POL - uh oh, they did flush it!? everyone to the embassies!!!
 

im telling you, it aint the reporters fault....its the flusher's fault.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/guantanamo_quran

FBI Records Cite Quran Abuse Allegations

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 16 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay prison told U.S. interrogators as early as April 2002, just four months after the first detainees arrived, that military guards abused them and desecrated the Quran, declassified
FBI records say.
ADVERTISEMENT

"Their behavior is bad," one detainee is quoted as saying of his guards during an interrogation by an FBI special agent in July 2002. "About five months ago the guards beat the detainees. They flushed a Quran in the toilet."

The statements about guards disrespecting the Quran echo public allegations made many months later by some detainees and their lawyers after prisoners' release from Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The once-secret FBI documents show a consistency to the allegations and are the first indication that Justice and Defense department officials were aware in early 2002 that detainees were accusing their guards of mistreating the holy book.

Separately on Wednesday, Amnesty International urged the United States to shut down the prison, calling it "the gulag of our time." White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the human rights group's complaints were "unsupported by the facts" and that allegations of mistreatment were being investigated.

In its annual report, Amnesty accused the United States of failing to live up to its responsibility to set the standard for human rights protections. Rather, the group said the United States has been the biggest disappointment "after evidence came to light that the U.S. administration had sanctioned interrogation techniques that violated the U.N. Convention against Torture."

Some 540 men are being held at Guantanamo Bay on suspicion of links to
Afghanistan's ousted Taliban government or the al-Qaida terror network. Some have been jailed for more than three years without charge. The Defense Department argues that the detention prevents these enemy combatants from fighting against the United States.

Pentagon officials have said recently that the public claims by released detainees were not credible and that the terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay had been trained to make such false claims.

Indeed, the FBI records cite at least one instance in which a detainee is said to have falsely claimed that a guard had dropped a Quran. "In actuality the detainee dropped the Quran and then blamed the guard. Many other detainees reacted to this claim," the FBI document said, and that sparked an uprising "on or about 19-20 July 2002."

In an April 6, 2002, FBI interrogation, one of the detainees said guards had been "pushing them around and throwing their waste bucket at them in the cell, sometimes with waste still in the bucket, and kicking the Quran."

Another detainee stated that he had been beaten unconscious at Guantanamo Bay in the spring of 2002, a period in which U.S. interrogators were pressing hard for intelligence information they believed some of the detainees held on the planning, structure and tactics of
Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network.

The newly released FBI records do not indicate whether the allegations were investigated or substantiated.

In response to a recent Newsweek story, later retracted, that U.S. officials had confirmed allegations of Quran desecration at Guantanamo Bay, Pentagon officials have said repeatedly that they have turned up no credible, substantiated claims that U.S. military guards had deliberately treated the Muslim holy book with disrespect.

Pentagon officials had no immediate comment on the new FBI documents, which were made public Wednesday by the
American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU said it received them in response to a federal court order that directed the FBI and other agencies to comply with the organization's request under the Freedom of Information Act.

In many of the interrogations described in the FBI documents, military officers were present. Some were with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations; others were Navy and Army investigations personnel.

Large portions of the interrogation summaries were blacked out by FBI censors before being released to the ACLU.

U.S. Southern Command, which is responsible for the Guantanamo Bay detention center, responded to the Newsweek story by beginning a review of written logs searching for corroborated incidents of Quran mishandling. As of Wednesday, officials had not reported finding any.

In January 2003, the military issued a three-page written guideline for handling a detainee's Quran, including a stipulation that it should be handled "as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art," and that it not be placed in "offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet or dirty/wet areas."

ACLU officials said the newly declassified documents provide new evidence that U.S. authorities at Guantanamo Bay were mistreating symbols of the detainees' religious beliefs as a tactic to force them to talk.

"The United States government continues to turn a blind eye to mounting evidence of widespread abuse of detainees held in its custody," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "If we are to truly repair America's standing in the world, the Bush administration must hold accountable high-ranking officials who allow the continuing abuse and torture of detainees."

In what way do the first two parts back up the ACLU's claim? Your article quotes at least one instance of a detainee actively lying and using a false desecration claim to stir up the others.

It's unfortunate, but I'm not sure who to believe in this one. One of the initial documents I read said that one of the detainees was doing it himself to cause some kind of uprising. When the guards arrived and saw what he was doing to the Quran the guards had to get him to admit to the other detainees that it was, in fact, the detainee doing it.

We all know we're between a rock and a hard place with this and the detainees know it. They can say Guard A did B to his Quran and the prisoners and the world go apesh*t, whether it occurred or not. I'm not saying none of this occurred - obviously where there's smoke there's fire.

Well, the article above says:

Yeah, sorry for that re-hashing. I knew I had read that a few days ago and admittedly only gave the initial post a cursory glance.

you'll see.....same as all the other things that come out in the wash (abu, Delay, humvee armor, etc.)

I speak as a veteran, and one with some training in interrogation techniques. I have two reactions to this and various other allegations.

First, I think much of this is overblown. The techniques described in the Abu Ghraib scandal, and these allegations here, all go against not just military doctrine, but what is scientifically understood as effective interrogation techniques (to the best of my knowledge, anyway).

On the other hand, it seems clear that there is much going on that is wrong. The honor of my service, and my loyalty to my country makes this a painful thing to read about. Rumsfeld, the JCS, and the other civil leaders of the services should make the reputation of the American military an absolute priority.

The US military is like an offensive line. We can do our job a million times over, and do it superbly, but nobody notices. but it just takes one penalty or sack allowed to "prove" we are the scum of the Earth. Comes with the territory. And in this case, it doesn't even require proof anymore, just get some anti-American foreign fighter to say so and the press will print just how bad our military is.

I like this analogy. The military IS like an offensive line, to a point.

