Newsweek got it right! Newly released docs prove it

[jGilder]

Documents were released yesterday revealing that Newsweek had it right. And now Amnesty International is calling for an international investigation of Guantanamo Bay calling it “the gulag of our time.” They are advocating the arrest and trial of American leaders when they are abroad in the same way that the former US installed dictator, Augusto Pinochet, was arrested when he was visiting Spain. They name President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director George Tenet, and senior officers at U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Abu Ghraib, Iraq.

Besides being held for three years without being charged, abused and tortured, reports are also coming out that some detainees have simply disappeared.

=============================

FBI records detail Koran claims

BBC News
Thursday, 26 May, 2005

• An inmate at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp accused US guards of flushing a Koran down the toilet in 2002, newly declassified FBI documents reveal.

The disclosure follows a row over a similar claim made in Newsweek, which the magazine was forced to retract.

The Newsweek report sparked protests across the Muslim world, and riots in Afghanistan that killed 15 people.

The Pentagon said last week it had seen “no credible and specific allegations” about putting a Koran in a toilet.

Newsweek last week apologised for, and then retracted its report, after saying it could no longer corroborate the story.

• “The guards dance around when the detainees are trying to pray - the guards still do these things” FBI agent’s report on detainee’s claim

The White House rounded on the magazine, saying its report had done “lasting damage” to the US image in the Muslim world.

But the FBI documents made public on Wednesday, after a request from the human rights group American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), show that such allegations had been made at Guantanamo Bay.

After interviewing a detainee, an unnamed FBI agent wrote on 1 August 2002: "Personally, he has nothing against the United States. The guards in the detention facility do not treat him well. Their behaviour is bad.

"About five months ago, the guards beat the detainees. They flushed a Koran in the toilet.

“The guards dance around when the detainees are trying to pray. The guards still do these things.”

Guantanamo ‘gulag’

The ACLU said the documents showed the Pentagon was aware of such allegations being made at Guantanamo Bay long ago, but had repeatedly turned a blind eye to “mounting evidence of widespread abuse”.

The Pentagon did not immediately comment on the documents, but officials have said recently that various claims made by former detainees have been proved false.

Officials say they have begun comparing detainee complaints to see if any are corroborated.

ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer said: “Unfortunately, one thing we’ve learned over the last couple of years is that detainee statements about their treatment at Guantanamo and other detention centres sometimes have turned out to be more credible than US government statements.”

Other FBI documents released on Wednesday detailed further accusations, including one by a detainee who said a female interrogator wiped his face with her menstrual blood.

Meanwhile Amnesty International urged the US to shut Guantanamo Bay, calling it “the gulag of our time”.

In a report the group said the US had undermined human rights across the world, by trying to “redefine and sanitise torture”.

The White House dismissed the report as “ridiculous and unsupported”.

Spokesman Scott McClellan said allegations of mistreatment were being investigated.

More than 500 people are being held at Guantanamo Bay, the US naval base on Cuba, suspected of links to the al-Qaeda network.

Some have been detained for more than three years, but have not been charged.

=============================

There was a good discussion about this on Democracy Now.

[dwinterfield]

One of the Air America people suggested that Newsweek’s “usually highly reliable” administration source was possibly Karl Rove. I didn’t hear them present any specific evidence, only that it is his type of scheme. The concept was that Rove knew damaging/embarassing information about behavior of Guantanamo guards is coming. He leaks generally accurate info to Newseek with a few incorrect details. Newsweek goes with the story. The Islamic world is outraged. Because the story was not precisely accurate in some detail, Newsweek retracts. Newsweek wouldn’t reveal it’s source. Now the White House can and does blame Newsweek for the spread of anti-Americanism throughouut the Islamic world. I don’t know if it happened this way, but it is plausible. Karl Rove is a very creative person.

