Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Newsweek backs off Quran desecration story
Account blamed for violent riots in Afghanistan
Sunday, May 15, 2005 Posted: 7:03 PM EDT (2303 GMT)

 
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Newsweek magazine backed away Sunday from a report that U.S. interrogators desecrated copies of the Quran while questioning prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay naval base -- an account blamed for sparking violent riots in Afghanistan.

At least 15 people were killed and dozens injured last week when thousands of demonstrators marched in Afghanistan and other parts of the Muslim world, officials and eyewitnesses said.

The Pentagon said last week it was unable to corroborate any case in which interrogators at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, defiled the Muslim holy book, as Newsweek reported in its May 9 issue.

"Top administration officials have promised to continue looking into the charges, and so will we," Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in the magazine's May 23 issue, out Sunday.

"But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst."

Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita blamed Newsweek's report for the unrest in Muslim countries.

"People are dying. They are burning American flags. Our forces are in danger," he told CNN.

Violent protests broke out in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, and elsewhere last week after the magazine cited sources saying investigators looking into abuses at the military prison found interrogators "had placed Qurans on toilets, and in at least one case flushed a holy book down the toilet."

Muslims revere the Quran, and defacing it "is especially heinous," Newsweek wrote in its latest issue.

At a Pentagon press conference Thursday, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cited U.S. commanders as saying the protests in Jalalabad, at least, were more about local politics than anti-American sentiment stirred by the Newsweek report.

Magazine: What went wrong?
In an article assessing its coverage, the magazine wrote, "How did Newsweek get its facts wrong? And how did the story feed into serious international unrest?"

Newsweek said Michael Isikoff, who reported the item with John Barry, became interested in the story after FBI e-mails that revealed an uglier side of life in Guantanamo were released late last year.

"Isikoff knew that military investigators at Southern Command [which runs the Guantanamo prison] were looking into the allegations," the article said.

"So he called a longtime reliable source, a senior U.S. government official who was knowledgeable about the matter.

"The source told Isikoff that the [investigators'] report would include new details that were not in the FBI e-mails, including mention of flushing the Quran down a toilet."

Whitaker wrote that before publishing the account the magazine approached two Pentagon officials for comment. One declined and the other challenged a different aspect of the report, Whitaker wrote.

Myers said at the Pentagon briefing Thursday the military was looking into the allegations.

He said investigators had so far been unable to confirm a "toilet incident, except for one case, a log entry, which they still have to confirm, where a detainee was reported by a guard to be ripping pages out of a Quran and putting [them] in the toilet to stop it up as a protest. But not where the U.S. did it."

On Friday, Newsweek said, DiRita phoned the magazine and said that investigators found no incidents involving Quran desecration.

A day later, Isikoff reached his source again, who said that although he remembered reading investigative reports about desecration of the Quran, including a toilet incident, "he could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the [Southern Command] report."

DiRita "exploded" when Newsweek informed him that one of the original sources behind the report had partially backed off the story, the magazine said.

"People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said," DiRita told Newsweek, according to the magazine's report. "How could he be credible now?"

DiRita confirmed the quote to CNN.

He said investigators have found nothing to support allegations that U.S. troops had desecrated copies of the Quran, but turned up one case he said has now led to stricter procedures at the prison camp.

In that case, a Quran fell to the floor during a routine search, he said. The book was encased in surgical mask, which prisoners at the facility are given to protect the book.

Camp commanders have since established stronger procedures when searching near a Quran, DiRita said -- including a rule that allows only Muslim troops, interrogators or chaplains to touch a copy.

But Newsweek said Isikoff has uncovered more allegations of Quran desecration.

One, from an attorney representing some of the detainees, provided some declassified notes indicating 23 detainees had tried to commit suicide in August 2003 when a guard dropped a Quran and stomped on it. (Full story)

Isikoff found two other references to Qurans being tossed into toilets or latrines, the magazine reported.

U.S. military officials said such claims are standard terrorist tactics.

"If you read the al Qaeda training manual, they are trained to make allegations against the infidels," Army Col. Brad Blackner told Newsweek.

Nice to see that our press has learned to corroborate its stories before it prints them.  You would think they would have learned a lesson after the CBS debacle. 

The press should be extremely careful on corroborating the stories that they print since these stories cost american lives overseas.

There are people who's absolute loathing and hatred for the current U.S. administration cloud their judgment and common sense.

No doubt both you and I could think of more than a few right here on this board...

Funny since Bush caused much more violence in Afghanistan....

Including deaths of thousands of civilians, and our selfless service people who were duped into a pseudo-war for the oil barons and Halliburton profiteers

Don't be modest now....Newsweek ain't got nuthin' on old W.

Your gang has created fake WMDs, and other bullshit reasons for occupying Iraq.

Did these not cost around 1500 American lives overseas?

The press(ident) should be extremely careful on corroborating the stories that they print since these stories cost american lives overseas.



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002 -- well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval.

The Times of London newspaper published the memo -- actually minutes of a high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 -- on May 1.

British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and Michael Boyce, then Britain's Chief of Defense Staff, told the paper that Britain had not then made a decision to follow the United States to war, but it would have been "irresponsible" not to prepare for the possibility.

The White House has not yet responded to queries about the congressional letter, which was released on May 6.

The letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration. ...

"While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your administration," the letter said.

But, the letter said, when the document was leaked Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman called it "nothing new."

In addition to Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove and others attended the meeting.

A British official identified as "C" said that he had returned from a meeting in Washington and that "military action was now seen as inevitable" by U.S. officials.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

"The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

The memo further discussed the military options under consideration by the United States, along with Britain's possible role.

It quoted Hoon as saying the United States had not finalized a timeline, but that it would likely begin "30 days before the U.S. congressional elections," culminating with the actual attack in January 2003.

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said.

"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

The British officials determined to push for an ultimatum for Saddam to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq to "help with the legal justification for the use of force ... despite U.S. resistance."

Britain's attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, advised the group that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action" and two of three possible legal bases -- self-defense and humanitarian intervention -- could not be used.

The third was a U.N. Security Council resolution, which Goldsmith said "would be difficult."

Blair thought that "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors."

"If the political context were right, people would support regime change," the memo said.

Later, the memo said, Blair would work to convince Bush that they should pursue the ultimatum with Saddam even though "many in the U.S. did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route."

Justify one bad thing by pointing to another.  Not surprising.

So now Afghanistan was a war for Haliburton and oil also.  Not even you believed this before.  You really are losing your shit.

Why cant you discuss the article instead of turning this into another hate-Bush thread.

We have gone over this a million times.  All investigations have shown that there were no lies.

There certainly is stuff that the press should jump on, but printing the story they did they had to know that it would cause violence and American lives.

And that's the big question about our friend SLCPUNK isn't it?

My problem with the guy isn't that he's "against the war" or that him and I disagree on so many things.

More often than not, if someone is at least honest and tries to be objective and call things "down the line," I can still respect their opinion.

But I stopped hoping that SLCPUNK would do that long ago....

SLCpunks problem is that he is diverting the issue.  the issue here is that newsweek, and the rest of the media (whether conservative, liberal, or whatever) needs to be more careful in what they are reporting.  they must realize the power that they have, and that false reports such as this can not only cost lives (16 people are dead now because of newsweek) but they can also set back the US's progress in the middle east and around the globe.  muslims already don't trust the United States and our motives (which i believe to be just and honorable) and false news reports like this cause even more skepticism and distrust by muslim nations.  newsweek's article has undermined our mission in afghanistan and Iraq, and it will only cause more problems for our brave soldiers who are in service in those areas.  if the liberal media truly did "support the troops" as they claim to do, they would not publish such articles, knowing the harm that they will cause.

Justify one bad thing by pointing to another.  Not surprising.

So now Afghanistan was a war for Haliburton and oil also.  Not even you believed this before.  You really are losing your shit.

Never said it was. I can jump around can't I?

As usual, you take what I say, misread it (on purpose or because your are dim) and then go off on that. Then I am forced to answer it.

Look, you claim that Newsweek ran this story and it caused the deaths of Americans and others over there.

The fact that the whitehouse can claim foul is amazing to me. It takes balls the size of churchbells to be up in arms over this. How can I not bring up Bush in the Middleeast when you complain of this? I can't.

The facts were given by a government official.

They were fact checked.

Now the official is saying "I'm not sure if it's 100% correct".

Prisoners who have left Abu Ghraib have claimed the same thing. Although they (even though they were released and not gound guilty of any crime) can not be counted as a "credible source".

Forget that murder, sexual abuse and torture has occured in this prison already and one gaurd (just today) was found guilty of these crimes.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050517/ap_on_re_us/prisoner_abuse_harman

Is it not possible to believe that somebody ripped up a Quran and flushed it down the toilet? After reading the outright bigotry on this board alone??? Your saying that could not have happened?

It still has not been proven to be false, and while Newsweek should not have run it without double checking it's sources, it certainly is NOT the cause for anti-American feelings in the middle east. The fact that we are now placing permanent military bases over there is why.

As usual the news is whipping this into a frenzy and it's another chance to throw out propaganda words.

But in reality, the cause of American deaths in the middle east,( after no WMD, and memo claiming that he planned the attack in advance and had to sell it to his country) is George W Bush.

You will cry, "well then Newsweek should have doublechecked it's sources, and it is responsible for the deaths of Americans because it did not."

While at the same time you will defend our ass of a President on his "decision" to go to war based on "intelligence" which later turned out to be false.

Should he have doubled checked his intelligence???? You always place the blame away from him and blame it on his intelligence.

Which is a bigger blunder? Not double checking a story about Abu Prison, where our human rights violations have been excessive already (and soldiers on trial and being found guilty)?

Or...

Not double checking your intelligence and taking a nation of young people to war resulting in (so far ) about 1500 US deaths?

Which is worse?

Which cost more lives, by not double checking? And from the looks of what just happend (with the British secret memo) he never checked shit! He made it up!!!

16 May 2005 10:12:49 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Sayed Salahuddin

KABUL, May 16 (Reuters) - Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan were sceptical on Monday about an apparent retraction by Newsweek magazine of a report that U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran and said U.S. pressure was behind the climb-down. (...)

"We will not be deceived by this," Islamic cleric Mullah Sadullah Abu Aman told Reuters in the northern Afghan province of Badakhshan, referring to the magazine's retraction.

"This is a decision by America to save itself. It comes because of American pressure. Even an ordinary illiterate peasant understands this and won't accept it."

Aman was the leader of a group of clerics who on Sunday vowed to call for a holy war against the United States in three days unless it handed over the military interrogators reported to have desecrated the Koran.

More:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL165639.htm

a lot of people believe if its on the news or in print that is 100 percent true.

thats why the media is so dangerous.


Im not really a Bush supporter or hater, Im not a Democrat or Republican

Im not on anyone's side but in Bush's defense

U cant criticize Bush for 9/11 and then also blame him for the War in Iraq

Bush got memos that something was gonna happen, correct?
He didnt do anything about them, 9/11 happened

now had Bush invaded Afghanistan before 9/11, he wouldnt have found any evidence of the terrorist preparing to fly planes into the twin towers.


Sadaam failed to comply, whether I agree or not, He didnt hold up his bargain

how many second chances does a guy get?

Ive said this since the war started and Ill say it now

Id much rather our troops invaded Iraq and turn up no WMD, than not do shit and a truck load of nukes pull up in front of the empire state building or the white house.


mistakes are made in war, mistakes are made in every single war ever fought, the media has more access now though which is why it seems more prevalent.

Once we captured Sadaam we were obligated to the people over there to make a better life for them, if we captured Sadaam and left, the country wouldve been a free for all Civil War.

People also seem to forget that Bush cannot declare war on his own

He has to go through Congress and even John Kerry voted FOR goin to war.

Certainly you can.

The problem I have with you posts is the lack of looking at anything objectively.  It is issues like this one, where you fail to condemn the article, that makes you lose all credibility and shows your true colors.  Your first post, instead of condeming the artilce, is to bash Bush and the war against Afghanistan.  Of course, I thought you were in favor of that war.  Guess not.  Was Afghanistan not part of the war on terror either?

Tell me how I misread it?  Are you fucking serious?  Your first post in the thread was not to condemn the article but to point to a place where you think there were more unjustified killings by Bush.  To me it seems like you are justifying one bad by pointing to something that you see as worse.  Can your post be read any other way?

No where are we talking about the White House.  We are talking about running a misleading article that cost lives.  We are not saying that Bush is right and these guys are wrong.  You are reading into it as you may.

What makes you want to defend this article?  Because you are very defensive of it?


So were the facts on Iraq.  Yet, when this guy gets his facts wrong you give him a free pass.  Both resulted in the loss of lives, yet you comdemn one, and defend the other?


Another attempt at justifying a false story that caused lives.  Wow SLC, you have reached a new low.  Abu Ghraib was horrible, but it was blown way out of proportion.  That was news worthy, and oh did the news agency run with the story.  In fact I think the NY TImes ran the story over 50 times.  What does this have to do with Abu Ghraib?

You are trying to skirt the issue.  We are not saying that it couldnt happen, but we are saying that the press should make sure that they have their facts right before printing such a story.  Especially, since such stories cost lives. 

So are you justifying the false story, that cased lives, based on the fact that such a thing could have occurred?

Is that what journalism has come to?  They print stories of things that could have occurred, or that could be occuring?  Come on.

How do you prove it false?  No one says that it happened now, and even Newsweek retracted their story?

I am glad that you finally said something negative about the rag that ran the story.

And the fact that we arent muslim, and the fact that we support Israel, and the fact that we give women rights, and the fact that Western civilization won in the 8th Century.  But of course you always blame their fanaticism on us. 

You dont think this is a big story?  My gosh you are so partisan.  Abu Ghraib killed no one, yet you thought it was such a huge story.  This fuckers false story resulted in the deaths of 15 people and you can hardly make yourself condemn it.

And the underpinnings of your entire view on everything is finally revealed.  You need to go to therapy. 

Can I ask you a question: Who do you hate more, Bush or Osama Bin Laden?  It is a dead serious question.

Of course you would be guilty of the same thing on the other end, wouldnt you? 
Of course, I am one of the people that defended Bush's calculations of entering the war with Iraq.  The alternative to not going to war, if what the intelligence showed was true, would mean that a crazy dictator that had ties to terrorism would have weapons in which millions of lives could be lost.  Suddam was a crazy dictator that was killing lots of his own people and was a big barrier to any change in the middle east.

What is the alternative to not printing the story, even if you believe the things are true?  It certainly wasnt costing any lives or risking any lives.  There is a big difference.  Of course in hindsight there were plenty of miscalculations with Iraq, and in the end it wasnt the best call in hindsight.  Yet, it was a far different calculation, and it doesnt astonish me that you fail to see it.

Of course, your justification of the article continues.


If you fail to see the difference, then all hope is lost.

From the looks of what?  Every report that has come out has said that neither Bush nor Blair lied? 

The problem I have with you posts is the lack of looking at anything objectively.  It is issues like this one, where you fail to condemn the article....

Reread my post young Jedi.

I won't condemn until proven totally false. Which it has not been.

Your first post in the thread was not to condemn the article but to point to a place where you think there were more unjustified killings by Bush. 

The analogy must be presented in order to make a point. If you can't understand the point have somebody read it with you.

No where are we talking about the White House.  We are talking about running a misleading article that cost lives.  We are not saying that Bush is right and these guys are wrong.  You are reading into it as you may.

The white house has spoken out against newsweek. Is it not relevant to the story? It is part of the story, yet not part of your article. So picky you are....

Again, analogy must be made if you are going to cry out about this, sorry.

So were the facts on Iraq.  Yet, when this guy gets his facts wrong you give him a free pass.  Both resulted in the loss of lives, yet you comdemn one, and defend the other?

He has not been proven wrong, only retracted.

Again. If you guys are going to be up in arms about this, you better be able to defend yourselfs. People in glass houses.....that is the entire point, which you are missing.

  What does this have to do with Abu Ghraib?

Reread my post, it says right there.

Is that what journalism has come to? 

Journalism died years ago when the 24 hour news networks went on the air. But the nail was in the coffin when not one of them questioned our government for going to war.

How do you prove it false?  No one says that it happened now, and even Newsweek retracted their story?

Just because it was retracted does not make it false, just unable to source. Prisoners that were innocent that report such attrocities are not considered reliable sources.

And the fact that we arent muslim, and the fact that we support Israel, and the fact that we give women rights, and the fact that Western civilization won in the 8th Century.  But of course you always blame their fanaticism on us. 


Nope. They DO NOT want us there. They said years ago and Bush's father understood this.


  This fuckers false story resulted in the deaths of 15 people and you can hardly make yourself condemn it.

You ask this of me, yet can never condemn Bush's actions that killed 1500 of our kids?

  Suddam was a crazy dictator that was killing lots of his own people and was a big barrier to any change in the middle east.

Oh...I thought he had WMD, that is why we were going in right?

  Yet, it was a far different calculation, and it doesnt astonish me that you fail to see it.

See above. Innocent until proven guilty. It was a far different calculation because Bush's actions caused 1000's upon 1000s of lives, where the Newsweek story caused much less. Plus no harm would have come of military Americans if they had not been there in the first place (which you forget).

From the looks of what?  Every report that has come out has said that neither Bush nor Blair lied? 

The memo that claims that Bush had plans to go to invade Iraq and had to find a reason to do so. Reported last week. White house has yet to reply. Doesn't look like he can out of that one, but the "liberal" media deciding not to report it, but rather the NW story? Hmmmm.......

Bin Laden is loved which is why we can't find him, Iraqi's hated Sadaam which is why he was found.

If Iraq didnt want us to find Sadaam, i dont think we wouldve.

Yet you make accusations about republicans intentionally stealing votes in Florida, you make accusations that Bush and his administration lied in Iraq, you make accusations that we went to war for oil, and you make accusations that we went to war so Bush's Halliburton buddies would profit.

You certainly have a tough standard of proof.  Too bad you only apply it selectively, and dont apply it across the board.


I clearly understand the point you are making.  You analogize it to Bush, to make it seem not as bad.  You do this in order to say we cant complain. Thus, you are taking what you believe is the most horrible thing to happen in a long time (Iraq war) and using that for a justification of another horrible thing.  If anything I would have thought you would have been the first person to condemn Newsweek.  After all, you care so much about innocent lives.  Right?


I posted the first article I saw on this, a CNN article. 

How can the UN condemn the War in Iraq where there is the oil for foods scandal.

I think they are two completely different things.  If you cant see the difference that is your problem.

This is one guy trying to print a story, that wasnt properly corroborated and people died as a result.   The war in Iraq was backed by most all of the democratic senators, including your beloved John Kerry.  Clinton thought such weapons existed, and so did 5 other national intelligence agencies across the globe.  So for you to say Bush made it up out of thin air is just flat out ridiculous, and shows that you certainly dont apply your same tough standard across the board.

Is it too late to bring Rather back into the studio?

Certainly, journalism has reached a new low: CBS, Newseek debacles.  However, there are sources that werent available before either.

Should they be?  Yet, you give the prisoners the benefit of the doubt.  You give Newseek the benefit of the doubt?  Dont you think they should have darn good reliable stories before they print a story that they know will inflame the Muslim world? 

I didnt know it was our duty to prove stories false.

Certainly they dont, neither did Hitler's Germany.  However, when there are such human rights violations and they are breeding terrorists I dont think we should sit and wait for them to come over here.

Bush never lied!  All reports have said that Bush did not lie.  Yet you fail to give him your benefit of the doubt.  What was it, "innocent until proven guilty?" 

There is a huge difference, a President makes a decision based on the information that he has.  What he portrayed to the public, and what the Senate approved the War on behalf of, is exactly what Clinton thought was true, what the Senate intelligence committee thought was true, and what at least 5 foreign intelligence services thought was true.  Now you can argue about whether we should of went to war based on that information, but that is the information he presented to the public and that is the information that all of these other people thought was true as well.  So to say he made it up or lied is just plain dumb and misleading.

In addition, while the stakes were high in going to war, so was the stakes for not going to war if the intelligence was true.  With the Newseek story, there were no high stakes present in not corroborating the story.  Why couldnt they wait?

Your analogy is ridiculous, but Im sure you will never see it that way. 



Back to blaming Bush for everything.  What if Zarqawi blew up nuclear bomb in Baghdad and 50,000 troops died.  Would you condemn Bush before you condemned Zarqawi?  Newsweek has not duty to be responsible because Bush was already irresponsible?  If what Bush did was so bad in misleading people, I would think you would be the first person to jump on someone else that is deliberately misleading people?  But no, you justify their actions by pointing to what you see as worse actions by Bush.

Glad you waited till the adminstration replied before you found them guilty.  "Innocent until proven guilty?"

I havent read much about the memo you allege.  However, I assume that our country has contingency plans to invade almost any country.  Something tells me that it is nothing more than this.  In fact, I would say that they were incompetent to run this country if they didnt have such plans on the books considering the intelligence that was out there.  Remember, even Clinton was harsh on Iraq for some time.