What many folks are saying is that the GM and/or coaching staff need to be replaced, because they're taking a Super Bowl worthy team and leading it to a losing season with a lot of costly injuries.

I like the football analogy.

As far as the media, they have a job to do, but on the other hand, how many journalists actually have any military experience? I bet most of them don't have a clue about military culture.

I see it differently but admittedly am no more an expert with that opinion than you are.

Speak of the devil, top Yahoo! News Story right now.

Amnesty: Guantanamo 'the gulag of our time'
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/human_rights

I would agree that you are not more of an expert than I am. ;)

I was saying that humbly as someone who has spent 3 years of my life directly supporting operations in Iraq before, during, and after the war. While I lack any formal training from Berkely, I do know a thing or two about our military works in this "War on Terror". :)

I know. My winking smiley was intended to share one of those brief moments of joshing before the resumption of hostilities. ;)

That's what my smiley was for. Fire at will in.....3.....2.....1..... :)

because Amnesty international is so biased?

I calll BS. You laud them in their grilling of China when the time comes but now the hammer us in a report and theyre "unimportant".

Ill say my line again: This shit is easy.

From the top to the bottom instill a requirement that nothing less then perfection and moral code will be accepted. It will take years to eventually change the atmosphere but the military will be better in the end.

I think you're wrong about that. The atmosphere in the military is fine; I think what you're seeing is the combination of some insane policies (detaining people indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay, for example) which lead to troops making bad decisions and a hostile press.

(Speaking in the most general terms, of course.)

this didn't get any press that I know of, but I found it very interesting. ABC News White House Correspondent Terry Moran was on the Hugh Hewitt radio program last week, and made a pretty interesting comment, something to the effect of "the media is deeply anti-military." He said it's basically been that way since Vietnam.

here's a link to a blog post with an mp3 of Moran's comment.

hxxp://www.radioblogger.com/#000704

This AP story (and to a lesser extent the story about Amnesty International) are pretty good examples of how that bias can manifest itself. The headline for the first story reads "FBI Records Cite Quran Abuse Allegations", but a more accurate headline would be "FBI Records Cite Questionable Quran Abuse Allegations". The information that the FBI had deemed at least one of these cases to be fraudulent doesn't come until paragraph seven of the story.

I'm firmly of the opinion that certain members of the press are incredibly pissed off that Newsweek retracted its story. Witness the confrontation between Scott McClellan and Elizabeth Bumiller of the NYTimes and Terry Moran of ABC News ("Who made you editor of Newsweek?"). So there will be lots of stories that boil down to "detainees allege abuse" in hopes of getting people to forget that Newsweek's report was "for the first time the U.S..government has confirmed allegations of abuse of the Quran".

I don't think all of this has to do with bias, honestly. I think there are a lot of reporters out there who are more than a little annoyed/ticked off at blogs and all the attention they can focus on a particular story. I think this is also a bit of a pissing contest towards the bloggers, to show that the media still have the power when it comes to disseminating information (which is true, btw. I saw a survey last week that said 1 in 10 Americans read a blog, yet 8 in 10 reporters read blogs. I think the reporters are vastly overestimating the importance of bloggers... at least for the time being).

If the media wants to dig deep enough, can they find instances where our soldiers have done wrong? I'm sure they can. But I've yet to see the story that makes me think those who are targeting civilians with car bombs and proclaiming that fellow Muslims are acceptable targets are somehow better than our men and women in uniform. I refuse to be anything but grateful to those who wear the uniform and serve this country.

Dude, I'm talking about the dog-pile on the military, not about Amnesty Intl.

However, what is the point of that organization?

of course, part of that "left wing conspiracy" the right sells to create a WWE mentality. It is a brilliant tactic used in the "Gay Marriage" talk days before the election to mobilize the churches to vote, etc. Brilliant, in that ALL news is lefty (ignoring of course Clear channel, Fox News, etc.) and trying to bring down the right. NO ONE EVER went after Clinton. It's garbage BUT genius.

Puh-Lease. When the media has a single shred of evidence that someone in Gitmo has ACTUALLY defaced a Quran, then maybe they've got a story. All they are doing right now is fishing in the hopes they'll find something.

Present some evidence, I'll change my mind in a heartbeat. But all these allegations are just getting ridiculous.

report human rights abuses worldwide unbiasedly.

http://www.amnesty.org/

its right there in their tagline.

I think you nailed it on the head. All the news is slant-left except for FoxNews. Better?

dude, what are you talking about? The White House correspondent for ABC News (a guy who spent three weeks in Iraq as a reporter, btw) says the media is "deeply anti-military". I'm saying I agree with that assessment, but believe there's more to these stories than simple liberal bias.

All of a sudden it's back to the old canard of "Fox News and Clear Channel"?

BTW, where's the love for Clear Channel now that they've started flipping some of their stations to Air America? I've seen a lot of liberals over the past couple of years refer to CC as if it were the devil incarnate, however now that they've proven themselves to simply be a business out to make money I have yet to see you or others give them any credit for putting liberals on the air in markets where they believe they can make money.

(sorry for the ranting. this is the first evening in several weeks where I haven't been holding a baby and can actually respond to threads. I fear I have diarrhea of the keyboard tonight)

This, as Cronin pointed out, is about those creating policy. Call it coercive or call it torture, but interrogation techniques are remarkably similar from Afghanistan to Iraq to Guantanamo. These things aren't happening by accident or by a few 'bad apples'. The Gonzales torture memo, 'extraordinary rendition', reports from commanders being used to suggest interrogation techniques in other theatres and soldiers acused of wrongdoing in Afghanistan being transferred to Iraq all stem from the same problem.

