Newsweek Was Right: Part II

No sooner does Newsweek retract its Koran desecration story then a flurry of news reports attest to just what Newsweek seemed to be reporting.

"Dozens have Alleged Koran's Mishandling" read a Los Angeles Times headline from Sunday. "They tore it and threw it on the floor," former detainee Mohammed Mazouz said of guards at Guantanamo Bay. "They urinated on it. They walked on top of the Koran. They used the Koran like a carpet."

Defense Department shill Lawrence DiRita claims that prison guards were instructed to respect Muslim religious rituals after the prisons for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay were first built in early 2002. But between 2002 and mid-2003 the International Red Cross received "multiple" reports from detainees that American interrogators had abused the Koran. "We raised the issues in our reports and verbally over a lengthy period of time," ICRC spokesman Simon Schorno said last week. "We talked to many detainees, not just one person." The FBI also knew of similar accusations at the time.

Prisoners who protested this treatment were "Earthed," in the words of freed Guantanamo detainee Martin Mubanga, a 32-year-old Londoner arrested in Zambia who spent 33 months in captivity before he was released without charge in January. "Earthed is basically when a minimum of five military policemen dressed in riot gear, with riot shields would come in and manhandle you and put you to the floor," Mubanga told radio host Laura Flanders in his first American interview. "All of this could have been avoided if they showed respect for our religion, its concept and its rulings."

The US responded with "corrective measures" in 2003 after the Red Cross presented its confidential reports. Yet by then Guantanamo had come to define the view of the US for much of the Muslim world. "The cages, the orange suits, the shackles--it's as if they're dealing with something like a germ they don't want to touch," Daoud Kuttab, director of the Institute of Modern Media at Al Quds University in Ramallah, recently told the New York Times.

Unfortunately, the abuses at Guantanamo may pale in comparison to the sadistic treatment of prisoners at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, where US interrogators tortured and left two innocent captives to die in December 2002. In the wake of the deaths, Army investigators recommended closing the case without filing any criminal charges. "Crucial witnesses were not interviewed, documents disappeared, and at least a few pieces of evidence were mishandled," the Times reported. But last October, the Army concluded that 27 officers and personnel should be charged with criminal offenses. Since then, only seven have been charged, and none convicted.

"Like a narrative counterpart to the digital images from Abu Ghraib, the Bagram file depicts young, poorly trained soldiers in repeated incidents of abuse," the Times wrote of a 2,000 page copy of the Army's criminal investigation. "The Bagram file includes ample testimony that harsh treatment by some interrogators was routine and that guards could strike shackled detainees with virtual impunity."

Accountability seemed not to be the motto of the Army in Afghanistan. Senior interrogators at Bagram were later sent to Iraq and re-assigned to Abu Ghraib.

Comments (18)

1. Thanks, more or less.

   On the same, here's a list I compiled on 22 May 2005 [tsujiru.net]:

   Returning Afghans Talk of Guantanamo: Out of Legal Limbo, Some Tell of Mistreatment [washingtonpost.com] 26 March 2003. Marc Kaufman and April Witt. Washington Post.

   "Enduring Freedom:" Abuses by U.S. Forces in Afghanistan [hrw.org]
   March 2004. Human Rights Watch. http://hrw.org/ [hrw.org]

   Flushed With Enthusiasm [harpers.org]
   March 2005. Daniel Rothenberg. Harper's.
   Web version: 18 May 2005.

   From Bagram to Abu Ghraib [motherjones.com]
   3 March 2005. Emily Bazelon. Mother Jones.

   Afghan report [audio.theworld.org] {audio}
   13 May 2005. Quil Lawrence. The World.
   

   Newsweek Got it Right [mediachannel.org]
   15 May 2005. "Calgacus." MediaChannel.org [mediachannel.org]

   Newsweek report on Quran matches many earlier accounts [rawstory.com]
   16 May 2005. RAW STORY.
   http://rawstory.com/ [rawstory.com]

   Attorney: Former Detainees Have Repeatedly Accused U.S. of Desecrating Koran at Guatanamo [democracynow.org]
   18 May 2005. Democracy Now! http://democracynow.org/ [democracynow.org]

   Red Cross told U.S. of Koran incidents [chicagotribune.com]
   19 May 2005. Cam Simpson and Mark Silva. Chicago Tribune.

