmo Soldier Kicked Quran". Such headlines could be multiplied indefinitely. Many papers dwelt especially on the few drops of urine that inadvertently landed on a Koran, which inevitably prompts the recollection that only 16 years ago, the federal government not only tolerated the immersion of a crucifix in a jar of urine as a work of "art," but actually paid for it.

It seems that the Army--or maybe it's the United States--just can't win. It is almost inconceivable that the Hood report could have been more favorable to the Guantanamo guards and interrogators, yet the international and American press treated it as a confession of wrongdoing, at times with a hint that the Newsweek allegation had proven true after all. Little (frequently, nothing) was made of the fact that it was the Muslim detainees, not American guards or interrogators, who had perpetrated precisely the acts that were the excuse for anti-American riots in the Muslim world.

No matter how virtuous American conduct may be, the many members of the press raise the bar higher, with no regard for the realities of warfare, the inevitable sordidness of prison life, or the frailties of human nature. It is hard to see any purpose in this hypercriticism--no other country, except perhaps Israel, is held to such an extraordinary standard--other than to make it impossible for the United States to detain and interrogate prisoners. Or to fight a war.

Source and links.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 12:45 pm
Quote:
More significantly, so did the detainee who made the original allegation--a fact that went largely unreported.


You have zero evidence that this is true. Yet you repeat it as fact. Shoddy reporting?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 12:45 pm
Stopping and Disciplining
Brandon9000 wrote:

What's useful is trying to understand certain members here who crow with delight about everything any American might have done wrong, any setback or difficulty our troops may be experiencing, frequently attribute conspiracies and lying schemes to Americans, but seem utterly disinterested in immensely worse behavior on the other side. I mean just that, no more no less. I am not implying that people on our side who behave disgracefully shouldn't be stopped and disciplined.


I expect there to be disgraceful behavior in time of war. That behavior is within the realm of human experience and will surface given the opportunity. What I do not except is the unwillingness of our government to stop and discipline those responsible. When the Red Cross notifies us that abuses are occuring in November and honest soilders are risking their careers reporting abuses to their superiors in January I expect action before the photos are all over the news in March. I expect real investigations instead of limited investigations by officers with insufficient rank to question the right people. I want to know why torture equipment seems so readily available that bored, night shift guards can easily set it up. I expect and demand that my government do that. I'm not disinterested in the heineous practices of other countries and organizations, I just think that it is not an excuse that explains misconduct done in my name.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 12:57 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
More significantly, so did the detainee who made the original allegation--a fact that went largely unreported.


You have zero evidence that this is true. Yet you repeat it as fact. Shoddy reporting?

Cycloptichorn


Are you suggesting we all should fact-check the articles we post on A2K prior to posting them? Yourself included, Cyclops?

Or did you mean to attack the weeklystandard.com article, and not McG's posting of same?
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 10/04/2024 at 03:28:38