Calling for an end to techniques that are scientifically proven not to be beneficial and that certainly harm or efforts in the Arab world isn't anti-military. We are putting enlisted men in impossible positions and then hanging them out to dry when the system gets exposed. We need an entire readjustment to our interrogation methods.

At the end of the day our PR in the Muslim world is extremely important. Look at the difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan. In Vietnam the people generally didn't trust us and in Afghanistan they did. Its no coincidence that we lost Vietnam and kicked the shit out of the Russians in Afghanistan.

Cam: Clear Channel still sucks whether they are right-wing, left-wing or format-country/rock. What I don't like is the lack of local identity in big business radio, TV and newspapers.

Why is that there's always somebody here better able to articulate my own position than myself? :mad:

right, its not true, of course, but the salesmanship is perfect and many believe it so you get this "victimization" of the right rant. Christians are starting to use this same salesmanship to try to push through their thoughts in the congress and courts. Again, of course, not true but brilliant.

Clear Channel should get Kudos for carrying the ONLY admittedly left channel...shoot most of you thought the channel would be dead by now (remember I was right on that one too).

The Right needs to be careful of the push back of the Religious right. They have been exposed since the republican senators stood up against Frist and now the RR wants their heads. The Republicans are not a bad party....they've simply been hijacked by a group who will stomp on anyone and anything to paint america the way they want....

but i digress, IMO, the "victimization" is all smoke and mirrors and Like Most all of the journalism stories that the White House doesnt want coming out (exposure of the CIA agent, Abu Gharaib, etc.) will and have some truth in them.

Ia gree with the sentiment. Image is important and the hidden policies get exposed and then make our jobs ten times harder.

From Amnesty International
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510632005

Woah! They are unbiased, check out that last quotable! Hell yeah! Amnesty International rocks!

Flasch, Da Nile just ain't a river in Egypt.

I CALL BS...Again Salesmanship to the uneducated!!!


this about China:

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/chn-180505-action-eng

this about Mexico:

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/mex-090505-action-eng

this about Syria:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE240292005


and there are tons of articles about other countries.

It is unbiased....shock that someone unbiased might not think we do everything great. Perhaps we're doing exactly what we tell other countries not to do :eek: We (left) are just saying "if youre going to run around the world setting a high moral benchmark - GREAT - just live up to it yourselves."

What makes you think anything would be different "in the Muslim world" regardless of how the US actually acts? When the top stories after 9-11 in the "muslim media" talk about a Jewish conspiracy and how the US actually warned "zionists" in the trade towers and not muslims the attack was coming - what makes you think they would report anything the US did with any sort of accuracy.

The US should stick to its principles because of our own ideals and what we represent to each other. Doing so "to get good PR from the world" would be a losing effort regardless of our actions. We could save millions of Muslims from a WMD attack in Iraq and the headline in Al Jazera would be about how the US nearly allowed muslims to be slaughtered.

During the lead-up to the Iraq war, the top stories in the American media were about all the WMD's that Iraq had and their ties to Al-Q. Does that mean that you feel that Americans are equally gullible and beyond hope? The muslim world doesn't hate us because they are ignorant. They hate us because we are assholes to them.

Minor followup:

http://www.thedigitalcourier.com/art...ews/news01.txt

Arles: One thing I know is that if we weren't abusing detainees there wouldn't be pictures of us abusing detainees splashed all over every newspaper in the world. Will we suddenly get nothing but glowing press reports, no, but you're crazy if you think we shouldn't try to improve our image in the Muslim world. We can't win this fight with guns alone, we don't have enough soldiers to kill them all.

A good analogy, but let me extend it further. You're also like the offensive line that when one player makes a mistake, the other is liable to try to cover for it, and then deny the mistake ever occured in the first place.

You realize that perhaps, god forbid, they pick on everyone they think of as human rights abusers ? Instead of complaining "bias" or what-not - at some point, look at the allegations in question. What exactly is untrue there ?

Three weeks in Iraq? The New York Times, that bastion of left-wing reporting ( :rolleyes: ), has a number of reporters who are over there for months at a time. The BBC, an organization the Right also hates, has correspondents who basically live there. NPR has reporters over there for months.

The New York Times has a reporter who recently rode in an Armored Personnel Carrier with Marines, stepped out momentarily to talk with other members of the unit, and then watched as the APC was shredded by a land mine.


1. I think the idea that the media, as a whole, or even the corpus of major news outlets, are anti-military is ludicrous and this idea only exists to give you Right Wingers someone to blame for the war instead of yourselves.

2. Using Terry Moran, who's basically a Washington desk jockey, as your source for this idea is pathetic.

I like how everyone's conveniently forgotten that Rumsfeld has said that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Therefore, technically anything is in bounds with regard to interrogation techniques at that facility. This doesn't necessarily strengthen the case that those interrogations are conducted using above-board techniques.

You're right, of course. Using the words of a guy who's both been in Iraq and reported from the White House is pathetic. I'm sorry I even brought it up. :rolleyes:

And I'm not "blaming the war" on the media. I'm not blaming the war on anyone. I'm blaming the media in this specific instance for failing to properly cover this story.

Go read the FBI reports (found at hxxp://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/052505/). The amazing thing to me is the urban legend aspects of Quran abuse. It never happens to individual detainees, it's always along the lines of:
Again, NONE of these incidents of Quran abuse has been confirmed. And the fact that the FBI has even investigated this should be something that the Left is cheering. But something tells me that, as with Clear Channel flipping stations to Air America, that'll be ignored in favor of continued bashing of "the evil conservatives".

That's a very good point. Despite the insane policies Rumsfeld and others have put in place, military interrogations are still mostly conducted by bright, honorable americans, and the media's willingness to assume the worst of them is troubling, but not neccesarily convincing.

All I can say is that Haliburtan makes an awesome toilet to be able to flush the Koran. I have a hard time just flushing jahova witness pamplets.