   In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths [nytimes.com]
   20 May 2005. Tim Golden. New York Times.

   Abuse Inquiry Bogged Down in Afghanistan [nytimes.com]
   22 May 2005. Tim Golden. New York Times.

   Dozens Have Alleged Koran's Mishandling [latimes.com]
   22 May 2005. Richard A. Serrano and John Daniszewski. Los Angeles Times.

   In tales of abuse, Muslims see the U.S. [iht.com]
   23 May 2005. Somini Sengupta and Salman Masood. NYT/IHT.

   Please see also

   Bad Move [juancole.com]
   11 May 2005. Onnesha Roychoudhuri. Mojo Blog [motherjones.com].

   The Newsweek Backtrack: Did the Right Win a Game of Chicken? [dailykos.com]
   15 May 2005. Susan Hu. Daily Kos [dailykos.com].

   Guantanamo Controversies: The Bible and the Koran [juancole.com]
   16 May 2005. Juan Cole. Informed Comment [juancole.com].

   The Dead and the Undead [riverbendblog.blogspot.com]
   18 May 2005. "River". Baghdad Burning [riverbendblog.blogspot.com].

   Wrong and right [salon.com]
   19 May 2005. Sidney Blumenthal. Salon [salon.com].

   Whirled View [whirledview.typepad.com].

   Bagram Revisited [motherjones.com]
   20 May 2005. Onnesha Roychoudhuri. Mojo Blog [motherjones.com].

   "Terrorists until proven otherwise" [motherjones.com]
   20 May 2005. Onnesha Roychoudhuri. Mojo Blog [motherjones.com].

   Posted by ThomH at 05/25/2005 @ 11:23am

2. Thanks Thom. That is a great list.

   Posted by Ari Berman at 05/25/2005 @ 11:27am

3. Thank you for your kind reply. My apologies for the frustration. This story--as well as events in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan--was gathering momentum at the end of last week. Then the pictures of Saddam in his underwear came out, courtesy of Rupert Murdoch's Sun, and the (MSM) mainstream media happily moved on to discussing whether or not such pictures violated the Geneva Convention. I'm glad the Nation is staying on focus. Best, ThomH.

   Posted by ThomH at 05/25/2005 @ 12:00pm

4. It is interesting that the right-wing army of talk show hosts, cable news blovators and columnists have jumped on Newsweek as though it were the Taliban. It is unfortunate that both the Newsweek story on mistreatment of the Koran and Dan Rather's report on Bush's avoiding the draft were basically true, but suffered from shoddy reporting. At least in the case of Newsweek, progrssive reporters are not retreating to the woodshed.

   Posted by ldiamond at 05/25/2005 @ 4:25pm

5. Thanks for your follow up on the Newsweek issue. What puzzles me though is why they are seemingly so willingly going along with this "fiction" that has been created. In fact, they have even announced they are making changes to their sourcing policies, etc., in an effort to "restore their credibility." Why don't they fight or "stand by the story" as they used to do? My suspicion is that their sources all "sang in unison" that they could be frozen out of all future Washington political gossip if they didn't go along with the White House request and since Republicans currrently control the government, they decided it was better to give in. Now certainly, I understand that life can get complicated. We would all like to live in a perfect universe where we never had to compromise our principles. But I wonder if it wouldn't be useful for the Nation writers to comment on what seems to me to be a huge shift in journalistic philosphy. Why are magazines and newspapers and other media more likely to go along now than before? Can we lay the blame for this mostly on the changes in the laws regarding media ownership? I am not sure that we can because it seems to me that the roots of today's situation were already growing by the time the legislation was passed. Bill Moyers has been talking about this too, recently, in reference to his own recent experience at PBS. Even Noam Chomsky's book, "Manufacturing Consent" is useful here, but it is also old now. This seems like a natural subject for inquiry as I think that it's important for the public to understand the forces at work in shaping the news in today's world.

