FLASH! Terrorist Say They Were Abused!

Here’s your big news story, complete with screamer headline on their home page in 36-point font, from the Washington Post: Inmates Alleged Koran Abuse.

Detainees told FBI interrogators as early as April 2002 that mistreatment of the Koran was widespread at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and many said they were severely beaten by captors there or in Afghanistan, according to FBI documents released yesterday.

The summaries of FBI interviews, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union as part of an ongoing lawsuit, include a dozen allegations that the Koran was kicked, thrown to the floor or withheld as punishment. One prisoner said in August 2002 that guards had “flushed a Koran in the toilet” and had beaten some detainees.

I’m going to put aside any snarky comments about the ACLU and deal with what appears to be to be a “well, no kidding” story. Detainees certainly have made these allegations. Are they true? Well, maybe and maybe not. Are the detainees trustworthy? Well, you tell me. These people were taken from places where they were trying to kill Americans and innocent Afghans and Iraqis. We also know that they have been trained to tell exactly this kind of lie. Were we in a criminal trial, the testimony of any of these detainees would be immediately and very heavily suspect. They have everything to gain from lying and nothing to lose.

So why is it that otherwise smart people like John Cole consider what they have to say “evidence”?

Given the evidence of confirmed torture, confirmed other religous abuses, the reports from detainees, the FBI, some military personnel, some former detainees, the International Red Cross, the ACLU, and Amnesty International, even when you know that the detainees have a reason to lie, I do not think you are being unreasonable, anti-military, anti-administration, or foolish.

Well, when you consider that the ICRC, ACLU, and Amnesty International have gotten their allegations either directly from the detainees or from the detainees’ mouthpieces, you have to consider them equally as suspect, don’t you? Unless, of course you consider the word of a terrorist detainee to be equal to that of the President of the United States. I do not and so I find these allegations implausible.

But let’s look at the FBI’s documents, since we have the documents in front of us. Rather, let’s go to Michelle Malkin, who pored over them this morning and gives us these tidbits.

One detainee who claimed to have been “beaten, spit upon and treated worse than a dog” could not provide a single detail pertaining to mistreatment by U.S. military personnel. Another detainee claimed that guards were physically abusive and told detainees that U.S. soldiers were having sex with the detainees’ mothers. Yet this detainee said he had neither seen any physical abuse nor heard these comments from the guards. Other detainees who complained about abuse of the Koran admitted they had never personally witnessed any such abuse, but one said he had heard that non-Muslim soldiers touched the Koran when searching it for contraband.

A number of detainees were concerned about relatively mundane issues such as lack of privacy, lack of bed sheets, being unwillingly photographed, the guards’ use of profanity, and bad food (like “the zoo,” said one critic). If lack of privacy or bed sheets is a detainee’s main concern, it is doubtful that the detainee is being tortured (unless the definition of “torture” is so ridiculously broad as to be meaningless).

Several detainees indicated they had not experienced any mistreatment whatsoever at Gitmo, including one detainee who claimed he was mistreated at Kandahar prior to his transfer to Cuba.

One detainee disputed claims that guards had mistreated the Koran. The detainee said that riots resulted from claims that a guard dropped the Koran. In actuality, the detainee said, a detainee dropped the Koran then blamed a guard. (This detainee is apparently more skeptical of Koran-abuse allegations than the Washington Post, which neglected to mention this tidbit.)

You may, of course, read the portions of the reports Michelle Mentiones as she puts them in the extended section of her post.

Does that sound like the detainee’s reports are credible? Does it sound like the FBI is confirming the allegations, or reporting them, then saying they are not true? It sure looks like the latter to me.

I find it pretty baffling that some would accept the word of terrorists over the word of our President and our Military Investigators. But, hey, when you have a bone to pick with the administration, who cares whether an allegation comes from a killer or a denial comes from a President? Believe the worst, believe that our country is deeply and fundamentally flawed, believe that our President is a liar beause the killers have said that he is, and go along your merry way.

Heck, John even pooh-pooh the standard of evidence that says that there has to be…well…actual evidence. He quotes a post that asks for photos or some sort of direct corroboration of these allegations and then says:

If those are the rules of evidence, and everything else is to fall under a ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’ blanket, we are simply an at impasse. I might add, that by these standards, Abu Ghraib only happened because there were pictures.

He’s right. We’re at an impasse. On one side are people who want direct evidence of the allegations and on the other are those who don’t care if we ever do find the evidence.

I might add, though, that Abu Ghraib was already under investigation, the military did have positive evidence of crimes, and they had people charged and facing trial, before the photos came out. I suppose that on those facts too, we are at an impasse.

John throws down the argument and walks away form it with this cop-out.

People believe what they want to believe, and this isn’t about press bias anymore in my eyes. This is about subjugating the media to nothing more than a propaganda organ of the government.

Yeah, that’s what it’s all about. Good lord what a ninny statement.

What I and dozens of others of people have been demanding is not that the media become a propaganda organ. We have demanded a few simple things.
1) If the MSM is going to print a bunch of incendiary allegations, they get more evidence than the allegations themselves. Printing rumors is off-limits, unless you’re a gossip columnist or a tabloid.
2) If you insist on printing singly-sourced anonymous rumors, it might not be a bad idea to print one or two that actually made America look better in the eyes of the world. Surely you could get a little leak from Indonesia about how our tsunami relief effort are going or maybe a tidbit from Afghanistan about how our soldiers are getting along with the local population. Why, exactly, is Arthur Chrenkoff the only one regularly reporting these stories (which he actually sources)?
3) Consider the sources. Yes, everyone has an agenda, but some agendas are better for us than others. For instance, the agendas of people who have killed Americans and/or are still trying to kill Americans are not as healthy for us as the agendas of people who are trying to stop them. Though you may despise the Bush Administration, they are not actually trying to kill you.

That’s a nice, partial list and nothing in it has anything to do with propaganda for this administration. Saying otherwise is simply throwing down the “screw you” marker and walking away. If John, or anyone else, can tell me why the three things I want from my media is bad, I’m willing to listen. But just to say, “You want a propadanga arm for our government” is foolish and wrong. In fact, what I do not want is for the press to act as a propaganda arm for our enemies, willingly or not. That is what Newsweek’s report did and it need not have happened had they stopped and considered their actions.

Still, I say., bring me some real evidence and I’ll be more concerned with the story. Until then, it’s something that would never even come to trial in a court of law.

In the end, what is this story? It’s a bunch of allegations, many of which have been proven untrue, from people who are trained to lie to us and about us. It came from official government sources which means that there was no coverup, no conspiracy, and more transparency than I can ever remember our government having in any other war we’ve ever fought. The story tells us that the government systematically investigated every single allegation which, again, does not indicate a coverup or an attempt to whitewash them.

In short, the story is a pure yawner, unless of course, you want to make some hay against the President.

You can get a roudup of opinions on the story from the indispensable Joe Gandleman here.

No related posts.

Category: Fighting the Islamists, Oh, THAT liberal media.