Are you kidding!! you (right) ignore a ton of stuff or say it's slanted, or spin it, or say it should be hidden, :

9/11 report
Interrogation methods memo
Gitmo vs. Geneva Conventions
Pictures of coffins
blacked out portions of reports re: Saudi Arabia
budget #'s re: the war in Iraq

from small to big, the right loves the censorship...why wouldn't they? It helps keep the masses in the dark, so the majority can do whatever they want...the problem is : Thats not What DEMOCRACY is all about. In a democracy a Free Press is a cornerstone.


C'mon....all you righties are salesman in the WWE, selling the victimization of the Right.

Here is a list of misleading or hiding stuff - this is a slanted website but the point is that anyone can get any info. they want...the right just chooses to sell their victimization to get the support of those on the fence who root for underdogs. Brilliant (the Religious Right could help this backfire on them) but dark in morality.

http://misleader.org/daily_mislead/a....asp?more=true

Flasch, no offense, but having you lecture me on the 1st Amendment is like having Michael Moore giving me instructions on healthy eating.

The right and the left are both equally insane and full of shit. If you sympathize with the left, then the right appears to be more outrageous. If you sympathize with the right, then the left appears to be more outrageous. But 90% of what both Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh say is totally worthless shit. Now, can we move on?

Liberal!!!!

I mean, welcome to the conservative family!

I mean... hmm. Wait a second.

You don't mean to tell me you're one of those people who look at an individual issue and then decides what their opinion will be, rather than march in lockstep with an ideology, are you? :D

I don't know, it kind of sounds like that when you say stuff like this:

are you kidding again?! Im the liberal asshat :) Im for free speech, and more of it.

PLUS

I can freely admit when I agree with the right (Minor's and abortion, etc.)

The Muslim world hates the United States because they are oppressed, and their own governments need an enemy to focus their unwashed masses on, less the people rise up and change the status quo.

As for us being Assholes to them..Yes we were assholes in the Balkans, Kosovo, Somalia, and Kuwait. Or wait does that mean that pretty much every millitary intercession we made in the nineties was done to aid muslim peoples?

The most brilliant thing is having everyone talk about the supposed flushing incidents and ignore the beatings to death that we administer.

That is completely incorrect, and a little racist to assume that all Muslims are ignorant fools. Sure, there is oppression in places and there is no shortage of ignorance, but the same can be said for many places in our own country. The big cities in the middle east can be very urbane, educated, sophisticated places. Yet they still hate us. Why do you think that is? Because the west has been coming and trying to oppress them since the Crusades. Just in this century, there was the British in Iraq, the taking of their land and giving it to the Jews, our assistence to Iraq in the '80's, our invading of Iraq on two occassions, our propping up of dictatorships in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Qatar and UEA etc. Taken all together, there is a lot for educated people to hate about us. The dictators there do not create anti-West sentiment, we do enough of that ourselves. They just stoke it, same as do politicians in this country. Gay hatred has always existed, the politicians just stoke it. It would be a mistake to say that politicians caused people to hate gays.

I think the reasons for 'Muslim rage' towards the west/U.S. are widely misunderstood, but I don't believe it's as simple as any of you are suggesting.

Nope...please keep in mind:

MANY of us LEfties were for the war in Iraq, and the one's you listed above. It is how we behave during and after that is what the issue(s) is.

SEE THIS CLEARLY, ive said it before but you Righties just dont seem to grasp it so here it is AGAIN:

If we ride in on a MORAL high horse (which we should) then we NEED to BEHAVE according to the standards that we are trying to set.

THATS IT, if we would do (have done) this, things will be much better for us now and in the future.




This shit is easy!!! raise your expectations.

You do not have to lie to be bias. It's called cherry-picking.

If conditions are so great in places like Guantánamo and Bagram, are you in favor of having the same conditions at prisons in the United States? If not, why not? If so, what other amendments in the bill of rights do you think should be repealed?

From today's Wash Post

Inquiry by U.S. Finds 5 Cases of Koran Harm

E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Reprints


By THOM SHANKER
Published: May 27, 2005
WASHINGTON, May 26 - An American military inquiry has uncovered five instances in which guards or interrogators at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility in Cuba mishandled the Koran, but found "no credible evidence" to substantiate claims that it was ever flushed down a toilet, the chief of the investigation said on Thursday.

Skip to next paragraph

Jay W. Hood
Brig. Gen. Jay W. Hood discussed preliminary findings of an inquiry into instances of possible desecration of the Koran at Guantánamo Bay.


Documents Say Detainees Cited Koran Abuse (May 26, 2005) All but one of the five incidents appear to have taken place before January 2003. In three cases, the mishandling of the Koran appears to have been deliberate, and in two it was accidental or unintentional, the commander said, adding that four cases involved guards, and one an interrogator. Two service members have been punished for their conduct, one recently.

In announcing preliminary findings of his investigation, which began about two weeks ago, Brig. Gen. Jay W. Hood, commander of the Guantánamo Joint Task Force, said the Koran mishandling did not occur as part of any effort to demoralize or intimidate detainees for interrogation.

But General Hood declined to give further details until he had completed the investigation, which was started after Newsweek magazine published an article asserting that a separate investigation by the military was expected to find that a Koran had been flushed down a toilet at the detention center. The article, which the magazine subsequently retracted, prompted violence in the Muslim world that claimed at least 17 lives.

"I'd like you to know that we have found no credible evidence that a member of the Joint Task Force at Guantánamo Bay ever flushed a Koran down a toilet," General Hood said in a Pentagon news briefing.

He said that his investigators conducted a new interview with one detainee who had been quoted in F.B.I. documents that were released Wednesday as having said under interrogation in 2002 that guards flushed a Koran down a toilet.