[IRTradRU]

@dwinterfield

One of the Air America people suggested that Newsweek’s “usually highly reliable” administration source was possibly Karl Rove. I didn’t hear them present any specific evidence, only that it is his type of scheme. The concept was that Rove knew damaging/embarassing information about behavior of Guantanamo guards is coming. He leaks generally accurate info to Newseek with a few incorrect details. Newsweek goes with the story. The Islamic world is outraged. Because the story was not precisely accurate in some detail, Newsweek retracts. Newsweek wouldn’t reveal it’s source. Now the White House can and does blame Newsweek for the spread of anti-Americanism throughouut the Islamic world. I don’t know if it happened this way, but it is plausible. Karl Rove is a very creative person.

And instead of naming Rove as their source, they fell on their sword?

Sorry, no sale here.

Air America… yeah, now there’s a reputable source… and they’re commenting on Newsweek’s reliablity — in spite of the fact that Newseek recanted? Gee, call me skeptical.

I honestly feel bad for anyone that would leap out of their chair to believe what terrorists would allege. These are the same terrorists who seek to destroy all of Western culture - not just the USA - and anyone who doesn’t fit into their belief system.

[StevieJ]

@jGilder

… in the same way that the former US installed dictator, Augusto Pinochet, was arrested when he was visiting Spain…

Small aside - he was actually arrested in London, on the basis of a warrant issued by Spanish judges. I heard the news from jubilant Chilean immigrants celebrating in the streets of Montreal. I have to make this diversionary point because it was such a great feeling to hear of my homeland doing the decent thing in the area of international relations - for once. (Then came Iraq. though…)

[Bloomfield]

@IRTradRU?

I honestly feel bad for anyone that would leap out of their chair to believe what terrorists would allege. These are the same terrorists who seek to destroy all of Western culture - not just the USA - and anyone who doesn’t fit into their belief system.

If these allegations (and those like it) are true, then it is not the terrorist but the US government and US military who are destroying Western culture. How many wars and revolutions did it take for us to arrive at the ideal of universal human rights, fair process, and restraint on secret, dirty shit by government? And the sad part is: that culture is what the terrorists cannot destroy. They can set of bombs and fly into buildings and kill the innocent; but they can’t make us stop living up to our own ideals and convictions, our constitutions, laws, and treaties. Only we ourselves can do that.

[jGilder]

@IRTradRU?

I honestly feel bad for anyone that would leap out of their chair to believe what terrorists would allege. These are the same terrorists who seek to destroy all of Western culture - not just the USA - and anyone who doesn’t fit into their belief system.

Interesting… that’s exactly how they view the US, and they aren’t alone in that line of thinking either. The opinion that the US is seeking to dominate the world and it’s resources is growing, and the actions of the Bush Administration adds plenty of fuel to that suspicion. The treatment of prisoners at places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo indicates that the US is abandoning the charters agreed to in Geneva, and the US is losing it’s credibility in the global community as respecting International law.

The US is now perceived as a warrior nation. The US Military budget will equal rest of world’s combined “Within 12 Months.” according to new study by the Price Waterhouse Cooper corporate-finance group. Besides undermining important social programs to help finance their wars, the danger of US citizens becoming targets is increasing. Everyone (except exceedingly wealthy corporate Americans and their lackeys) is a victim of US imperialism.

[jGilder]

@StevieJ

@jGilder

… in the same way that the former US installed dictator, Augusto Pinochet, was arrested when he was visiting Spain…

Small aside - he was actually arrested in London, on the basis of a warrant issued by Spanish judges. I heard the news from jubilant Chilean immigrants celebrating in the streets of Montreal. I have to make this diversionary point because it was such a great feeling to hear of my homeland doing the decent thing in the area of international relations - for once. (Then came Iraq. though…)

Yes… you’re right, I was wrong. Thanks for the clarification. I was jubilant as well having worked closely with Chilean exiles during the 70s and early 80s.

[The_Weekenders]

@jGilder

The US is now perceived as a warrior nation.

As unpalatable as this is to many, I think that this is a fundamental and purposeful change to how we have been perceived vis-a-vis responses to the various terrorist attacks since the early 90s; the first WTT attack, the other building bombings, the U.S.S. Cole.