Newsweeks' sources may have been silenced, but the report still seems to based on facts.

Looks like ole Rummy bullied them into retracting if you ask me. Smokescreen part II, after the oil-for-food scandal of course. Distract distract distract....censor.



Former Detainees Have Repeatedly Accused U.S. of Desecrating Koran at Guatanamo


In August 2003, 23 Yemeni detainees reportedly tried to commit mass suicide after a guard stomped on the Koran. In addition, the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights reported former detainees said they saw the Koran being thrown into the toilets. Three British citizens released last year from Guantanamo reported similar treatment of the Koran in a 115-page dossier on the conditions at the detention camp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Monday, under intense government pressure, Newsweek magazine retracted a story that claimed U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Koran by flushing the holy book down the toilet in front of detainees. The report, published in the May 9th issue of the magazine sparked, wide-spread anti-American protests throughout the Muslim world. During the protests in Afghanistan, police killed at least 19 people in the worst anti-American demonstrations since the US invaded the country in 2001. Thousands also protested in Pakistan, Indonesia, Yemen and Gaza.

Bush administration officials have blamed the Newsweek report for sparking the protests and undercutting U.S attempts to repair its reputation in the Muslim world after tha Abu Gharib prison abuse scandal. Matt Drudge reported yesterday that Michael Isikoff, the investigative journalist who was one of the two reporters who wrote the story, offered to resign from the magazine but his resignation was not accepted by Newsweek's editors. Instead, the magazine retracted the story and apologized for publishing it.

The Pentagon first complained about the article on Friday following the deadly protests. On Monday, White House spokesperson Scott McClellan said, "The report has had serious consequences. People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged." McClellan also said that the retraction was a, "good first step" but that that the magazine had an obligation to reverse the effects of its story and explain to the Muslim world "the policies and practices of our military."

However, this is not the first time such accusations surfaced about US guards desecrating the Koran. In August 2003, 23 Yemeni detainees reportedly tried to commit mass suicide after a guard stomped on the Koran. In addition, the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights reported former detainees said they saw the Koran being thrown into the toilets. Three British citizens released last year from Guantanamo reported similar treatment of the Koran in a 115-page dossier on the conditions at the detention camp. Up until now, the Pentagon had been unwilling to say whether any of these allegations were investigated. But yesterday, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said these allegations were not credible. And last night the State Department sent a cable to all embassies instructing them to inform host countries of the Newsweek retraction. To talk more about this, we are joined by Michael Ratner. He is an attorney and the President of the Center for Constitutional Rights. We're also joined on the phone from London by journalist and playwright Victoria Britain who has spoken with many former detainees.

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Victoria Britain, longtime reporter for the Guardian of London and author of a play about the Gauntanamo detainees.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/18/1434259

Yet you make accusations about republicans intentionally stealing votes in Florida, you make accusations that Bush and his administration lied in Iraq, you make accusations that we went to war for oil, and you make accusations that we went to war so Bush's Halliburton buddies would profit.

The proof has been given out time and time again.

I have posted links to blacks who WON A LAWSUIT for being turned away for their right to vote.

Cheney is still tied to Haliburton financially, and they overcharged the tax payer by millions, that is proof enough for me.

Building permanant bases in Iraq is proof enough.

The latest memo that came to light is more than enough proof to me.

Insiders on Bush's cabinet who came out and said he planned on going to Iraq well before 9-11 is proof enough for me.

I clearly understand the point you are making.  You analogize it to Bush, to make it seem not as bad.

Again you miss the point.


How can the UN condemn the War in Iraq where there is the oil for foods scandal.

There is hypocrisy abroad obviously. But there are also Texans involved in that scandal as well. Different subject.

This is one guy trying to print a story, that wasnt properly corroborated and people died as a result.   The war in Iraq was backed by most all of the democratic senators, including your beloved John Kerry.  Clinton thought such weapons existed, and so did 5 other national intelligence agencies across the globe.  So for you to say Bush made it up out of thin air is just flat out ridiculous, and shows that you certainly dont apply your same tough standard across the board.

Dems (and republicans) were misled into voting for war. Many have stated as such and sorry they voted as they did (including right-wing).

Clinton did not take us to war.

OVERWHELMING PROOF is out now that Bush's team wanted a piece of Iraq well before 9-11.

Should they be?  Yet, you give the prisoners the benefit of the doubt.  You give Newseek the benefit of the doubt?  Dont you think they should have darn good reliable stories before they print a story that they know will inflame the Muslim world?

Like I said, they were prisoners who were found innocent and released that made these statements.

The same standard of taking a country to war does not apply?


Certainly they dont, neither did Hitler's Germany.  However, when there are such human rights violations and they are breeding terrorists I dont think we should sit and wait for them to come over here.

Wow the Hitler comparison, pulled out when you need it, but blasted if I use it.

They weren't breeding terrorists.

Human rights violations occur in Saudi Arabia as we speak, but Bush has time to fag it up with the Prince all the time. Hmmm.....How many terrorists were from Saudi Arabia? Hmmm.....

Bush never lied!  All reports have said that Bush did not lie.  Yet you fail to give him your benefit of the doubt.  What was it, "innocent until proven guilty?" 

I have listed his lies, your memory should be checked.

Oh, my bad, it was his intelligence that dropped the ball.

Just like Newsweeks.......

 So to say he made it up or lied is just plain dumb and misleading.

Members of Bush's cabinet have come forward to admit it.

New memo says "We need to find a reason to go to war." Something to go over with the public.

In addition, while the stakes were high in going to war, so was the stakes for not going to war if the intelligence was true.  With the Newseek story, there were no high stakes present in not corroborating the story.  Why couldnt they wait?

Why couldn't Bush wait?

The stakes were MUCH HIGHER and there certainly was no rush.

Stupid comment man.


Glad you waited till the adminstration replied before you found them guilty.  "Innocent until proven guilty?"

They did not and will not reply, instead the had a big news conference about Newsweek.

Wow, the timing is amazing!  ::)

Yet you claim that the Bush, and his campaign, were the ones that conspired to steal the election in Florida.  You give them no such benefit of the doubt.  You also disregard the US Civil Rights Commission that said your accusations are crap.  You pick and choose based on your agenda.  You clearly hold one side to one standard, and the other side to another.


This means that Cheney decided to wage a war to make money?  That is ridiculous, and your proof would get thrown out of court in a second.  Yet, you claim to give accusations "innocent until proven guilty."  My gosh you are stubborn.

Proof of what?  That we went to war there and sacrificed tons of lives so that we could have a fucking base in Iraq? :hihi:

Surely they retract their vote in hindsight.  Haha, and you buy that shit.  My gosh.  Of course in hindsight it wasnt a popular vote, but since you hate Bush so much you are willing to place all the blame on him and say that he misled.  The fact is they were privy to the same information. 

Clinton didnt take us to war, but he said the information that Bush presented was the same information he had.  Therefore, your fucking bomb showing that Bush is a liar is fucking bullshit.  You cant fucking figure this out, you act like Bush made this shit out of thin air in order to attack Iraq.  You fail to ackknowledge that other countries had the same intelligence and that Democrats, including Clinton and those on the senate intelligence committee that were privy to the same information, also came to the same conclusion as Bush.  By calling him a liar you just sound stupid.  Was he wrong, yes.  Was he a liar, no.

If you think that the intelligence of over 5 different countries, a former DEMOCRATIC President, the senate foreign intelligence committee is less evidence than some prisoners that claim abuse then so be it. 

Its not using Hitler that you get blasted for, its the comparison that you make it to that you get blasted for. 


Certainly world affairs are too complicated for you to handle.  If you dont see the difference with Saudi Arabia and Iraq then Im not sure what to say.  The world doesnt believe the Saudis have WMDs, and the Saudi Arabia is not a dictatorship that oppresses the rest of the country.  In fact, the Saudi royals are far more moderate than the average Saudi citizen.  Do you think it would be smart to oust them when there is no hope of establishing a government that is not fanatic?

Are you going to say Clinton lied?  Are you going to say that John Kerry and the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committe lied?  Are you going to say that Jordan, Russia, France, Britain, and our intelligence agencies all lied?

Or are you just going to stick to your guns and blame this on a big Bush conspiracy to take over Iraq?  Everything is Bush's fault.  Did her force a gun to these people's heads?  How come you will never acknowledge the fact that other people thought the same thing?  Isnt that pretty good evidence that Bush didnt lie?



That he lied or that the intelligence was wrong?

Can you post a link to this memo?


He did wait.  He went to the UN, and had them pass a resolution.  It was not until Iraq failed to abide by the terms of the resolution that the US attacked.  We gave them lots of time.  If we were so set on invading them no matter what, then why did we go to the UN?  If Bush knew that all of his information was made up, then why would he take the risk that Suddam might comply with the UN and that the UN would exonerate him?  It makes no sense

I hope Newsweek and other media outlets will learn from this mistake.

Sadly they won't, cause every media outlet will always be on the look out for an exclusive scoop to sell more magazines or get higher tv ratings.

Cause of this, as long as things seem true enough they will report it just to get a leg up on the competition.

Yet you claim that the Bush, and his campaign, were the ones that conspired to steal the election in Florida.

The civil rights commission said that what you claimed was crap. What you claimed and what I claimed were two different things. But since you were wrong, you held onto what you were claiming (roadblocks etc) as your argument.

What I claimed was proven (blacks being turned away to vote) by the lawsuit they won, sorry.

I have shown links to this in the past.

This means that Cheney decided to wage a war to make money?? That is ridiculous, and your proof would get thrown out of court in a second.? Yet, you claim to give accusations "innocent until proven guilty."? My gosh you are stubborn.

No, but Chenney certainly stands to make money from the war. As he still holds financial ties to Halliburton. This is a no brainer.

We are not in court.

But it is a FACT that Cheney profits from this war.

You said he waged war to make money, not I.

I said that he makes money from this war, but did not say it was his sole reason.

Pay attention.

Read slower if it helps.

Proof of what?? That we went to war there and sacrificed tons of lives so that we could have a fucking base in Iraq?

Proof that we are in the middle east to establish a presence there. For a reason....OIL.

Clinton didnt take us to war, but he said the information that Bush presented was the same information he had.

Show a link.

But that is the point, he did NOT take us to war.

Always missing points...you.

Plus Clinton would not benefit from arms sales via a war (like the Bush family) and a VP who would stand to make money from rebuilding (and overcharging tax payers including yourself) Iraq.

You left that part out too.
 Therefore, your fucking bomb showing that Bush is a liar is fucking bullshit.