In the new interview, conducted on May 14 as part of General Hood's investigation, the detainee said he was not a witness to any Koran abuse.

General Hood said his investigators asked the detainee whether he personally had seen any incidents of Koran abuse, "and he allowed as how he hadn't, but he had heard guards - that guards at some other point in time had done this."

The general said he could offer no explanation for any contradiction between the detainee's statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in July 2002 and the interview conducted by his team on May 14.

Investigators never asked the detainee specifically about a Koran flushed down a toilet, General Hood said, nor did they mention his previous statements under interrogation, "but he was asked about defiling, desecration, mistreatment of the Koran."

It was not clear whether the military had also reinterviewed other inmates who are known, through the interrogation reports that were released on Wednesday, to have reported other instances of mishandling the Koran. General Hood did not say how many people, or whom, his team has questioned.

The five instances in which the Koran was mishandled, General Hood said, were among 13 cases investigated in the past two weeks.

"None of these five incidents was a result of a failure to follow standard operating procedures in place at the time the incident occurred," General Hood said.

But he added that in the initial months after the Guantánamo prison was set up, and until early 2003, there were not explicit, written rules about the Koran. And he said one incident concerned the breaking of another, unspecified rule, rather than the prison's standard operating procedures.

The investigation also explored six more accusations of Koran abuse involving guards. In each of those instances, General Hood said, the guard "either accidentally touched the Koran, touched it within the scope of his duties, or did not actually touch the Koran at all."

Military policy acknowledges that some Muslims view a non-Muslim touching the Koran as a desecration.

In two other instances of the 13 that were investigated, interrogators either touched a Koran or stood over the Islamic holy book during an interrogation, General Hood said.

Neither instance is being termed Koran mishandling: One involved placing two Korans on a television, General Hood said, and in the second the Koran was not touched, and the perceived insult was unintentional.

"We've also identified 15 incidents where detainees mishandled or inappropriately treated the Koran, one of which was, of course, the specific example of a detainee who ripped pages out of their own Koran," the general added.

He appeared to be referring to a report cited repeatedly by Pentagon officials, including Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that a detainee had torn pages out of a Koran and used them to stop up a toilet, perhaps in protest of his treatment.

The abuse of detainees, especially at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, has embarrassed the military and the Bush administration and created a political challenge as they defend the campaign against global terrorism against accusations that it is anti-Islam.

"We're in an environment where people react to impressions," Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon spokesman, said at the news conference Thursday about Guantánamo.

"And so what we're trying to make sure people understand is that the impression they ought to have is that the guards, the interrogators, the command down there have been extraordinarily cautious, and yet there have been instances where inadvertent mishandling has occurred or other types of mishandling," Mr. Di Rita added.

General Hood's inquiry is expected to be completed in advance of a wider investigation into contentions of prisoner mistreatment at Guantánamo. That broader report could be even more critical of the military because it is based on statements from F.B.I. agents - not detainees, whose credibility can be challenged - who say they observed abusive and possibly illegal treatment of detainees.

"I want to assure you that we are committed to respecting the cultural dignity of the Koran and the detainees' practice of faith," General Hood said. "Every effort has been made to provide religious articles associated with the Islamic faith, accommodate prayers and religious periods, and provide culturally acceptable meals and practices."

For the inquiry into Koran abuse, investigators reviewed three years' worth of records and 31,000 documents, both electronic files and on paper, the general said.

General Hood said he was confident that "guidance to the guard force for handling the Koran is adequate" at Guantánamo - at least the procedures for handling the Koran ordered in January 2003.

But he acknowledged "that there was a significant period of time at the very beginning of operations in Guantánamo, in which there were not written guidelines" governing how to handle a Koran.

Did you actually have a question or were you just painting? :)

As Cam cited earlier:
IMO, the moment detainees started to smuggled items in via the Koran (as was stated in an earlier investigation) they lost the right to complain when guards "handled" the Koran to verify there was no illegal contraband inside its pages. The safety of the guards and the other inmates needs to be the primary concern in these cases.

Arles: Agreed, but the real meat of the story is:

In three cases, the mishandling of the Koran appears to have been deliberate, and in two it was accidental or unintentional, the commander said, adding that four cases involved guards, and one an interrogator.

There was deliberate mishandling of the Koran although it appears that when written guidelines were put in place the practice has all but stopped at Gitmo.

Of course this does nothing to answer allegations regarding othr religious abuse, but its at least a start.

And here we have Pentagon hack Larry Di Rita just last week:

Q: Larry, just to be clear, there have been numerous allegations by detainees who have been released --

MR. DI RITA: Mm-hmm.

Q : -- by attorneys who have talked to detainees, alleging mistreatment of the Koran, including instances where it was supposedly thrown into a toilet. Are you saying that none of those allegations were credible, and that none of them have -- have any of them been investigated, and were any substantiated?

MR. DI RITA: We've found nothing that would substantiate precisely -- anything that you just said about the treatment of a Koran. We have -- other than what we've seen, that it's possible detainees themselves have done with pages of the Koran -- and I don't want to overstate that either because it's based on log entries that have to be corroborated... When we have received specific, credible allegations -- and typically that's not what we see when we see a lawyer speaking on Al- Jazeera -- but when a specific, credible allegation of this nature were to be received, we would take it quite seriously. But we've not seen specific, credible allegations.

Bullshit. At that point they were investigating thirteen allegations and had already disciplined a soldier. They'll say anything to beat the drum of liberal bias.

Here's my favorite bit:


In other words, the guards/interrogators at Gitmo are being more respectful of the Koran than the actual detainees!

Am I missing this point? I don't see Cam saying the media started the war in Iraq anywhere in the quote you reference. In fact, his quote seems to say exactly what he says it says.

dola...