You can de-construct this all you like, but I think that to many public and private thinkers, there is the belief that radical Islamists NEED to know that there will be consequences rather than lethargic cruise missiles launched from a nation whose armies are standing down. Kinda reminds me of Jimmy Carter’s helicopters in Iran.

According to his own writings, Osama wants a direct confrontation between the US or even the whole “West” against Islam, so that fence-sitting Muslims would rally to his side. He got it, I guess.

Iraq has been the bloodbath where the US showed its willingness to sacrifice its own to the terrorists who were drawn there. Once again, you can argue all you want about the circumstances, perceptions, pretenses, etc. etc. but this has been the result. And I think it was a major factor in Bush’ actions.

I know that many of you cannot separate these recent actions with your perceptions of US history of genocide, domination, blablabla, and its understandable, especially in trying to imagine how the rest of the world views the U.S. But I consider at least a part of it to be a direct confrontation of the notion that the decadent US would just absorb attack after attack.

Without a military response, we were doomed to get more and more attacks, though of course mitigated by increased security and police-action activities. The US squandered the “justifiable response” in Afghanistan with the Iraqi invasion. This is where Bush lost most. At least that’s my current perception.

To many, the only thing the warrior Islamists can understand is warrior force in return. They got it. The US is damned for what it has done, what it is doing, and would be damned for doing nothing.

Please read this carefully before flying into accusation of support, apology or rationalization of Bush’ actions. I am commenting on one aspect of this current perception, as Gilder has written.

[jGilder]

@The Weekenders

As unpalatable as this is to many, I think that this is a fundamental and purposeful change to how we have been perceived vis-a-vis responses to the various terrorist attacks since the early 90s; the first WTT attack, the other building bombings, the U.S.S. Cole.

The word “response” is key. And what sort of “response” do we expect from the vicims of US imperialism?

@The Weekenders

You can de-construct this all you like, but I think that to many public and private thinkers, there is the belief that radical Islamists NEED to know that there will be consequences rather than lethargic cruise missiles launched from a nation whose armies are standing down.

Consequences are what the US seems to think it’s immune to when it supports terrorists, installs tyrannies, overthrows governments, etc.

@The Weekenders

According to his own writings, Osama wants a direct confrontation between the US or even the whole “West” against Islam, so that fence-sitting Muslims would rally to his side. He got it, I guess.

In Osama’s most recent statement he indicated that his attack on the WTC was a direct response to the US allowing Israel to invade Lebanon and murder thousands of innocent Palestinian people. He said that was his defining moment when he decided to become an anti-American terrorist.

@The Weekenders

Iraq has been the bloodbath where the US showed its willingness to sacrifice its own to the terrorists who were drawn there. Once again, you can argue all you want about the circumstances, perceptions, pretenses, etc. etc. but this has been the result. And I think it was a major factor in Bush’ actions.

But remember – one man’s “terrorist” is another man’s “freedom fighter.” The decision to invade Iraq was not anyone in the Bush Administration’s personal sacrifice – they sacrificed other people’s sons and daughters. The decision to send US soldiers in harm’s way was unfounded and criminal.

@The Weekenders

I know that many of you cannot separate these recent actions with your perceptions of US history of genocide, domination, blablabla, and its understandable, especially in trying to imagine how the rest of the world views the U.S. But I consider at least a part of it to be a direct confrontation of the notion that the decadent US would just absorb attack after attack.

And how many attacks are they supposed to “absorb” before they respond?

@The Weekenders

Without a military response, we were doomed to get more and more attacks, though of course mitigated by increased security and police-action activities. The US squandered the “justifiable response” in Afghanistan with the Iraqi invasion. This is where Bush lost most. At least that’s my current perception.

The only way the US will end terrorism is for the US to cease being a terrorist.

@The Weekenders

To many, the only thing the warrior Islamists can understand is warrior force in return. They got it. The US is damned for what it has done, what it is doing, and would be damned for doing nothing.

