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.)