UK Ambassador Christopher Meyer recounting a lunch with Paul Wolfowitz, 18 March 2002

On Iraq I opened by sticking very closely to the script that you used with Condi Rice last week. We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option. It would be a tough sell for us domestically, and probably tougher elsewhere in Europe. The US could go it alone if it wanted to. But if it wanted to act with partners, there had to be a strategy for building support for military action against Saddam. I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SCRs (Security Council Resolutions) and the critical importance of the MEPP (Middle East Peace Process) as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy.

BBC TV, 16th March 2005

Memo from Peter Ricketts, Foreign Office Policy Director, to Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary, March 22nd, 2002:

The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programmes, but our tolerance of them post-11 September. I am relieved that you decided to postpone publication of the unclassified document.
...
But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or chemical weapons/biological weapons fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.

US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qa'eda is so far frankly unconvincing.

To get public and Parliamentary support for military options we have to be convincing that the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for.


You cant fucking figure this out, you act like Bush made this shit out of thin air in order to attack Iraq.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

"The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

The memo further discussed the military options under consideration by the United States, along with Britain's possible role.

It quoted Hoon as saying the United States had not finalized a timeline, but that it would likely begin "30 days before the U.S. congressional elections," culminating with the actual attack in January 2003.

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said.

"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

CNN.com

Certainly world affairs are too complicated for you to handle.? If you dont see the difference with Saudi Arabia and Iraq then Im not sure what to say.

You are kidding right?

 The world doesnt believe the Saudis have WMDs,

And the world (except Bush, his crooks, and idiot followers) believed Iraq had WMD either.

and the Saudi Arabia is not a dictatorship that oppresses the rest of the country.? In fact, the Saudi royals are far more moderate than the average Saudi citizen.

You are kidding right? You are in college, going to be a lawyer, and you think that Saudi Arabia is not a dictatorship?

The Saudis are a dictatorship.

If you challenge the regime or its policies you are punished severely. There is no constitution, no political parties and no legislature. The USA allows them to get away with human rights violations because of their oil, lucrative corporate deals with U.S. companies and provides American arms industries with huge weapons purchases.

That he lied or that the intelligence was wrong?

Lied.

The letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration. ...

"While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your administration," the letter said.

Key word: Integrity

CNN.com


Can you post a link to this memo?

See above.

He did wait.? He went to the UN, and had them pass a resolution.

There was no immediate threat from Iraq, that was the point, which you easily ignore.

Give it up, Bush's goose is cooked. Although I doubt the media will do much to call him on it. My liberal media that controls everything...... ::)

How is it that this got sidetracked again...?

On the article. It is really sad to see something like this happen over a 'mistake'. The paper has a source, which is good enough juridically (sp?), and with a story like that, they're bound to sell magazines. If the allegations were 100% true, of course they should be brought out. But in this case, didn't the source take a lot of his statements back. Now this is just dangerous concidering the situation out there. I think that as much as Newsweek should think more about what it prints, the 'sources' should also think very, very carefully what they say at times like this. With the speed of information these days, these kinds of articles could do so much more damage, than moral good, that it's just scary.

Of course the newspapers will never 'learn'. They're not there to learn, they're there to make the story that sells, appearently.

They had a source which was a government official. Amazingly this person retracted there story after it went out. It had gone through the Pentagon and was authorized for print before hand.

So personally I think that the government leaned on Newsweek to drop this story and is using them as a scapegoat for the violence over there.

As I have stated in a previous post do not find it hard to believe that this happened in this prison. Right now there are guards being found guilty and sentenced for sexual abuse, physical and other. So I find it very easy to believe that they used ripped a Koran up to get some info out of a prisoner. Plus prisoners have claimed this happened well before this story broke.

I read an interview with a CIA op (on the FOX website) who said that when he interogates that he uses any form necessary to get info out of the detainee. Of course he was cut off quickly after saying this....imagine that.

I agree that the news is competive and people are always trying to break stories first. It can lead to faulty stories.

But this was a government official and the story was approved by the Pentagon first. So, to me, something isn't right.

interestingly enough as I was driving to my woman's house tonight, I was listening to the radio factor and a guy called in with a similiar argument as SLC.

He asked Bill O Reilly why it was ok for Bush to act on bad info and cause the loss of human lives and that Newsweek did basically the same thing.

O Reilly said that Newsweek had one anonymous source and then he rattled off all the world leaders and Bill Clinton who were sources to Bush, he told that guy that surely he could see the difference in what Newsweek did and what Bush did.

the guy actually agreed with O Reilly and then hung up, O'reilly said it was a closed case.

theres also a guy named Micheal Savage that does the Savage nation radio show, very outspoken and entertaining guy

anyone ever heard him? he's pretty extreme.

Its basically the same discussion we are having here.  However, SLC fails to see the difference.  Until Bush is out of office he will be the one to blame of everything (including my quarter getting stuck in the soda machine yesterday, that son of a bitch).

Yah, he is on down here about the time when I would get out of work and school.  If you can separate the parts of his show where he is just trying to entertain, there is actually quite a bit of substance to his arguments.  Especially on illegal immigration.

 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

A threat and a full war are two different things.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Iraq was never the same after the first gulf war and less of a threat now then it was then. Plenty of people have come foward to say this. Also, war was not waged by this person. It obviously is intelligent to be aware and keep track of what these countries are doing/developing, but this was not enough to initiate a war.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

See above. Clinton did not take us to war.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Again....

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

You miss the point, as usual.

Clinton and other world leaders are not "sources" for Bush. You should do a search for Bill O'reilly fact check online. Everyday, after O'reilly's show they will present fact checks on the crazy shit this man says. He will say anything, and nobody can call it on him right there. If he does, he cuts them off, or cuts there mic. Do a Search on "Bill O'reilly fact check" later on. The fact check is there to expose is lies and exagerations.

Look, there are members of Bush's cabinet that have come foward to say that he planned on invading Iraq before 9-11. (see above)

The new memo out says just this, it is listed above and can be found on CNN. (see above)

This is WELL BEYOND going on "faulty intelligence", this is basically creating a scenerio, a reason, to invade. Lying to the public.

So  if it's "faulty intelligence" (which world leaders and Clinton do not collect for the president-sorry) that Bush claims, or the truth which is: a made up scenerio, it is a hell of a lot worse than what newsweek did or did not do. Period.

Read my clips above and do some searching of your own.

Don't let guys like Nightrain ignore posts and links that are presented and change subjects. You are too smart for that.

Better yet, read outside of the USA for stories, they report much more honestly.

Flushed With Enthusiasm

Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005. From an interview with a twenty-one-year-old Afghan man whose name is withheld for his protection, conducted last summer in Gardez by Daniel Rothenberg, an American human-rights researcher. The interviewee, who was upset when his interrogators placed a copy of the Koran into a latrine, showed a Department of Defense discharge letter stating that he was detained from December 2002 through May 2004. Originally from Harper's Magazine, March 2005.

There were eight of us, and they took us all to Gardez. When we were taken to jail, we were masked, with some type of bag put over our heads. Our hands were tied. They poured cold water over us and then started beating us with their fists and with sticks. Sometimes they picked us up on their shoulders and then threw us down. They were all American soldiers wearing uniforms. They untied dogs and they frightened us with them. The dogs bit us and scratched us with their teeth and nails. They didn?t give us anything to eat or drink. We were held there for seven or eight nights, and each night we were tortured.

Then they took us to Bagram. When we got to Bagram, we were held in a wooden cell. We spent eight days in the small cell, and we were not allowed to talk or to sleep. There were bags on our heads, and our hands were tied. Whenever we sat down they yelled at us to stand up. They would come over and yell and then cut off our beards and our mustaches and even our eyebrows. Some people fell to the ground. When we were unable to stand, they tied our hands to an iron rod on the top of the cell. This kept us from standing normally, and we were forced to stand on our toes.

We were interrogated four times during the first eight days. The interrogations were run by Americans with Afghan translators. They asked us:

?Who is your commander??

?What do you know about the Taliban??

?What do you know about Al Qaeda??

?Who are you fighting for??

Then we were put into a cell made of chain-link fencing. There was only one person in each cell, and we were able to sit. Sometimes they would order us to get on our knees and hold our arms up, and then they would ask us all sorts of questions, some that were so strange you would not have imagined them, even in dreams:

?Have you ever seen cats having sex??

?Have you ever seen donkeys having sex??

We were really surprised by these questions.

People were tortured in Bagram. I saw many old people who couldn?t walk fast, and the Americans pushed and pulled them. They broke prisoners? arms. I saw three dead bodies. One guy came from Khost. He was in a cell next to ours, and he couldn?t stand. His legs couldn?t move. They beat him so much. Then they took him to a room on the second floor. The next morning I saw them take his body down the stairs on a stretcher. The second man was from Tora Bora, and I don?t know where the third man was from, maybe from Kandahar.

We were not so sad when we were tortured. But when they insulted Islam it was really very difficult. They would come into the cell and search our belongings. They would pick up the Holy Koran and go through it page by page like they were looking for something. We didn?t understand what they were saying while they did this. Then they would throw the Holy Koran on the ground or drop it in the latrine. This made us very upset. They searched our cells every day, sometimes many times a day.

The last time I was interrogated in Bagram they told me, ?Tell the truth. If you do not tell the truth we will take you to Guant?namo.?

I said, ?Even if you took me far up into the sky, I couldn?t tell you any more. I told you the truth the first time. I have nothing more to say.? They sent me to Guant?namo the same way I was sent to Bagram, with a bag over my head and my hands shackled.


http://www.harpers.org/TheArmyWeHave.html

They are sources that he didnt make this stuff up out of thin air as you allege.  They all believe he had them, and so did many other countries.  Yet you stick to your guns that he lied and made the shit up.

There are three different viewpoints against the war, and yours is the most extreme:

Should we have went to war in hindsight?  Probably not.  That is a legit point of view.

Should we have went to war on the facts that were presented?  Maybe, maybe not.  I think either side has good arguments.  I tend to think we should have.

Did Bush lie and make up the evidence to go to war?  Only the extreme left-wing bombthrowers believe this.  The evidence is quite to the contrary.  I think even most that were against the war can see the logic here.

Yah D, dont listen to me.  You are too smart like SLC.  You should read the foreign sources like Al Jazeera (which SLC said was more credible than everything here).  SLC looks for the source that gives his point of view and that implicates Bush for everything.

Of course, I dont have to say this.  I think even the most anti-war, anti-Bush people on this board see that SLC is far more extreme than any of them.  There are good arguments against the war and Bush (which I disagree with), and there are those that are loopy.  I think most have opinions on where SLC's arguments fall.

i didn't say anything. all i did was post a quote from a former vice president. and you say that i miss the point???

and please post a link to that o'reilly site - i'd love to take a look.

didn't know you watched his show. they say there's just as many people that hate him watching his show as there is people who like him. sort of like howard stern. 

