FBI Report: Flushing the Koran in 2002

[hgc]

Okay, I've read the stories.

It seems to me the military was clearly wrong to fabricate the initial story of getting killed leading a charge against the enemy, but if their motives were based on recruitment or just maintaining his "hero" image for the benefit of the family are in doubt. My inclination, based on the military having told the family the truth shortly after the service, is that it’s more the later than the former, despite it being a poor decision.

Huh? More of what than what? More OK to concoct a false hero story for recruiting purposes than it is wrong to lie? Please lie to me Daddy Government. It feels so good.

From that point on, the multiple investigations and the families dissatisfaction with the findings seems more the result of grief than anything else. The family wants to make sense out of something that’s inherently senseless, and the military keeps trying to satisfy them because Tilman’s celebrity status makes their feelings more important than the families of other dead soldiers.

In all honesty, do you really think this reflects on the credibility of the entire US government, or just those involved with this situation?

Let's see. Those involved in the situation are government employees implementing government policy of dissembling. How useful is the distinction of this from the "entire US government?" The question for me is: Is Bush or Cheney responsible. If not, who is? What are the consequences? A promotion to UN Ambassador, I suspect.

 

[rikzilla]

Guys, this thread is seriously off the rails.....

 

[Mycroft]

I'm not sure who you are asking, but in this particular case I'd say it reflects only on the credibility of those involved. So perhaps just Lt.Col Beevers, and maybe his CO, or whoever thought "Hey, let's not tell them how exactly it went down just just yet. Let them bury the guy in peace." I would be much more concerned with the that the administration politicizes science, if those claims can be shown to be accurate (and I haven't been paying the attention I should, so I don't know if they have been shown accurate or wrong). http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic10-08-04.htmlclaims[/URL

I agree completely, and I also share your concerns about this administrations politicization of science. At the same time, I also have concerns about the politicization of science from the other side of the political spectrum.

To HGC,

I think you must have misread. You can't get from my initial statement of, "...the military was clearly wrong to fabricate the initial story..." to your characterization as "...Please lie to me Daddy Government. It feels so good." without misreading something.

 

[Brown]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FBI Report: Flushing the Koran in 2002

There's a lot of lying going on, indeed. But it's mostly from the press. Say what you want to about politicians, but career government officials and employees don't actually lie very much at all. Rather, the problem from them is that they cannot be relied upon to reveal everything they know. Their statements may be wrong, and quite often are incomplete, but they actually lie very, very rarely.

I agree that most government employees basically try to be truthful, and that's why I limited my remarks to the official statements from the White House and the Pentagon. These governmental entities have demonstrated serious difficulties with the telling the truth.

Under little Bush, the White House has unashamedly lied on important issue after important issue, evidencing at best a reckless disregard for the truth. Every time an official statement comes from the White House, I almost expect it to include the words, "Yeah, that's the ticket!"

Not since Nixon has there been such flagrant dishonesty and lack of moral character.

I disagree that most of the lying comes from the press. There are some shady news sources out there, but many of them do their best to get the story right. It is hard to find incidents in which major media sources have deliberately reported false facts, but it is easy to think of several false factual assertions by the White House under little Bush.

 

[Ladewig]

Re: Re: FBI Report: Flushing the Koran in 2002

It's looking like Newsweek was right...

Not exactly.

Newsweek's report was based, not on an FBI report, but on the accusations of a well-known ex-detainee after his release--an accusations shown to be without merit, as that same detainee had never mentioned such an incident before in any of the many interviews they gave, and in fact said that his treatment was good.

Even if it turns out that some other guard had disrespected some other detainee in this way, it would not make Newsweek's original story "right". If I accuse you of child molesting for no reason and then it turns out that you robbed a bank, I am not "right" just because in both cases you did a criminal action.

As an aside, this "revelation" seems awfully suspicious: Newsweek carried a story about prisoner X saying the Koran was flashed down the toilet? It was wrong? Quick, everybody--find us a story about anybody in Guatanamo bay who claims the Koran was mistrtreated in any way that has to do with toilets!

Here's one: Washington Post

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.

 

[hgc]

To HGC,

I think you must have misread. You can't get from my initial statement of, "...the military was clearly wrong to fabricate the initial story..." to your characterization as "...Please lie to me Daddy Government. It feels so good." without misreading something.

It's happened before and it'll happen again. Let's break it down the way I saw it, and you be the judge…

It seems to me the military was clearly wrong to fabricate the initial story of getting killed leading a charge against the enemy, but if their motives were based on recruitment or just maintaining his "hero" image for the benefit of the family are in doubt. My inclination, based on the military having told the family the truth shortly after the service, is that it’s more the later than the former, despite it being a poor decision.

"Former" = " It seems to me the military was clearly wrong to fabricate the initial story of getting killed leading a charge against the enemy, …"

"Latter" = "… but if their motives were based on recruitment or just maintaining his "hero" image for the benefit of the family are in doubt."

First, re-reading it, I understand less now what you were saying than I thought I did at the time. I think a typo in that first sentence renders it incomprehensible. Please clarify if you can.

I did think that you were trying to say that it's bad to lie, but not as bad if they were trying to help recruitment and make the family feel better. I was in violent disagreement with that notion.