You could easily reverse this statement and it will be just the same. The bottom line is that the terrorism against America is a response to US terrorism. Until Americans realize this, we will remain in this deadly cycle. If the mainstream US media was living up to it’s responsibility the facts of what US foreign policy really are would be included in the national dialog. The leaders of the US are hiding their bloody swords behind their backs and hoping, insisting, and even threatening them if they talk about it. (Newsweek’s situation is one example) Well-intentioned Americans will remain ignorant of these facts and continue to back murderers and terrorists without ever realizing it.

[anniemcu]

@Bloomfield

@IRTradRU?

I honestly feel bad for anyone that would leap out of their chair to believe what terrorists would allege. These are the same terrorists who seek to destroy all of Western culture - not just the USA - and anyone who doesn’t fit into their belief system.

If these allegations (and those like it) are true, then it is not the terrorist but the US government and US military who are destroying Western culture. How many wars and revolutions did it take for us to arrive at the ideal of universal human rights, fair process, and restraint on secret, dirty shit by government? And the sad part is: that culture is what the terrorists cannot destroy. They can set of bombs and fly into buildings and kill the innocent; but they can’t make us stop living up to our own ideals and convictions, our constitutions, laws, and treaties. Only we ourselves can do that.

I think that is exactly what irritates, amazes and dumbfounds some of us… we thought that our government, our beloved US was above these things - some of us to the point of denying loudly the remote possibility, others of us looking back at history, which should have been learned from but was, instead, denied (some of it even to this day), and see the doom in repeating some of it. It is a stomach wrenching realization that the nation you love doesn’t always earn the respect you wish it were due.

[missy]

jGilder (and others) -

although it may be a moot point -

What SHOULD the US have done after the attack on 9/11? I’m not saying that Iraq was a response to 9/11 at all, BTW.
But I am just curious - what should the US have done (differently) after 9/11? What type of response could have taken place and not had someone, somewhere yelling about “American Imperialist”?

Missy

[dwinterfield]

@The Weekenders

@jGilder

The US is now perceived as a warrior nation.

As unpalatable as this is to many, I think that this is a fundamental and purposeful change to how we have been perceived vis-a-vis responses to the various terrorist attacks since the early 90s; the first WTT attack, the other building bombings, the U.S.S. Cole.

You can de-construct this all you like, but I think that to many public and private thinkers, there is the belief that radical Islamists NEED to know that there will be consequences rather than lethargic cruise missiles launched from a nation whose armies are standing down. Kinda reminds me of Jimmy Carter’s helicopters in Iran.

According to his own writings, Osama wants a direct confrontation between the US or even the whole “West” against Islam, so that fence-sitting Muslims would rally to his side. He got it, I guess.

Iraq has been the bloodbath where the US showed its willingness to sacrifice its own to the terrorists who were drawn there. Once again, you can argue all you want about the circumstances, perceptions, pretenses, etc. etc. but this has been the result. And I think it was a major factor in Bush’ actions.

I know that many of you cannot separate these recent actions with your perceptions of US history of genocide, domination, blablabla, and its understandable, especially in trying to imagine how the rest of the world views the U.S. But I consider at least a part of it to be a direct confrontation of the notion that the decadent US would just absorb attack after attack.

Without a military response, we were doomed to get more and more attacks, though of course mitigated by increased security and police-action activities. The US squandered the “justifiable response” in Afghanistan with the Iraqi invasion. This is where Bush lost most. At least that’s my current perception.

To many, the only thing the warrior Islamists can understand is warrior force in return. They got it. The US is damned for what it has done, what it is doing, and would be damned for doing nothing.

Please read this carefully before flying into accusation of support, apology or rationalization of Bush’ actions. I am commenting on one aspect of this current perception, as Gilder has written.

While I agree with most of what you write, what scares me the most is the Bush adminstrations insistance on confronting the world based on ideology rather than reality. Attacking bin laden was an appropriate response to 911. To do that we had to go to Afghanistan. Too bad for the Taliban. Saddam’s a monster and was a brutal dictator but as we now know, he didn’t have wmd and was not exporting terror. Iraq didn’t have the capacity to do so. We’re now stuck there. The Iraqis are better off and that’s good, but sadly it’s an unintended consequence.