Maybe I'm out of touch here, but I don't see what the big deal about mishandling the Koran is. So it's a holy book. Big whoop. If it came out that [insert national enemy here] was flushing Bibles down the toilet, I can't say that would disturb me much. Sure, I'd be thinking what's that idiot trying to prove exactly?, but I wouldn't be leading riots in the street.

So I guess my question is: what's different about how Muslims view the artifact of a Koran (rather than merely its spiritual content) that I may not be understanding here?

You are my hero. Amazing that this incredibly simple concept gets (ahem) flushed down the toilet by so many people who just want to pick a side and fight for it no matter what it does.

I am puzzled by this as well. It's why my initial reaction to the stories connecting the riots to the Koran abuses was 'you've got to be joking.' I remain skeptical - I suspect it's not really seen as that big a deal even in Muslim countries. Al-jazeera didn't even pick the story up until AFTER Newsweek retracted (iirc - at any rate there was a delay between it being news here, and being news in the Middle East).

From the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051601320.html

Excerpted:


We don't handle our national flag with that kind of reverence. I'm still looking for links on the proper way Islam dictates that the Koran should be handled. If the violation comes down to simply non-Muslims handling the Muslim holy book at all, I'm going to be disappointed.

Closer, but not happy yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koran#T...slamic_culture

And it appears that the "deaths" from the riots in Afghanistan that were allegedly sparked by the Newsweek story appear to be just as imaginary:

hxxp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44395

I'm really asking that question, because you seem to be downplaying the events at Gitmo and Bagram, and instead attacking Amnesty International for pointing them out. I'm trying to figure out whether you don't realize the extent of the problem, or if you realize the extent of the problem and just think that is the way that prisoners deserve to be treated, or if you think they deserve to be treated worse than prisoners here in America and what reason for that you might have. I don't want to waste time going over how prisoners are being beaten to death if you are already aware of it and condone it.

I have been reading a lot of different stories/columns on these type of issues lately (Koran, etc). I was having a hard time understanding why so many people seem so intent on finding "abuse" and "mistreatment" cases where often none are occuring. Then, I came up with what appears to be a valid theory at this point.

Many people (myself included) do not like the fact that a large portion of the world seems hostile towards the US. But, instead of looking that the situation involving relgious fanatics (ie, like the crusaders of ages ago), people seem intent on rationalizing this hatred against the US. It's almost like if we can find the US military ripping up the Koran then we can say "I see, this makes perfect sense. If we simply didn't disrespect their religion and destroy the Koran or , these groups wouldn't hate us and would leave us alone". Again, I think it comes back to the fact that some people want to think that there's a way we can "fix" our relations with muslim fanatics if we just behave a little better.

I think this is a very dangerous line of thinking and the moment we stop realizing that unrational religious fanaticism is the reason for this hatred from fringe Muslim groups is the moment we let our guard down and potentially do something very stupid. If people really want to have much of the muslim world stop hating the US, they need to understand the only way to achieve that is defeat/marginalize the extremists and wage a propoganda war with the remainnig fair-minded muslims. By buying into this poppycock about the Koran or "unreported abuses" or other baseless charges, all we are doing is strengthening the extremist argument that the US is evil to all muslims.

In a war, there is going to be legit criticism on certain US behavior at times (Abu Ghraib is a good example). But to start including every small baseless claim or somewhat insignificant act in this area of condemnation starts leading some fair-minded people to think the military is comprised of ruthless goons while others view the situation as "the boy who cried wolf" and start giving a blind eye to all criticisms (including the legit ones).

Sorry for the mini-threadjack, but I think what a lot of people are trying to do in regards to these muslims fanatics would be akin to the Moors of ages past trying to somehow primarily blame their actions for the attacks by the crusaders.

I disagree. I think that they hate the US because we are being envied, they will always find a reason to hate us...

I am simply against hypocrisy. Walk the talk and they'll still hate us but at least int he eyes of our allies we will be "righteous" in our footing.

Arles, what is your opinion of the French?

I think that this is the main reason many of the rank and file seem to "follow" the extremists when it comes to public perception. But that envy can be overcome if we deal with the extremists and offer a differing point of view to balance it.

I agree with this - but when every small unsupported claim is blasted by the medi and US critics as these "huge issues", it breeds apathey towards the issue over time. I think that, right now, most of the American people (non-political) no longer care (good or bad) about guantanamo because of the numerous "boy cries wolf" episodes that have been going on. So, when we do ever see a legit criticism against the military that can be proven - no one will care. The righteous indignation many have displayed at the US military every few days over the past 6-12 months should be reserved for legit attrocities. If you listened to the media, you'd think our military was out there torturing prisoners, tearing up Korans and attacking innocent civilians on almost a daily basis. People get tired of that crap and tune it out as hyperbole aftera certain point in time. We are rapidly approaching that time.

I don't have a big gripe with the french. If we take stock of the political atmosphere they live in (and that of Chirac), we should be able to deal with them without too many surprises. The problem both Bush and Clinton have made (add in Powell as well) is to expect Chirac and company to do something they promised that would be directly against the will of their people. As long as we don't make that mistake again, I see no reason to be worried about France.

edited: deleted post cuz i'd rather not talk about it anymore...Im going out of town and couldnt reply anyways.

I wonder what you do for a living and if you genuinely believe this is a reasonable expectation for an organization with over a million employees. Absolute perfection?

BTW, the military does go way out of its way to try and create an atmosphere of amazingly high moral, ethical, and legal standards. All through my 13 years of service I have been taught and preached to about intergity and honor. Not sure many legal firms, power companies, accounting firms, or software companies or any other proffession does anything like it.