My opinions are well laid out, posted with links and pretty much lay out the facts. You like to call them nutty, or extreme, or whatever to discredit them. That is what most people do when they lose an argument: they attack personally. Or they point the finger and say "you hate Bush no matter what". Those who are swayed by those types of statements are probably dumb enough to believe Bush is doing the right thing anyway and it does not matter.

I recieve many PMs thanking me for standing up for the truth on this board. Not lately, but plenty in the past, especially during the elections. Many people read these threads, while they do not post.

As time marches on, more unravels and new articles/proof emerges of Bush's lies and the consequences from them.

If you prefer to attack me personally by calling me conspiracy nut, or whatever, that is fine. I will continue to do what I always do, that is, post answers which I believe to be the truth, with sources. People who are intelligent enough and mature enough will read and be enlightened. Those who prefer to always be right and stubborn, will scan quickly through my posts (and links) and attack me all over again, usually off subject.

I know who I am, and I know what right and wrong is. You seem to let right and wrong be clouded by your stubborness to admit fault in something you have been defending for the last 18months or so.

Murder in our prison camps overseas.

Should this not be printed? Sure is a lot worse than pooping on a Koran now isn't it?

Don't want the lid to blow off the top of the middle east with stuff like this being printed.

Should be silence it? Not print it? In a time of "war", don't wanna aid the enemy do we?

Or was journalism orginally set up to be a watchdog group for those in the government?

Those in charge?

I say a big fuck you to censorship. That is what I say.

*****************

In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths -NYT

Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.

The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.
...
At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.
...
The story of Mr. Dilawar's brutal death at the Bagram Collection Point - and that of another detainee, Habibullah, who died there six days earlier in December 2002 - emerge from a nearly 2,000-page confidential file of the Army's criminal investigation into the case, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?hp&ex=1116561600&en=8701738ac057aebe&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=login

Those who wage this war will be taken before the International Criminal Court at The Hague to be tried for war crimes if there are civilian casualties and possibly, crimes against humanity, if the conditions are met. The author of this article will be the proud author of the indictment. More than this, it is hereby proved that the nation in breach of Resolution 1441 is the United States of America, not Iraq.

A war against the sovereign state of Iraq without the express authorization of the UNO is illegal under international law, running against the UN Charter and against the Resolution 1441.

Under international law, Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter is clear:

?All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations?.

Article 51 spells out the right of nations to wage war:
?Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security?.

Since Iraq has neither waged an act of war against the USA or UK and since international peace and security is put at risk not by Iraq but by the USA and United Kingdom, the provisions for self-defence are not met.

Much is said by the warmongers about Resolutions 678 and 687 (1991), claiming that they allow a military attack to be launched against Iraq under the principle that their provisions were not met. However, the UNO does not enact ghost or voodoo resolutions, which are passed, acted upon, forgotten and resurrected twelve years later when the time is deemed right. If the context of the question is different, the Security Council has to deliberate a further resolution.

This was the case with 1441, which under paragraph 3, instructs Iraq to ?provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council?a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and other delivery systems?. Iraq subsequently provided a 12.000 page report.

Evidently, questions were asked about details and naturally, time is needed to reply. 12.000 pages and numerous weapons programmes involve a universe of materials and Iraq has complied consistently with the inspections teams.

Under paragraph 4, ?material breach will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below?. Material breach has not been reported to the Council, rather, the inspections teams have both stated that Iraq is cooperating and that they need more time to carry out their duties determined under Resolution 1441.

The ?immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access? guaranteed under Paragraph 5 of 1441 has been fulfilled by Iraq. Paragraph 10 ?Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates?.

The United States of America has not been forthcoming with this material, despite its many insinuations. There was even a ridiculous report presented to the UN Security Council by Colin Powell, who referred to foreign intelligence reports which turned out to be no more than a 1991 thesis copied from the internet by the British Intelligence Services and vague references, picked up by the biased western media, about links between Saddam Hussein?s Ba?ath regime and Al-Qaeda, never proved because they are untrue.

Under Paragraph 10 of Resolution 1441, the United States of America is hereby challenged to produce the documentation behind these allegations. Should this documentation not be produced, the USA is guilty of lying to the UNSC or is in breach of its provisions.

Under Paragraph 12, should the provisions of Paragraph 4 (failure to comply and cooperate fully with this resolution will constitute material breach, which is not the case) or Paragraph 11 (interference with the inspection process or failure to comply with the disarmament process, also not the case), not be fulfilled, the UNSC ?decides to convene immediately?to consider the situation and the need for full compliance of all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security?.

Fundamentally, Paragraph 13 continues, that ?In that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations?.

Not guilty. This has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and under the fundamental elements of international law, fundamental equality in human rights is a basic, guaranteed principle. What is evident here is that the jury has been tampered with (veiled threats about suspension of aid programmes and economic consequences if members of the UNSC voted against the USA), that the UN Charter and International Law have not been followed and that if there is military action in which any civilian dies, the US and British governments will be liable under international law for prosecution for war crimes.

I personally shall make every effort to this end here on Pravda.Ru to see that international law is adhered to and that the world is ruled on principles of multi-lateralism, equality of rights among nations, diplomacy, discussion and dialogue.

Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY
PRAVDA.Ru

http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/index.html

I dont see how your article has anything to do with the topic?  I only see it as another anti-american article on your behalf?  Start another Iraq thread if you wish, instead of sucking all of us back into that subject.  That debate is 2 years old.

http://www.anncoulter.org/

NEWSWEEK DISSEMBLED, MUSLIMS DISMEMBERED!
May 18, 2005


When ace reporter Michael Isikoff had the scoop of the decade, a thoroughly sourced story about the president of the United States having an affair with an intern and then pressuring her to lie about it under oath, Newsweek decided not to run the story. Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek, followed by The Washington Post.

When Isikoff had a detailed account of Kathleen Willey's nasty sexual encounter with the president in the Oval Office, backed up with eyewitness and documentary evidence, Newsweek decided not to run it. Again, Matt Drudge got the story.

When Isikoff was the first with detailed reporting on Paula Jones' accusations against a sitting president, Isikoff's then-employer The Washington Post ? which owns Newsweek ? decided not to run it. The American Spectator got the story, followed by the Los Angeles Times.

So apparently it's possible for Michael Isikoff to have a story that actually is true, but for his editors not to run it.

Why no pause for reflection when Isikoff had a story about American interrogators at Guantanamo flushing the Quran down the toilet? Why not sit on this story for, say, even half as long as NBC News sat on Lisa Meyers' highly credible account of Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broaddrick?

Newsweek seems to have very different responses to the same reporter's scoops. Who's deciding which of Isikoff's stories to run and which to hold? I note that the ones that Matt Drudge runs have turned out to be more accurate ? and interesting! ? than the ones Newsweek runs. Maybe Newsweek should start running everything past Matt Drudge.

Somehow Newsweek missed the story a few weeks ago about Saudi Arabia arresting 40 Christians for "trying to spread their poisonous religious beliefs." But give the American media a story about American interrogators defacing the Quran, and journalists are so appalled there's no time for fact-checking ? before they dash off to see the latest exhibition of "Piss Christ."

Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas justified Newsweek's decision to run the incendiary anti-U.S. story about the Quran, saying that "similar reports from released detainees" had already run in the foreign press ? "and in the Arab news agency al-Jazeera."

Is there an adult on the editorial board of Newsweek? Al-Jazeera also broadcast a TV miniseries last year based on the "Protocols of the Elders Of Zion." (I didn't see it, but I hear James Brolin was great!) Al-Jazeera has run programs on the intriguing question, "Is Zionism worse than Nazism?" (Take a wild guess where the consensus was on this one.) It runs viewer comments about Jews being descended from pigs and apes. How about that for a Newsweek cover story, Evan? You're covered ? al-Jazeera has already run similar reports!

Ironically, among the reasons Newsweek gave for killing Isikoff's Lewinsky bombshell was that Evan Thomas was worried someone might get hurt. It seems that Lewinsky could be heard on tape saying that if the story came out, "I'll (expletive) kill myself."

But Newsweek couldn't wait a moment to run a story that predictably ginned up Islamic savages into murderous riots in Afghanistan, leaving hundreds injured and 16 dead. Who could have seen that coming? These are people who stone rape victims to death because the family "honor" has been violated and who fly planes into American skyscrapers because ? wait, why did they do that again?

Come to think of it, I'm not sure it's entirely fair to hold Newsweek responsible for inciting violence among people who view ancient Buddhist statues as outrageous provocation ? though I was really looking forward to finally agreeing with Islamic loonies about something. (Bumper sticker idea for liberals: News magazines don't kill people, Muslims do.) But then I wouldn't have sat on the story of the decade because of the empty threats of a drama queen gas-bagging with her friend on the telephone between spoonfuls of Haagen-Dazs.

No matter how I look at it, I can't grasp the editorial judgment that kills Isikoff's stories about a sitting president molesting the help and obstructing justice, while running Isikoff's not particularly newsworthy (or well-sourced) story about Americans desecrating a Quran at Guantanamo.

Even if it were true, why not sit on it? There are a lot of reasons the media withhold even true facts from readers. These include:

? A drama queen nitwit exclaimed she'd kill herself. (Evan Thomas' reason for holding the Lewinsky story.)

? The need for "more independent reporting." (Newsweek President Richard Smith explaining why Newsweek sat on the Lewinsky story even though the magazine had Lewinsky on tape describing the affair.)

? "We were in Havana." (ABC president David Westin explaining why "Nightline" held the Lewinsky story.)

? Unavailable for comment. (Michael Oreskes, New York Times Washington bureau chief, in response to why, the day The Washington Post ran the Lewinsky story, the Times ran a staged photo of Clinton meeting with the Israeli president on its front page.)

? Protecting the privacy of an alleged rape victim even when the accusation turns out to be false.

? Protecting an accused rapist even when the accusation turns out to be true if the perp is a Democratic president most journalists voted for.

? Protecting a reporter's source.

How about the media adding to the list of reasons not to run a news item: "Protecting the national interest"? If journalists don't like the ring of that, how about this one: "Protecting ourselves before the American people rise up and lynch us for our relentless anti-American stories."

Molly Ivins -- Newsweek Gitmo Story

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The straight poop, from one solid ol' gal: Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas -- As Riley used to say on an ancient television sitcom, "This is a revoltin' development." There seems to be a bit of a campaign on the right to blame Newsweek for the anti-American riots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other Islamic countries.