   Posted by Erik at 05/25/2005 @ 4:29pm

6. Maybe this will put things in perspective:

   http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html

   What is the difference between "Piss Christ" and flushing the Koran down the toilet? What happened to The Nation's belief in freedom from religion? "Mistreatment of the Koran"? It's just a book! It's not three thousand innocent human beings. Maybe the detainees would prefer the kind of hospitality that Fidel offers.

   Posted by RonS at 05/25/2005 @ 4:40pm

7. There is a big difference between the two, Ron. Just because it may not be a big deal to you, does not mean the same for everyone else. As a rule, a person's religion should always be respected, be they 'detainees' or not. Numerous articles have been written by former interrogators stating that no credible information is obtained using abusive, torture tactics. These are facts and have nothing whatsoever to do with "belief in freedom from religion", and have everything to do with a basic sense of right and wrong. Also, keep in mind, that most of the 'detainees' have never been charged, had their cases heard in court, presented with credible evidence against them, or had the chance to present evidence on their behalf. Most of them have no legal counsel and have not even been formally charged, and have no connection to 9/11. As for the Quo'ran, it is considered sacred and the direct word of God (Allah). These actions by the U.S. serve no purpose other than to further alienate, outrage and inflame Muslims and ALL humane people, everywhere. And - lest you are thinking that I am a Muslim - let me tell you that I am a "white Christian" with a conscience.

   Posted by Annamarie at 05/25/2005 @ 7:08pm

8. I could be wrong, but I believe Piss Christ is an artist's interpretation of organized religion; where as U.S. military personnel disecrating the Koran in an effort to infuriate, humiliate detainees that have been convicted of nothing and are being held without charges smacks of culturally insensitive, wanton brutality, torture. And I would hope that anyone taking offense by Piss Christ would be the first to denounce any acts committed by U.S. armed forces that intentionally disecrate the religious object of other faiths. (Anything less would be pure hypocrisy.)

   Posted by mtspence05 at 05/25/2005 @ 7:18pm

9. By the way, Ari, yours is an excellent post, as always. Many thanks. I wrote something in the same vein, should you be interested in reading it, please go to: (in case my link doesn't work: http://www.verbena-19.blogspot.com )

   Posted by Annamarie at 05/25/2005 @ 7:18pm

10. Erik's post is a very important one and I want to offer a response. My sense is that Newsweek wants to remain a major player and bowing to the Administration's pressure is the easiest way to stay in the elite club. Same goes with White House reporters. They could ask tougher questions and probe deeply for answers, but then they would be frozen out of access. And I'm sure another reporter from than news organization would be more that happy to take that place. Being a stenographer to power is a coveted place to many people in journalism. They want to be in the same club as the politicians. It's about being a player. Those that don't face a tremendously difficult task--just look at Seymour Hersh. But I'll try and think of an article that addresses this question more directly.

    Posted by Ari Berman at 05/25/2005 @ 10:20pm

11. Is it just because we have less agressive reporters nowadays or was it always like this? I confess I do not know that much about the Watergate scandal among other major scandals but a good reporter would keep asking those tough questions until they got answers even if it meant that they are out of the loop for a while. Or is this just par for course whenever the Republicans are in power?