In fact, everyone in the Air Force is taught from the day they walk into boot camp the AF core values which are:
Integrity
Service before self
Excellence in all we do

If you have powerpoint you can look at a briefing on them here:
http://www.unm.edu/~rotcweb/files/as...revalues.ppt#4

Yes, there have been exceptions getting a lot of press, but do not presume to preach to me or the military about perfection or moral codes or integrity. Nobody is perfect or even capable of it, but when it comes to issues like integrity and honor no profession I can think of makes more effort to achieve it than the US military.

I never said anything about every muslim being an ignorant fool. I'm saying that the Governments foster anti American sentiment through propaganda, and a tolerance/embracing of extreme religious sects. The arab street may not be composed wholly of ignorant fools, but polls in states like Egypt showed that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, a majority of those polled believed that Israel had been behind the whole thing. They also believed that Jews had been warned to stay away from the Towers that morning.

In order for the oppressive regimes to retain power they need the people they are oppressing to have bigger enemies to blame their plight on. Those enemies are the Jews and the Americans. Look at Saudi Arabia. Your example of a regime we are "propping up". Yes we are supporting them, but you'd think that with all we have done for them, they would be doing a little something for us wouldn't you? Instead they are one of the biggest hotbeds of Anti-American sentiment in the world. The governemnt tolerates, and covertly encourages the hatred of America. It is part of how they stay in power.

Oh and Oppression in this coutry comprable to that in the Mid-East. That is laughable.

The thing I don't understand is that there are a number of people on the left that so hate GW, that they want everything he does to be a complete and abject failure. So much so that they even hope that abuses are carried out against our enemies by our troops, just so they will have a finger to point at the President. When there are proven abuses, these same people cheer. They have some dirt, and it is all they can do to sling it.

Now I don't think the NW story was based wholly on a desire to cast a shadown on the Administration. I think it was more likely based on a desire to first break an inflamatory story. That differs from 60 minutes' amateurish assault on the President days before the election.

I do agree with Flasch that we need to hold the moral high ground as best we can. We generally do, but there are abberations, like Abu Gharaib. I don't think Guantanamo is an abberation. We have imprisoned those who are fighting against us, and we are treating them well. This is a war, and the enemies that we capture need to be imprisoned. I do agree that this isn't a typical war, and that identifying our enemies isn't as readilly done as in the past. Therefore we do need a relatively impartial evaluation of those we have captured to determine if these people are our enemies. By relatively I mean that I don't think we need to require a presumption of innocence, as long as the scale isn't tipped wholly toward a presumption of guilt, then it should be possible to determine if people are being legitimately held. If they are our enemies, then throw away the key. This is a war.

Bravo. Well said.

I think the problem is that they do not or refuse to recognize the importance of image from truth (if they simply try to sell or spin when its exposed it's doubly bad). It is critical when or admin is selling, that the rest of our allies or fringe-allies believe us. We are failing to uphold this mantra of moral high ground in our actions behind the scenes. Keep in mind that this is coming from someone for both wars and the war on terror and still am. I just want to see us do it better, thats all.

I dont intend to preach to you, the proof of what I just said in the paragraph above is played out over and over everyday all over the world. If you dont or cant see this than you're either naive or spun. Either way, it is still happening and the only way to fix it is to fix the atmosphere and attitude from the top to the bottom; a commitment to change per se. If we don't then we'll be having the same debate 50 years from now.

Just because we have mission statement doesn't mean its adhered to or even of importance....it is more critical that a mission statement become a part of the everyday life, the everyday actions, and the everyday speak; it needs to be an intrinsic value and not some poster on a wall.

Just a "poster on a wall"? I can tell you in my six years in the Air Force that those are just not cute little slogans. HELL, I LIVE THOSE CORE VALUES! My fellow airmen live those values. You don't know a damn thing about how so many of us sacrificed ourselves for the greater good of this country. Many of us attempted to live on high moral principles that you clearly attack us for.

You attack the entire institution because of a handful of bad decisions? The one who is spun here is you. The one who is naive is you. You don't have a clue how much we worked our asses off, so we could be the very best in the world and uphold those values they wanted instilled in us.

Hell, why don't spit in my face like a girl did to me just after the spring semester started. She spat in my face and called me a "murderer" and "babykiller" because I keep my hair short and was wearing one of my gray Air Force T-shirts. Far as I'm concerned, you are no different than she is.

Before you start spouting off morality to someone, you better start practicing what you've been preaching.

Getting back on topic, all I've wanted (and I think most Democrats wanted) with regards to the Koran abuse allegations is accountability. The military instituted a code of conduct when it came to handling the Koran, and if a soldier did not adhere to it, they should be held accountable. What I think is unfortunate is that some conservatives (not all, mind you) spin that as not supporting the troops as a whole, which is simply not the case. I want to see the select few that violated the code of conduct to be held responsible for their actions, not the military as a whole. Within any organization there are "bad seeds" (for lack of a better term), and they should be dealt with accordingly.

YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

I love that movie. :D ;)

I think duckman should go to Jacksonville in kick Flasch in the testiscles. Hell, I'll pay for the ticket as long as he records the event.

Dola.

This has less to do with the politics and more to do with the fact that other people getting kicked in the testicles is funny as hell.

Do you also want to see Muslim protestors who burn the USA flag held accountable? I mean, some of us (me) are very offended to see the USA flag burning.

Just wondering where you draw the line.

I assume we're talking Muslims living in America. Personally, I'd like to see anyone burning the flag arrested, but I *think* it's protected under the first amendment, for some reason. I'll have to look up some cases first to be sure, though.

Dola, after some quick research, the landmark case in this regard appears to be Texas v. Johnson , in which the Supreme Court ruled that "government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds it offensive." There is a bill that call for a constitutional amendment prohibiting flag burning, but I'm not exactly sure where it stands as of now.

I'm talking about USA Flag Burning anywhere in the world. The exact same principles are at work, are they not? If someone kicks a Quran or burns another nations flag, the same emotions are generated.