Islamic terrorists are a tiny minority and it seems like everything the Bushies do is calculated to increase their ranks. America will reduce our terror risk when we precisely target terrorists, stop supporting repressive dictators (Saudi Arabia), and work together with the world community to improve the lives of all on the planet. My biggest objection to Bush is that everything he does seems contrary to America’s long term interest. I’m not opposed to fighting so long as we fight the right targets and fight to win peace, not power.

[anniemcu]

@dwinterfield

…I’m not opposed to fighting so long as we fight the right targets and fight to win peace, not power.

AMEN!!!

[Bloomfield]

@missy

jGilder (and others) -

although it may be a moot point -

What SHOULD the US have done after the attack on 9/11? I’m not saying that Iraq was a response to 9/11 at all, BTW.
But I am just curious - what should the US have done (differently) after 9/11? What type of response could have taken place and not had someone, somewhere yelling about “American Imperialist”?

Missy

The baffling and frustrating thing is that there was a huge wave of sympathy and solidarity with the US in the wake of 9/11, which was squandered. People in Europe felt threatened and scared by what happened, and the WTC was seen not just as a stand in for America but as a stand in for the Western world. In my opinion, the US should have strengthened international ties and cooperation, imperfect though the UN and other international bodies are. There was enormous amount of support and polictical capital. The US government should have demonstrated that it was not willing to give up Western ideals of liberty. It should not have cast the WTC attacks as “war on America” but as crimes. It should not have descended to the rhetoric of a war of good against evil, Christian vs. Muslim, civilization vs. barbarism. This is not just silly and subtle stuff, because the goals of terrorism is not to kill 3,000 people in NYC, but to cast a decent country like the US in the role of the imperialist oppressor. The US government played right along, and the world is a worse place for it. Think how many more people there are who hate the US today and are willing to kill themselves just to nettle the US than there were in August of 2001. (And my personal view is the Bush administration was willing to trade respect, support, and affection for the US abroad and the integrity of a 60-year system of international cooperation and restraint for short-term domestic political capital.)

[anniemcu]

@Bloomfield

@missy

jGilder (and others) -

although it may be a moot point -

What SHOULD the US have done after the attack on 9/11? I’m not saying that Iraq was a response to 9/11 at all, BTW.
But I am just curious - what should the US have done (differently) after 9/11? What type of response could have taken place and not had someone, somewhere yelling about “American Imperialist”?

Missy

The baffling and frustrating thing is that there was a huge wave of sympathy and solidarity with the US in the wake of 9/11, which was squandered. People in Europe felt threatened and scared by what happened, and the WTC was seen not just as a stand in for America but as a stand in for the Western world. In my opinion, the US should have strengthened international ties and cooperation, imperfect though the UN and other international bodies are. There was enormous amount of support and polictical capital. The US government should have demonstrated that it was not willing to give up Western ideals of liberty. It should not have cast the WTC attacks as “war on America” but as crimes. It should not have descended to the rhetoric of a war of good against evil, Christian vs. Muslim, civilization vs. barbarism. This is not just silly and subtle stuff, because the goals of terrorism is not to kill 3,000 people in NYC, but to cast a decent country like the US in the role of the imperialist oppressor. The US government played right along, and the world is a worse place for it. Think how many more people there are who hate the US today and are willing to kill themselves just to nettle the US than there were in August of 2001. (And my personal view is the Bush administration was willing to trade respect, support, and affection for the US abroad and the integrity of a 60-year system of international cooperation and restraint for short-term domestic political capital.)

Well, bloomie, I am squarely with you on this one. Have a(n) (insert favorite beverage here) on me!

[jsluder]

@anniemcu

Well, bloomie, I am squarely with you on this one. Have a(n) (insert favorite beverage here) on me!

And have another on me. Well said.