    Posted by erogers at 05/26/2005 @ 03:56am

12. Anyone believing the rights of humans would now be an enemy of the US. The flagrant abuses by the US of its prisoners around the world (without charge) is far worse than people from the States have ever had to endure, even from their Southern bretherens during the only civil war. The total lack of adhering to the Geneva Convention by the current administration returns the world to kill or be killed. The US refuses to follow civil rules. The US continually ignores the Red Cross and Amnesty International in their carefully documented facts of abuse around the world (including their own country prisons). Their war of terror on the rest of the world is possible only because they are the world's leading cause of terror and abuses for years. The rest of the world should demand they get out of Afghanistan and let their own people run the country. The rest of the world should insist they leave the sovereign nations alone and insist the US and their CIA go home. The rest of the world should speak out loud about the invasions of the US into neighboring countries, keeping those rich nations poor. After years in Iraq the US has done far more damage to Iraq than Saddam Hussein (a former employee of the US) in terms of killing its own people (not considered important enough by the US to even count the thousands dead at the hands of the invaders). The US is now building 14 US military bases in Iraq. How can anyone believe they wish sovereignty to ever be reestablished in that wealthy country? Sharon Gagnon, Mayaro, Trinidad&Tobago

    Posted by Sharon Gagnon at 05/26/2005 @ 06:56am

13. Ron's comparison of "Piss Christ" to the desecration of the Qur'an at Guantanamo disingenuously misses the big picture. However offensive the artwork "Piss Christ" might be to the sensibilities of some Christians (and others), so far as I know it was displayed in art installations which people were free to avoid. U.S. military personnel did not remove people from their homes, fly them to the other side of the world, imprison them for years without charges or the sort of judicial review required by international law (and expected in most civilized nations), beat, abuse, and humiliate them by forcing them to look at "Piss Christ." So no, Ron, the two are not the same, and comparing them on the flat plane of "respecting religion" seems a cynical way of missing the point of concern here.

    Neil

    Posted by NeilElliott at 05/26/2005 @ 09:30am

14. No one feels a need to minimize the atrocities of Hussein's regime (though Bush I and Rumsfeld were comfortable enough with it in the late 1980s). I note that Ann Clwyd's column (to which Ron refers us) cites gruesome "witness testimony"--but with less identification of sources than the original, now controversial, Newsweek story. Could it be we care less about "journalistic standards" when the story simply reflects the dominant mood around us?

    Posted by NeilElliott at 05/26/2005 @ 09:35am

15. The torture committed by Saddam 's regime are well documented, whether you accept the shredder story or not. I did not take offense by "Piss Christ: -- I do not respect irrationality, of either the Christian or Muslim kind. I certainly do not respect people who riot and kill over the supposed destruction of a book. (I don't seem to remember any riots by Buddhists over the destruction of their statues by the Taliban.) The big picture is that 3,000 innocent people were murdered in the name of that book, and if flushing it down the toilet gets a fascist to talk, so be it.

    Posted by RonS at 05/26/2005 @ 12:49pm

16. RONS: Is that really why 3,000 people died? There's a hell of a lot more to it than that.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/26/2005 @ 2:28pm

17. MTSPENCE05: I'd be interested to know your take on it, as long as it doesn't end with it being America's fault.

    Posted by RonS at 05/26/2005 @ 4:45pm

18. It sounds like you already know it all, RONS.

    You must reap what you sow. That's the way it works.

    The violent reaction to the disecration of the Koran is about the clash of cultures, the perception--misguided or not--that the West has no respect for the people, their culture and wants only to dominate the region for its own interests. Try and imagine, if you're capable, of another nation exerting so much influence on the US. How would you feel if another nation meddled in U.S. elections or just outright overthrew the U.S. government because it did not support its policies? There is a long, well established historical record of the U.S. and other Western nations manipulating the region.

    When the United States government dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, the rationale employed was that Japan brought it all on itself (never mind it was Japanese civilians that were incinerated by the blasts); fire raids over Tokyo and other urban areas on the main islands killed far more civilians; the British used indiscriminate night bombing against German civilians. War is hell. I'm sure if Osama had a B-29 and an atomic bomb he would use it against a city in the U.S.; if he had a thousands Lancasters he would use them to bombard civilians.

    Can you wrap your mind around that, RONS? I'm not saying it's right, fair or any other such thing. It just is, and until the U.S. government ceases acting in the selfish, shortsighted interests of its corporate owners radicals will be created and they will act out violently against civilian targets.

    Tell me, RONS: If you step on a scorpion and it stings you, are you or the scorpion to blame? Is it anybody's fault?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/27/2005 @ 3:00pm