The Muslim protestors are offended at a Quran kicking. Some Americans are offended at the Muslim protestors buring an American flag.

I'm interested how you would define accountability, for both the anti-Quran abuser and the anti-Flag abuser. I'm thinking along the lines of prison sentenses, fines, what have you.

Interestingly, you want accountability for Soldiers who may abuse a Quran. But suggest that flag burning is protected by the 1st amendment. Is kicking/abusing a Quran protected by the 1st amendment? I'm pretty sure that you can burn an American flag and not be held accountable for the action per our laws. Not sure about the Quran.

How are we to control what people in other countries do, though? We can only control what goes on in our country. The military instated a code of conduct on how to handle the Koran. If a soldier violated that code of conduce, shouldn't he/she be punished?

By an everyday citizen, I don't know if desecrating a Koran would be protected by the First Amendment, although I would assume that it would be. But these were soldiers who had their own set of rules specifically regarding this issue. If a soldier breaks a rule, he's reprimanded, isn't he?

YOU COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTAND MY POINT


dont get upset with me, Im a fan of yours and knows the importance of military intervention (being Jewish has that instilled in you every Sunday since birth).. Im the guy, who in a buffet walks up to the guys and gals in uniform and pats them on the back and says, "good job". Im the guy on memorial day who looks goofy in front of his friends because he sings the National Anthem (one time with my mom) and wants to watch war movies. Im the guy who watches the history channel like its ESPN. So dont get mad at me....I love our country and everything we stand for.

Get mad at your "bretheren", the few and far between, who keep allowing the negative news medias to hammer us time and again (this will never change). Every time the admin. (so far) has tried to say its just a few bad apples, it comes out that it is more widespread than anticipated. Crimes and misbehavior, some being "institutionalized", have been reported and admitted to in every corner of the war on terror.

I hate the terrorists and love the USA and you and other GOOD military people are heros in my book. I am for the war(s) thus far including the one in bosnia. It is the "bad" apples who are opening a can of worms

And this is the point that I make time and again....

Its not the media's fauilt......we know what to expect from them.

Its not the the left's fault.....we love the USA and the branches too.

Its the events that keep occurring and those at fault's, fault....sometimes including bosses.


From now on, when the bad happens, the admin. should not try to deny or sweep it under the rug. They should not blame the journalists or the left. They should be transparent, angered, and vigilant and it should all be in the vain of walking the talk. The outcome you desire and I desire are one in the same...I just think we can do things better than we have thus far.



EDIT: to add, "Im quite surprised you can't see the difference between someone stating their 'educated' opinion vs. someone who would have the gall to spit in another person's face. Surely you jest that we should be equal...she's obviously an idiot IMO. I dont believe that I am AND I DO support our military and its endeavours...and do also believe that a good look inward to the atmosphere that we operate under should be examined. You must agree that nothing is perfect, and neither is that."

"PLUS, Ill bet you know someone, in your band of brothers who maybe, didn't hold such values as yourself. Such is the reason that I did not join the police force...that someone would not follow such laws and guidelines that I would be torn between my fraternity of blue and doing what is right. What did you do when you ran across such thoughts talked about by others?"

The difference is that flag burning, the kicking of the Quran, or blowing up disco records is protected speech--and private citizens can do all three. The US military has it's own rules in place, and presumably all military employees have to adhere to those rules...

I do get mad at them. But I look at it rationally. What you are demanding is that the military strip all of it's rules and codes of conduct because we will be prefect. I disagree with that irrational thought process. And I suggest we keep our rules and regulations in place to properly punish those who do something illegal.

You insist that the problem is widespread, and with that I agree. But you insist that it's not "a few bad apples" but the entire military institution starting with the President. And that I will always disagree with. Your logic is flawed and your logic is wrong. That is why you are almost always misunderstood on this issue.

Ah, I see. So nobody in Afghanistan would get mad if *you* kicked a Quran?

it was stated in the report that Rumsfeld was indirectly at fault for allowing the atmosphere to persist that allowed the abuse [in Abu Ghariab] to occur. When he stated that Geneva didnt apply it bolstered those who perhaps were already a bit sadistic. [So sometimes it does come from higher up directly or indirectly]

I don't want them to strip any rules. I want them to reinvigorate the "good " soldiers to stand up and boot out the bad ones (I know its easier said than done). Someone asked what company I worked for...Ill tell ya. I work for a company that about 3 years ago realized that it was not a good company to work for. Perhaps it suffered from some of the same things internally that our military does. so they spent 6 months devising a plan and unveiled "a commitment to change." They have enforced it fully and those of us who are on board with it (even when we're upset sometimes) can see better things coming. One of their goals is to be the top company in our industry to work for.

NOW, sure this could all have an alterior motive that Im not privvy too BUT the effort is there, its transparent, there is no push back against it, and its the right thing to do. THAT is what I ask for, a look inside and a manipulation of some rules and codes for the better. those that work, great keep 'em and teach 'em...those that need work, work on 'em.

that is all....but the key is to make it known that THIS is what we are trying to achieve. Transparency will win over the hearts of almost anyone...If the goal is a "good" one.



Edited: for clarity

I'll say it again: we are killing innocent people by torturing them, and all everyone wants to talk about is mishandling the Koran. Classic smokescreen.

"The military instated a code of conduct on how to handle the Koran." - Mr Sparkle.

According to that, Donald Rumsfeld has a set of rules in place that protects and respects the religion of the terror-fighter suspects.

Is anyone truly innocent?







(I've never read your posts. Respond with something short that I have the energy to read in less than a minute. Thanks, Mr.Bigglesmirth.)

I was talking about the Abu Ghariab report to show that sometimes a "bad apple's" behaviour does point to higher up.

Perhaps thats not the case with Quran but to white wash the higher ups is not fair either.