Uh, people, I hate to tell you this, but the story about Americans abusing the Koran in order to enrage prisoners has been out there for quite some time. The first mention I found of it is March 17, 2004, when the Independent of London interviewed the first British citizen released from Guantanamo Bay. The prisoner said he had been physically beaten but did not consider that as bad as the psychological torture, which he described extensively. Jamal al-Harith, a computer programmer from Manchester, said 70 percent of the inmates had gone on a hunger strike after a guard kicked a copy of the Koran. The strike was ended by force-feeding.

Then came the report, widely covered in American media last December, by the International Red Cross concerning torture at Gitmo. I wrote at the time: "In the name of Jesus Christ Almighty, why are people representing our government, paid by us, writing filth on the Korans of helpless prisoners? Is this American? Is this Christian? What are our moral values? Where are the clergymen on this? Speak up, speak out."

The reports kept coming: Dec. 30, 2004, "Released Moroccan Guantanamo Detainee Tells Islamist Paper of His Ordeal," reported the Financial Times. "They watched you each time you went to the toilet; the American soldiers used to tear up copies of Koran and throw them in the toilet. ..." said the released prisoner.

On Jan. 9, 2005, Andrew Sullivan, writing in The Sunday Times of London, said: "We now know a great deal about what has gone on in U.S. detention facilities under the Bush administration. Several government and Red Cross reports detail the way many detainees have been treated. We know for certain that the United States has tortured five inmates to death. We know that 23 others have died in U.S. custody under suspicious circumstances. We know that torture has been practiced by almost every branch of the U.S. military in sites all over the world -- from Abu Ghraib to Tikrit, Mosul, Basra, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.

"We know that no incidents of abuse have been reported in regular internment facilities and that hundreds have occurred in prisons geared to getting intelligence. We know that thousands of men, women and children were grabbed almost at random from their homes in Baghdad, taken to Saddam's former torture palace and subjected to abuse, murder, beatings, semi-crucifixions and rape.

"All of this is detailed in the official reports. What has been perpetrated in secret prisons to 'ghost detainees' hidden from Red Cross inspection, we do not know. We may never know.

"This is America? While White House lawyers were arguing about what separates torture from legitimate 'coercive interrogation techniques,' the following was taking place: Prisoners were hanged for hours or days from bars or doors in semi-crucifixions; they were repeatedly beaten unconscious, woken and then beaten again for days on end; they were sodomized; they were urinated on, kicked in the head, had their ribs broken, and were subjected to electric shocks.

"Some Muslims had pork or alcohol forced down their throats; they had tape placed over their mouths for reciting the Koran; many Muslims were forced to be naked in front of each other, members of the opposite sex and sometimes their own families. It was routine for the abuses to be photographed in order to threaten the showing of the humiliating footage to family members."

The New York Times reported on May 1 on the same investigation Newsweek was writing about and interviewed a released Kuwaiti, who spoke of three major hunger strikes, one of them touched off by "guards' handling copies of the Koran, which had been tossed into a pile and stomped on. A senior officer delivered an apology over the camp's loudspeaker system, pledging that such abuses would stop. Interpreters, standing outside each prison block, translated the officer's apology. A former interrogator at Guantanamo, in an interview with the Times, confirmed the accounts of the hunger strikes, including the public expression of regret over the treatment of the Korans."

So where does all this leave us? With a story that is not only true, but previously reported numerous times. So let's drop the "Lynch Newsweek" bull. Seventeen people have died in these riots. They didn't die because of anything Newsweek did -- the riots were caused by what our government has done.

Get your minds around it. Our country is guilty of torture. To quote myself once more: "What are you going to do about this? It's your country, your money, your government. You own this country, you run it, you are the board of directors. They are doing this in your name. The people we elected to public office do what you want them to. Perhaps you should get in touch with them."


Originally Published on Tuesday May 17, 2005

Nice source Nightrain! ;D

Thought you would like that.  If SLC uses the sources he uses, why cant I use that.  At least this isnt trying to hide from being an opinion piece.  Anyways, the analysis is dead on.

Documents Say Detainees Cited Koran Abuse

By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: May 26, 2005
New York Times News Service

WASHINGTON, May 25 - Newly released documents show that detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained repeatedly to F.B.I. agents about disrespectful handling of the Koran by military personnel and, in one case in 2002, said they had flushed a Koran down a toilet.

The prisoners' accounts are described by the agents in detailed summaries of interrogations at Guantanamo in 2002 and 2003. The documents were among more than 300 pages turned over by the F.B.I. to the American Civil Liberties Union in recent days and publicly disclosed Wednesday.

Unlike F.B.I. documents previously disclosed in a lawsuit brought by the civil liberties union, in which agents reported that they had witnessed harsh and possibly illegal interrogation techniques, the new documents do not say the F.B.I. agents witnessed the episodes themselves. Rather, they are accounts of unsubstantiated accusations made by the prisoners during interrogation.

On Wednesday, the Pentagon dismissed the reports as containing no new evidence that abuses of the Koran had actually occurred and said that on May 14 military investigators had interviewed the prisoner who mentioned the toilet episode to the F.B.I. and that he was not able to substantiate the charge.

The accusation that soldiers had put a Koran in a toilet, which has been made by former and current inmates over the past two years, stirred violence this month that killed at least 17 people in Muslim countries after Newsweek magazine reported that a military investigation was expected to confirm that the incident had in fact occurred.

Newsweek retracted the report last week, saying it had relied on an American government official who had incomplete knowledge of the situation.

None of the documents released Wednesday indicate any such confirmation that the incident took place.

One document released Wednesday is an Aug. 1, 2002, memorandum from an agent whose name is deleted that recounts a pair of interviews the previous month with a prisoner whose name is also deleted.

The prisoner said that "the guards in the detention facility do not treat him well," the agent wrote. "Their behavior is bad. About five months ago, the guards beat the detainees. They flushed a Koran in the toilet. The guards dance around when the detainees are trying to pray. The guards still do these things." The document does not indicate whether the agent believed the account.

The documents include several other accounts of detainees' complaints about disrespectful handling of the Koran, but none describe its being flushed in a toilet.

Bryan Whitman, the deputy Pentagon spokesman, said Wednesday that the newly released document, a summary of an interrogation, "does not include any new allegations, nor does it include any new sources for previous allegations." Mr. Whitman said the source of the accusation "is an enemy combatant."

Since the Newsweek article was published, the Pentagon has been reviewing records, but "we still have found no credible allegations that a Koran was flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo," Mr. Whitman said.

Until the new batch of documents was released, no previously released F.B.I. documents were known to have mentioned abuse of the Koran of the type Newsweek reported.

Earlier complaints came in statements of inmates after they were released from custody or, more recently, in statements of current inmates to their lawyers.

Another memo released Wednesday, dated March 18, 2003, is an account by an agent whose name is deleted who writes that another detainee told him of purposely disrespectful handling of the Koran. The detainee acknowledged, according to the memo, that he did not witness any of the incidents he had discussed.

The agent reports that the detainee said the use of the Koran as a tool in interrogation had been a mistake. "Interrogators who had taken the Koran from individual detainees as a reprisal or incentive to cooperate had failed," the detainee said, adding that the only result would be "the damage caused to the reputation of the United States once what had occurred was released to the world."

Jameel Jaffer, a senior lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union who is coordinating the review of documents obtained in the group's civil suit against the military, said the documents were part of more than 300 new pages received last Thursday from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He said staff members spent days reviewing the documents.

Ken Weine, a spokesman for Newsweek, said the magazine would have no comment on the disclosures.

The disclosures Wednesday did not support the specific assertions in the original Newsweek item that military investigators concluded that a Koran had been flushed down a toilet. They do, however, reinforce the contentions of human rights advocates and lawyers for detainees that accusations of purposeful mishandling of the Koran were common.

A former interrogator told The New York Times in a recent interview that friction over handling of the Koran began with guards' regular searches of the cells. "Some of it was just ignorance," the former interrogator said, insisting on anonymity because soldiers are barred from discussing camp operations. "They didn't realize you shouldn't handle the book roughly."

Though complaints about the handling of the Koran were routine, the former interrogator said, the situation eventually escalated. "It was two things that brought the desecration issue to a higher level," the former interrogator said. "The rumor spread among detainees that a Koran had been flushed down a toilet and that some interrogators brought Korans to the interrogation sessions and stood on them, kicked them around." The former interrogator had not witnessed those occurrences.

Erik Saar, co-author of "Inside the Wire" (Penguin Press, 2005) and an Arabic language translator in 2003 in Guantanamo said in a recent interview that "the detainees actually liked to complain about how the Koran was handled because they viewed it as a cause to rally around" and one that would get the attention of the camp's authorities.

Mr. Jaffer of the A.C.L.U. said the errors in the Newsweek report had been improperly used to discredit other information about abusive practices at Guantanamo "that were not based on anonymous sources, but government documents, reports written by F.B.I. agents."

The new documents and 30,000 pages previously released were disclosed as part of a suit brought by the A.C.L.U. and other groups trying to learn whether and what kinds of coercive tactics were used at Guantanamo.

The earlier release of reports in which bureau agents recounted witnessing harsh interrogations resulted in an investigation by an Air Force general of interrogation practices. That report, which was completed at the end of March, has not yet been released by the Pentagon.


The actual documents can be viewed here:

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/2005_alerts/etn_0519_det.htm

You cant stick this in the same thread?


Besides, this begs the question.  Its not whether the story could have been or is true, it is whether Isikoff had a proper source and researched the story before printing it.  He retracted the story, so I guess not.  The press needs to take more care then that.  Regardless, stating that your source is a government official rather than allegations by prisoners is much different.  On the one hand, you have someone that may be a credible source telling the story as if he had first hand knowledge of the story.  On the other hand, you have prisoners making allegations about something which has far less merit and looks not quite as bad as an affirmation by a government official that this was happening.

There is a difference, but no matter what, you continue push your anti-Bush anti-anything to do with the war on terror agenda.  You apply different standards of proof depending who the allegations are against.  Why you would back this guys recklessness in printing his story is beyond me.  Certianly you want more credible things printed by the press, or at least to know the true sources of where they got such info. 

The U.S govt. released a press statement stating that 13 incidences of desecration of the koran had reportedly taken place, but none with "credible evidence" right...

It seems the US soldiers aren't theology and socially educated enough to even imagine the consequences these actions will have.

Excuse me what's to come, but because of a few cunts, the whole US is going to be at an extremely high risk.

some of this is extremely exaggerated, I read in the Paper today that 2 guys are charged simply cause they set the Koran on top of a TV.

now if that is desecrating it that is just fuckin dumb.

how is sitting it on a TV desecrating it?


if they flushed it down the toilet maybe they were just outta toilet paper?

