Newsweek Story Causes Violence in Afghanistan

[Will]

Nice source Nightrain!

[GnRNightrain]

Nice source Nightrain!

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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

[GnRNightrain]

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. 

[Genesis]

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...

[Jessica]

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.

[D]

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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.

[D]

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.

[GnRNightrain]

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).

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.

[GnRNightrain]

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.

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

[SLCPUNK]

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).

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.

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

[SLCPUNK]

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.

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.

[GnRNightrain]

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).

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.

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

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.

[Doc Emmett Brown]

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?    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=788617&page=1

[SLCPUNK]

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).

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.

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

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 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.

[SLCPUNK]

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?? ? http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=788617&page=1

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."

 

[GnRNightrain]

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

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.

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

You got me there

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.

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.

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.

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.

[GnRNightrain]

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??

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.

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!

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.

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?

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?? ? http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=788617&page=1

[sandman]

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.