[jGilder]

@missy

jGilder (and others) -

although it may be a moot point -

What SHOULD the US have done after the attack on 9/11? I’m not saying that Iraq was a response to 9/11 at all, BTW.
But I am just curious - what should the US have done (differently) after 9/11? What type of response could have taken place and not had someone, somewhere yelling about “American Imperialist”?

Missy

My comments are in response to the assumption that the US was innocent and the attacks on 9-11 simply came out of a hatred for Americans. The Bush Administration’s response was to tell us that the reason they attacked us is because they’re, “jealous of our freedom,” but this was the furthest thing from the truth. I believe the response would have been much more effective had we worked with world leaders sympathetic to what happened and within that cooperation brought Bin Lauden and his followers to justice. Instead we have cranked up our own terrorism to a degree that the world now sees us as a threat, and the recruits for al-Qeada are at an all-time high. If the US acknowledged it’s crimes against humanity, allowed International trials of people like Henry Kissinger, and ceased it’s terrorist activities and the support of terrorism around the world it – would be the surest way to remove ourselves as a target. Of course that will never happen – so keep your duct-tape handy.

[anniemcu]

@jGilder

@missy

jGilder (and others) -

although it may be a moot point -

What SHOULD the US have done after the attack on 9/11? I’m not saying that Iraq was a response to 9/11 at all, BTW.
But I am just curious - what should the US have done (differently) after 9/11? What type of response could have taken place and not had someone, somewhere yelling about “American Imperialist”?

Missy

My comments are in response to the assumption that the US was innocent and the attacks on 9-11 simply came out of a hatred for Americans. The Bush Administration’s response was to tell us that the reason they attacked us is because they’re, “jealous of our freedom,” but this was the furthest thing from the truth. I believe the response would have been much more effective had we worked with world leaders sympathetic to what happened and within that cooperation brought Bin Lauden and his followers to justice. Instead we have cranked up our own terrorism to a degree that the world now sees us as a threat, and the recruits for al-Qeada are at an all-time high. If the US acknowledged it’s crimes against humanity, allowed International trials of people like Henry Kissinger, and ceased it’s terrorist activities and the support of terrorism around the world it – would be the surest way to remove ourselves as a target. Of course that will never happen – so keep your duct-tape handy.

OK… here’s where War Churchill’s words ring clear and true. His whole point was that as long as the US, both elected and commercial, continues to manipulate, use, and power trip other nations, particularly in the Middle East, the people being manipulated, used, and power-tripped on are going to get increasingly angry - some of them angry enough to do deperate things like bomb high profile, corporate and military America centers.

I think that his logic, barring any questions about graphic arts pieces, is inarguable.

The very reasons given by the terrorists for the 9-11 attacks do point that out. The call for us to take genuine responsibility for our actions, individually and as a nation, is something we should not be ignoring.

[Jack]

I don’t really care about this issue anymore. It’s been played and talked about and slobbered over for a long, long time. Just go ahead and call me insensitive, or ignorant.

Or Sally.

[jGilder]

@anniemcu

OK… here’s where War Churchill’s words ring clear and true. His whole point was that as long as the US, both elected and commercial, continues to manipulate, use, and power trip other nations, particularly in the Middle East, the people being manipulated, used, and power-tripped on are going to get increasingly angry - some of them angry enough to do deperate things like bomb high profile, corporate and military America centers.

I think that his logic, barring any questions about graphic arts pieces, is inarguable.

The very reasons given by the terrorists for the 9-11 attacks do point that out. The call for us to take genuine responsibility for our actions, individually and as a nation, is something we should not be ignoring.

Exactamundo!!! The irony about my defense of Churchill, (on the other thread,) is that I don’t care for his art, or the crowd he caters to in SF, etc. And if he’s guilty of what he’s being charged – then he should be held accountable. But the point he made about the US government’s accountability that released the right-wing attack and distract dogs on him is what should be heard, understood, studied and debated rationally. Until accountability is realized and the perpetrators brought to justice, terrorists on both sides will remain active and the world will continue to spiral out of control.