Call me an ignorant American but I could care less to be honest. If someone burns a bible or flushes it, I dont care.

I think anyone who would murder over something like this are insane individuals.

They are nutty over there yes.

Don't let the point get lost bro.

The point was this: Newsweek is being blamed for running a false story that caused violence. This has been reported for a while now, not just from newsweek. Newsweek are a bunch of pussies and retract the story, while never calling it false.

So let me ask: We rub shit on these guys, kick the living shit out of them, kill them, sexually assault them, make them jerk off in public, and take pictures of it.  Do you think we wouldn't do the Koran thing? Get real.

Bush condons abuse to get info from these guys. People like Nighttrain claim that these people are not covered under the GC and that this type of torture is ok (although he'd deny the Koran flushing bit til the end).

Domestically, the administration is denying these people due process because they claim they are POWs - internationally, they deny these people have no rights under the Geneva Convention, because they are criminals. Which one is it? Care to answer that?

Why do they act in such a way about the Koran?

Why do people get so pissed here when I question the intentions of the USA government?

Different cultures.

I dont condone the prisoner abuse at all but when they get upset over someone setting a Koran on a television set, I mean thats a little extreme and kind of shows how insane these people are.

Im not denying it happened, although I have yet to see a credible source say it has happend, but I think that is besides the point of this anyway. ?As you are quick to place all of the blame on the administration on everything, I was bringing up the argument that the press also has a responsibility to get their stories right and make sure they have credible sources. ?That was not done here, yet you evade the main point of the story and my argument by trying to point to faults by this administration.

How can you call them insane?  Its all relative.  They think we are insane :hihi: :hihi:

Strange enough I think that you avoid the faults (which are greater by all means) of this administration by pointing to this newsweek bullshit.

Look how insane people act here over sports.....for Christ's sake! Or around the world for that matter.

Look how anti-abortion protestors act out.

Look how bible thumpers acted when they took the 10 commandments down out of that courthouse (they went nuts).

That region has been plagued with violence and instability forever. It doesn't take much to set them off to begin with. I am talking about extremists here...not all Muslims.

Give them a reason to get upset and they will. These are not rational people, think Timothy McVeigh here....These people who kill in the name of God, Allah, whatever...are nuts. You can not find anything rational about their actions.

Believe it or not SLC I am not a fan of GW Bush.  I actually think he is a bad President.  There are a few things that I agreed with him on though (some of the war on terror), and I do think some of the criticism that he gets from the far left is without merit.  If I could vote another person in right now I would.  However, I was not happy with Kerry, and I believe that most of the faults I find in Bush were worse with Kerry (outside of  being a better speaker).

It has nothing about sticking up for the administration.  Im not doing that at all.  Im simply saying that there are those that are quick to print their stories without getting credible sources if it makes the war look bad and this adminstration.  That is not responsible.  It is you that twists everything into a fault of this administration.  You cant criticize anyone else besides this administration.  Until this administration is gone, it is responsible very everything bad in the world in your eyes.

There is much to criticize this administration about, however, by making some of the far-fetched accusations and statements that you make (and by balming everything on it), I believe that you water down the true criticisms that can be made against the Bush administration.

you have me very suspicious.  Is it ok to diss him now and call him a big spending liberal among other things now that he's got his two terms in office? 

Or did you guys get pissed off because he didnt do enough to intervene for Terri Shiavo?  I bet he angered his BASE with that.  Those pesky judges!


Besides immigration, what other criticisms do you have of Bush?  Are you against drilling for oil in Alaska?  How about the shutting down of many military bases all over the nation?

Or how about allegedly erasing history?  :hihi:  http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=788617&page=1

You certainly are sticking up for the bogus cry for war and all the people who created it.

There are no far fetched anything. Only you throwing out the usual and avoiding anything that is presented to you.

I would think somebody, such as yourself, who considers himself such a scholar, would take more time to ask more questions and become more of an independent thinker.

Guess not.

Fact is the abuse (and jail time for abuse) as occured for sometime now. There have been reports of Koran mistreatment for a couple of years on-going. Newsweek did not rush to print anything other than the truth.

ABC is against Bush.

Just like anybody who speaks out against the prez is blindly "against Bush, and blames him for everything." Ignore the subject matter, ignore the lies, double-talk, etc etc, that isn't the point. The point is that all media that report something bad against the Prez are liberal, and people who don't agree with the president "just hate him."

 ::)

I dont even think you understand my position SLC.  In hindsight I agree that the war might not have been the best decision.  However, hindsight is 20/20.  I think there were reasonable grounds for the decision that Bush and the others made to go to war. 

Of course, you go a step further and call them liars.  There is no evidence for this, and in fact most of the evidence points the opposite way.

You got me there ::)

I actually dont think of myself as much of a scholar.  I ask plenty of question, however, I only draw conclusions based on the facts that I have before me.  You draw inferences based on your politcal bias.  There is a difference.


How funny it is that constantly tell me that I miss the point or dodge the questions, when you have failed to answer my questions over and over about Isikoff and Newsweek.  The source he had was wrong and they now admit that they had no credible information.  Whether it actually existed or not is besides the point.  The fact is, this guy said he had a government source that said this was occuring.  That is far different than saying that this is occuring based on the claims of prisoners.  Which is more believable?  You fail to pay any attention to these distinctions, which may seem minor to you, but are actually pretty big.  Dont you think journalists have a responsibility to get credible sources and state their sources right?  Certainly you believe certain people more than others?  Why do say that because the story might be true, it vindicates him?  That is besides the point, and if you fail to see this then Im not sure where else we can go in our discussion.

Certainly you werent excited about Kerry were you?  But did you vote for him anyway?  That is how I felt about Bush, he was the best of the horrible alternatives in my eyes.  Ill admit he has done a number of things that I have liked, but I certainly wouldnt consider him a great President, and I could make a long list of people I would have voted for over him.

I actually disagree with Congress' handling of the Shiavo matter.  If you want to talk about Judges we can, but I have found there is little interest in talking about the Constitution and Judicial matters on this board.

Well, I probably disagree with you on the role the government should play in our lives.  I do think that our homeland security is an absolute joke.  I also disagree with some of Bush's decisions with foreign aid and his foreign policy in some parts of the world.  In addition, I am against the heavy non-defense spending that we have seen under this administration.  Finally, I think that they have had huge blunders in the war in Iraq.  Of course there is a laundry list of things I would love to see changed, but most of them will never be done under our system.  These are big things, and since I live right next to the border it is the biggest issue I see out there right now.  All of the the spending on the war and security is absolutely worthless with our current border security.  If there was a liberal that ran that I actually believed would do something about the border, I would vote for her or him.  The border issue is important enough for me that I would sacrifice other things, including judicial appointments (which I also think is an extremely important issue).

But you are right, there are things I agree with him on.   

Or how about allegedly erasing history?? :hihi:? http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=788617&page=1

punk - just because you hate this president and are against the war, doesn't make you some sort of "independent thinker". you're just one of millions and millions that feel the same way.

and just because i like this president and think he has done a good job in office doesn't mean i am NOT an independent thinker.

when you make assumptions like that, and constantly throw those types of "i'm better than you statements" out there, you lose all credibilty.


"i actually voted for the war" - j. kerry

hahahaha. fucking hilarious.

Ahhh....the sandman.

Too bad somebody could not sweep you off the stage.

Ignore my posts, rant and rave about what you think I write.

How can you claim to be a thinker, if you don't even read what I write in the first place?

Bottom line: Abuse, including Koran mistreatment as occured. Newsweek recanted because of government pressure.

A true shame for a society that calls itself democratic.

Ironically, I have the feeling if our opponents were to "mistreat" the Bible during interrogations of their own, you wouldn't say a damn thing.

Go figure....

Yet you have no evidence for this. ?So much for your strict scrutiny of stories. ?

You fail to tackle the underlying issue in all of this because you are blinded by what you think otherwise exonerates the Bush administration or the military of such abuse. ?Printing the story as Isikoff did was wrong. ?He cited a source that didnt exist and misled people into thinking that a government official gave him the story. ?The only evidence that you have that this is true is the stories given by prisoners at Guantanamo. ?Thus, he shouldnt have printed the story the way he did. ?If that was the only evidence then he should have said that was his source. ?The accuracy of the story changes depending on the source. ?I dont know why you cant understand this.

Well GNRNightrain, looks like the chips fell and once again you are wrong.


I guess you'll go and claim it's some liberal conspiracy inside the Pentagon now huh?

Just like the liberal coverup that stoppped us from finding WMD over in Iraq.? :hihi:

In all fairness, there were some reports of unintentional abuse, however the fact remains that there was intentional Koran abuse at this camp, and newsweek was only wrong in pulling the story.

Maybe you should be more careful yourself nextime befor running with a story...eh?

My gosh SLC.  If you had read one fucking sentence in any of my posts you would realize that I never said that it didnt happen.  Here are some of the quotes I made in previous posts in this thread:





Just to let you know SLC, this doesnt exonerate Isikoff at all.  Tell me where the report says that they were flushing koran's down the toilette?  Stepping on a koran or kicking one is far different than flushing one down the toilette.  Again, your post does exactly the opposite of what you intended it to do.

I urge you again: re-read my posts slowly so that you can understand my argument.  Just remember, it has less to do with any culpability of the Bush administration and our soldiers, and more to do with responsible journalism.  Of course, after reading some of the articles that you have posted over the past year or two Im not sure really care about the latter. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060201750.html

Here is an editorial you should read on this.? Here are some of my favorite parts:

"In March the Navy inspector general reported that, out of about 24,000 interrogations at Guantanamo, there were seven confirmed cases of abuse, "all of which were relatively minor." In the eyes of history, compared to any other camp in any other war, this is an astonishingly small number. Two of the documented offenses involved "female interrogators who, on their own initiative, touched and spoke to detainees in a sexually suggestive manner." Not exactly the gulag."



"Let's understand what mishandling means. Under the rules the Pentagon later instituted at Guantanamo, proper handling of the Koran means using two hands and wearing gloves when touching it. Which means that if any guard held the Koran with one hand or had neglected to put on gloves, this would be considered mishandling.? On the scale of human crimes, where, say, 10 is the killing of 2,973 innocent people in one day and 0 is jaywalking, this ranks as perhaps a 0.01."