In any case, it's a moot point any more, my petulant nature got the better of me yet again, and carry on.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

"Unfortunately, one thing we've learned over the last couple of years is that detainee statements about their treatment at Guantanamo and other detention centers sometimes have turned out to be more credible than U.S. government statements," said ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer.

Let me see if I'm hearing this right..

Prisoners have been known to tell the truth? .... and and and.. Sometimes the guards and their superiors tell the truth ? ( but sometimes they lie ? )



Surely those years in law school were not wasted after all...

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by hgc
First, re-reading it, I understand less now what you were saying than I thought I did at the time. I think a typo in that first sentence renders it incomprehensible. Please clarify if you can.

I could have made that more clear. What I meant to say:

1) It was wrong to make up the story of the heroic death.

2) Motives for doing this may have been to promote recruitment or to just maintain the "hero" image for the benefit of the family (or a different motive).

3) My guess is it's more likely to be the later (maintain "hero" image for benefit of family) even though that didn't work out very well.

 

[hgc]

I could have made that more clear. What I meant to say:

1) It was wrong to make up the story of the heroic death.

2) Motives for doing this may have been to promote recruitment or to just maintain the "hero" image for the benefit of the family (or a different motive).

3) My guess is it's more likely to be the later (maintain "hero" image for benefit of family) even though that didn't work out very well.

OK, not to drag this out, but... Why is there a more likely scenario? That they lied and that they had reasons to lie are not mutually exclusive, indeed they are intricately tied together.

 

[Mycroft]

OK, not to drag this out, but... Why is there a more likely scenario? That they lied and that they had reasons to lie are not mutually exclusive, indeed they are intricately tied together.

I think we're still not connecting here.

Yes, they would have reason to lie. I think the more likely reason has less to do with national policy than it does how they think the family would want someone famous remembered.

 

[hgc]

I think we're still not connecting here.

Yes, they would have reason to lie. I think the more likely reason has less to do with national policy than it does how they think the family would want someone famous remembered.

Got it. I think it's the other way around. Or another reason: They had a famous soldier die in combat. The circumstances of his death would draw more media scrutiny than any ordinary soldier's, who afterall are dying in fairly large numbers in Iraq. They thought it best not to let this special case become a highlight of friendly fire.

 

[gnome]

All I wanna know is if the FBI director came out and said their intelligence on koranic potty dunking was "a slam dunk!"
(a messy, yet flamboyant way to show disrespect for the purported words of Allah)

(note: I was looking for a good koran-abuse smiley, and this just seems to be tailor made! Where's Mr. Smiley putting that koran anyhow??)

Let's for a moment assume that these terrible reports are correct. US policy dictates that the Koran be handled with respect by US Military members @ GITMO...so presumably anyone not doing so could be prosecuted for not following policy. However, if that specific policy were not in place,...Koran abuse would not be any kind of crime. (unless the Koran was not the personal property of the person abusing it that is...)

So, is Koran abuse a crime? Should it be a crime?? If so, would it be a misdemeanor or a felony? Should we also enact laws protecting the sanctity of other holy books?? Our flag? What do we do when ordinary Americans punctuate their street protests by abusing a Koran?

In the end....isn't Koran abuse actually a first amendment right? If so, what comes first in America? The Koran, or the Constitution?

-z

Here's the way I see it... it's not illegal per se. But it's stupid to allow soldiers to create an international incident on their own initiative, hence the policy statement. The formal offense would not be the act itself but in violating the policy (i.e., violating orders).

I don't think men in uniform, on duty, enjoy the same free-speech privileges as civilians... am I incorrect?

 

[CapelDodger]

So, is Koran abuse a crime? Should it be a crime??

Of course not. Any more than burning a flag or dissing a monarch. I would look askance at anyone abusing books, but that's just me, I wouldn't criminalise it but I'd note it, and not as a positive thing. I have this whole Rupert Giles thing about books.

The question is way off the thread, but your posing of it isn't, so we can get back on track. You consider this a matter of little consequence, and why not? The average guard at Guantanamo might well share the opinion, and why not? A few lectures on Koran-awareness wouldn't have any effect on us. If I felt it a good idea on balance to flush a Koran, I would do it without a qualm. So, I imagine, would the guard.

If the guard had heard that buggering Guatamalan boys in front of them would unsettle the prisoners, I doubt if he would have employed the tactic without qualms. It's noticeable that there haven't been any claims (to my knowledge) of guards buggering Guatamalan boys in front of prisoners, inflammatory though that would be in the Muslim world. (They regard boy-buggery as very much their own preserve.) I'm not saying that's proof, but it deserves consideration.

 

[punchdrunk]

In all honesty, do you really think this reflects on the credibility of the entire US government, or just those involved with this situation?

Actually, I was just trying to clarify the facts on Tillman and wasn't supporting the position that it discredits the government; I do think it was badly botched and makes the army/government look bad, but that's a long ways from lost credibility. But I do agree with TMonk on WMD - lost a lot of credibility in my book - and not so much abu grahib itself but the interrogation techniques/sending detainees to dictatorships policy stinks to high heaven and is shameful.

But I guess this is derail and I'll digress...

regards