"Moreover, what were the Korans doing there in the first place? The very possibility of mishandling Korans arose because we gave them to each prisoner. What kind of crazy tolerance is this? Is there any other country that would give a prisoner precisely the religious text that that prisoner and those affiliated with him invoke to justify the slaughter of innocents? If the prisoners had to have reading material, I would have given them the book "Portraits 9/11/01" -- vignettes of the lives of those massacred on Sept. 11."



"Even greater hypocrisy is to be found here at home. Civil libertarians, who have been dogged in making sure that FBI-collected Guantanamo allegations are released to the world, seem exquisitely sensitive to mistreatment of the Koran. A rather selective scrupulousness. When an American puts a crucifix in a jar of urine and places it in a museum, civil libertarians rise immediately to defend it as free speech. And when someone makes a painting of the Virgin Mary, smears it with elephant dung and adorns it with porn, not only is that free speech, it is art -- deserving of taxpayer funding and an ACLU brief supporting the Brooklyn Museum when the mayor freezes its taxpayer subsidy."

For any of you that have ever read Sports Illustrated, this past quote reminded me of the weekly caption: "This Weeks Sign that the Apocalypse is Upon Us"

Yea, I guess the Pentagon has clouded judgment too.

I will ask that the title of this thread be renamed. Possible new names:

Pentagon confirms Newsweek story/Violence continues in Middle east

Newsweek turns out to be right/poster of thread apologizes

Tales from the Pentagon/Good for me to "poop on"

Koran monologes/We're #1, at # 2

Just throwin' some stuff out for ya.

from the Drudge Report:

U.S. details Guantanamo 'mishandling' of Koran
Jun 4, 7:04 AM (ET)

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 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 through a vent onto the Islamic holy book and others in which it was kicked, stepped on and soaked in water.

U.S. Southern Command, responsible for the prison for foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, described five cases of "mishandling" of a Koran by U.S. personnel confirmed by a newly completed military inquiry, officials said in a statement.

In the incident involving urine, which took place this past March, Southern Command said a guard left his observation post, went outside and urinated near an air vent, and "the wind blew his urine through the vent" and into a cell block.

It said a detainee told guards the urine "splashed on him and his Koran." The statement said the detainee was given a new prison uniform and Koran, and that the guard was reprimanded and given duty in which he had no contact with prisoners. Army Capt. John Adams, a spokesman at Guantanamo, said the inquiry deemed the incident "accidental."

Southern Command said a civilian contractor interrogator apologized in July 2003 to a detainee for stepping on his Koran. The interrogator "was later terminated for a pattern of unacceptable behavior, an inability to follow direct guidance and poor leadership," the statement said.

In August 2003, prisoners' Korans became wet when night-shift guards threw water balloons in a cell block, the statement said. In February 2002, guards kicked a prisoner's Koran, it added.

In the fifth confirmed incident of mishandling a Koran, Southern Command said a prisoner in August 2003 complained that "a two-word obscenity" had been written in English in his Koran. Southern Command said it was "possible" a guard had written the words but "equally possible" the prisoner himself had done it. It did not offer an explanation of the detainee's possible motive.

'NEVER CONDONED'

"Mishandling a Koran at Guantanamo Bay is a rare occurrence. Mishandling of a Koran here is never condoned," Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, commander of the Guantanamo prison who headed the inquiry, said in the statement released after business hours on Friday night.

Hood disclosed on May 26 that the inquiry, announced May 11, had turned up five cases of "mishandling of a Koran" by U.S. personnel at Guantanamo, but declined at the time to describe the incidents other than saying they did not involve flushing one down a toilet.

Southern Command launched the inquiry after a May 9 Newsweek article, later retracted by the magazine, that stated U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo had flushed a Koran down a toilet to try to make detainees talk. Violent protests erupted in some Muslim countries following the article's publication and at least 16 people died in rioting in Afghanistan.

In the statement, Hood reiterated that the inquiry found "no credible evidence" that a member of the military joint task force at Guantanamo ever flushed a Koran down a toilet. "The matter is considered closed," Hood stated.

Chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita, in Singapore with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said Southern Command's policy on proper handling of the Koran was "serious, respectful and appropriate. The Hood inquiry would appear to affirm that policy."

Hood said there were four additional incidents of "alleged mishandling" of the Koran that "we cannot determine conclusively if they actually happened." These involved prisoners' complaints that jailers kicked and put a foot on the Koran, threw it into a bag of wet towels, and told a detainee the book "belonged in the toilet."

Hood said the inquiry "reviewed every available detainee record," including a search of 31,000 pages of documents such a day-to-day logs, court papers filed by prisoners and allegations in 38 news articles. But officials said they were aware of only one interview conducted in the inquiry.

The United States holds about 520 detainees at Guantanamo, most caught in Afghanistan, and has classified them "enemy combatants" not entitled to rights given to prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. The high-security prison opened in January 2002 for non-U.S. citizens caught in the U.S. war on terrorism, and many prisoners have been held more than three years without charges.

President Bush and Rumsfeld this week defended Guantanamo from criticism by Amnesty International, which called the jail the "gulag of our times."

(Additional reporting by Carol Giacomo in Singapore)

---

Nightrain you are a sad boy.

You start a thread to point the finger at naughty newsweek for their 'fake story', and their 'rush to take down the white-house'.

But in the end you are reduced to pointing the finger at "Civil libertarians" and what you believe is hyporisy. If that is what you want to talk about, then start another thread.

We are talking about abuse that occured at this camp. Abuse you claimed that newsweek made up to take Bush down. Abuse that the White house denied and then had the gall to cry about.

When it comes to light, you point away and change the subject.

So it appears that Newsweek got the guist of the story correct. We torture these guys, desecrate their religious book, both a violaton of the Geneva Convention, and you still can't give it up. Face it, America is guilty of abuse in this camp. No matter how small a percentage of the gaurds ruin it for the rest, it happened.


(http://tinypic.com/5nj9rb)

I have the feeling if the "opponents" were to mistreat the Bible there would be much more people dead than there is now, most likely bombings, excecutions, and torture would occure, and Mr. Bush would have a thing or two to say. The Americans have constantly mistreated these people ever since the war started and they are only standing up for their rights, there would have been much worse consequences had a Muslim mistreated the Bible.

OK SLC ::)

I posted a story about Newsweek's being irresponsible.  Something you still fail to see.

Actually, in the end you have failed to understand my position after about 10 posts in this thread.  You fail to directly respond to what I say because you find it easier to make-up what you believe my position is.  My position remains the same, and is spelled out in the previous 10 posts I have made on this thread.  I posted the article because I thought it was relevant on the subject.  It also brings forwared the hypocrisy of so-called civil libertarians that have failed to criticize Newseek on this story, but continue to make it look like the US has a torture camp.
 
Dont worry, I wouldnt expect you to respond to any of the substance of the article, expecially the highlighted portions.  Those are things that Im sure you just glance over because it doesnt promote your agenda.

It would be a lot easier if you actually tried to respond to my post.  That way my position is there for people to see.  Instead you just choose to write what you want, and respond to what you want.  In the end you are saying the same thing, and you continue to respond to any of the points that I made.

So I urge you to respond to my last post.  Again, I never said nothing happened at Guantanamo.  However, I thought it was funny that what came out from the Pentagon actually refutes what newseek said.  Flushing Koran's down the toilet is not the same as kicking one.  In addition, it was not a widespread tactic used by the interrogators.  In fact, there were only 7 such claims.  Perhaps two that would really be considered offensive. 

Again, please respond to what I write instead of responding to what you think my position is.

Really, actually I responded directly to your post.  Something that you have failed to do for quite some time.  Again, I never stuff happened.  You just fail to understand the argument.

Is that all they are supposed to do?  Get the gist of the story?  What happened to the strict scrutiny of stories?  In fact, what Newseek said was not true.  Will you at least admit that what has happened is far more mild than Newseek alleged? 

Certainly it has happened.  But look at the numbers.  In addition, look at what constitutes abuse.  And I ask you this: Is there any other country that would give a prisoner precisely the religious text that that prisoner and those affiliated with him invoke to justify the slaughter of innocents?


Please answer my previous posts instead of making up my position.  At least that way it is there for others to see that you are misreading my position.

"proving newsweek's story to be true"???

the shit you post is so crazy i don't know if you're joking or you just can't read.

am i missing something here???

the report says that the koran was NOT put in a toilet.

newsweek not only said that it was put in a toilet, but that it was done purposely while questioning detainees to force them to talk.

the pentagon found a few "mishandlings" of the koran, which were all basically accidents, AND primarily based on the what detainees reported (when they are TRAINED to make up shit against jailers.....it's in their manuals!).

if anything, this is a positive for the pentagon because it shows 2 things:

1. that they do monitor ALL inproper actions by prison guards (no matter how minor).

AND

2. they reprimand these guards for these minor actions (even before public pressure builds)

Is that right? ?You do realize that it is illegal to be a Christian in Saudi Arabia? ?They burn the bible all of the time. ?In additon, in Bosnia there have been burnings of christian churches by Islamic militants. ?Moreover, there is basically a Holocaust of Christians in Sudan. ?If you are right, how come we fail to do anything about this stuff?

and another point.....the press plays a very important role in our society. citizens should be able to depend on them to deliver FACTS.

but when something like this happens (on the heels of the CBS scandal), the public loses trust in the media. and that defeats the whole purpose of the system. and that is sad. ?

I never thought the day would come when I'd find someone more clueless than SLCPUNK....

Whatever makes you guys feel better about yourself.

Pentagon has reported abuse of the Koran.

It's all over the news now.

Point away, change subjects, attack the author, I don't care.

It's business as usual.

Denial is something you guys used to at this point (see: WMD was why we went to war).

********

Jamie, ignore personal attacks, they are a sign of somebody holding no cards.

slcpunk - we're just analyzing the facts. without any spin. it's not about anyone feeling better about ourselves.

and the fact remains that your suggested change in the title of this thread ("newsweek turns out to be right"), simply is NOT true.

i'm not sure why it's so hard for you to admit you're wrong.

About the story causing protest and violence.

My question(s) is, why aren't these same muslims standing up to the Jihadist for the mass killings of their fellow muslims? Why aren't they out on the streets protesting and fighting back on that cause? They seem to care more about what Americans do to a book then what the Jihadist are doing to their religion and religious sisiters and brothers.

Is this another example of how humans are so 'in vain' over materialistic items of this world?

Because George W cares about noone but his own, if they were American Christains he'd be right on it. He cares about America and America only, that is one of the main reasons I hate him so much, he's the leader of the world's most powerful country and that's all he cares about. The world's most powerful country, if they were bibles owned by Americans or a church used by Americans there would be immediate action.

I never thought the day would come when I'd find someone stuck further up Bush's ass than Tony Blair.