Category: Old Dish

You can see a potential future scenario in this Koran-abuse business. There are several independent claims by released Gitmo inmates that interrogators abused the Koran or otherwise targeted their religious sensibilities. The Pentagon denies it, as they now have. Almost no one in a position to know the truth is free from Pentagon influence; or not employed by the Pentagon. So we are left to ask whether to believe al Qaeda terrorists, trained to make such accusations, or American Pentagon officials. I know whom I’d rather believe. At the same time, we know that other incidents as bad as the Koran incident have indeed occurred, including the truly bizarre one about female interrogators and fake menstrual blood. In the New York Times today, we find reported as a throw-away line that

[i]n another case, a soldier was investigated for taunting a Muslim detainee with a Star of David.

We have evidence that detainees in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere were forced to eat pork and had liquor poured down their throats. We know that abuses and torture occurred throughout the military prison system; that the rules for interrogation were deliberately made more lax; that we have 36 deaths-in-interrogation; and so on.

THE BALANCE OF DOUBT: So when we have reports of an alleged desecration of the Koran, whom are we supposed to find credible? Before this war started, I wouldn’t have even considered the possibility that the U.S. was guilty. But, given the enormous evidence of abuse that stares us in the face, doubt is now the only operative position to take. The sad truth is: this administration has forfeited our trust in its management of the military’s interrogation processes. They forfeited it not simply because of the evidence of widespread abuse and memos that expanded the range of interrogation techniques, but by the record of accountability. Anyone with real power or influence was let off the hook in the Abu Ghraib fiasco; no serious external inquiry was allowed; Rumsfeld wasn’t allowed to resign; Sanchez is in place; Gonzales is rewarded for loyalty; the Republican Congress completely looked the other way; last year, John Kerry cowardly avoided the subject. We couldn’t even get a law passed forbidding the CIA from using torture. And what I find remarkable is that interrogatory abuse is now taken for granted, even by defenders of the administration. Here’s Jonah Goldberg today:

But what on earth was gained by Newsweek’s decision to publish the story – whether it was true or not? Were we unaware that interrogators at Gitmo aren’t playing bean bag with detainees?

No we were not unaware. We were just looking the other way. So yesterday’s outrage becomes today’s world-weary assumption. This is how liberty dies – with scattered, knee-jerk applause.

“You really need to cool it with the naive self-righteousness; your latest postings remind me of something that a bitter freshman at Yale might write. I think you need to get away from your computer, take a trip to the Middle East and get a sense of the real world we’re living in. And after you get back, talk to some federal prosecutors you trust about the veracity of 99% of complaints by inmates. Your relentless and redundant commentary on abuses at Abu Graib and Guantanamo are out of proportion to what is going on there, and obscenely out of proportion relative to what is going on in the Muslim world. Over-aggressive law enforcement and military has always existed, and will always exist. I’m not faulting you for pointing it out and discussing it — you should — but you are way overdoing it. You should follow the lead of Thomas Friedman and actually visit these countries, talk to the people and see how utterly insane the fundamentalists/insurgents/terrorists are. 400 Iraqi citizens have been murdered in the last couple of weeks by fellow Muslims, yet you spend much more time talking about a woman interrogator faking a period. There is nothing close to moral equivalence here. Now, if the interrogators lined up 400 prisoners at Guantanamo and summarily beheaded them, that would be a different story.”

Andy McCarthy makes a good point that we shouldn’t blame Isikoff for the murderous anger of Islamist mobs. It says something very wrong about contemporary Islam that its followers behave this way. Isikoff should be held responsible for relying on one wobbly, anonymous source – not for murder. At the same time, the point made by some that alleged flushing of the Koran, or peeing on it, or tearing it, is not much different than the artistic excesses of people like Theo van Gogh or Andres Serrano strikes me as flawed. The Gitmo allegations are different for a simple reason. The claim is that blasphemy was deliberately deployed by a government in order to extract information from detainees. This is a big difference. Blasphemy by free citizens is one thing in an open society; the deliberate deployment of blasphemy by government in order to place extreme psychological pressure on religious inmates is quite another. You’re an anti-Semite? In a free country, you are free to speak your mind. But if the government were to desecrate Jewish symbols in front of Jewish inmates (imprisoned without trial), or force them to eat pork, or burn a Torah as part of interrogation procedures, we’d be outraged. Wouldn’t we? Here’s what I don’t get about the religious right in this. They are rightly sensitive to possible government discrimination against sincere religious faith. But here there is a case of the most atrocious anti-religious discrimination imaginable. And what is their response? Do they say: “This is obviously untrue. If it were true, we’d be outraged. Our military would never behave this way.” No; their fear is that the evidence will not back them up on this. So they say, “Look at the liberal media, feeding unsourced stories to discredit America.” Is this a form of denial or mere avoidance? Maybe their defense of religious freedom doesn’t go as deep as it might. Maybe it depends on whose religion is under attack.

Norm Geras examines the latest case. It occurs, of course, in Israel.

NOW – WORLD DOMINATION!: You thought the fudnamentalist right couldn’t get nuttier? You were wrong. Christianism is now, for some of its fringe adherents, a full-fledged political ideology, aspiring to world domination. Just like Communism. And Islamism.

THE GANNON NON-STORY: Here’s a sane piece on the non-story that the left-wing blogosphere tried to turn into Watergate. There was no scandal here whatsoever. In the end, the campaign against Gannon was sustained by pure homophobia – pioneered, as it sadly often is, by the gay far-left.

Here’s the money quote from the president’s spokesman:

[O]ur military goes out of their way to handle the Koran with care and respect. There are policies and practices that are in place. This report was wrong. Newsweek, itself, stated that it was wrong. And so now I think it’s incumbent and — incumbent upon Newsweek to do their part to help repair the damage. And they can do that through ways that they see best, but one way that would be good would be to point out what the policies and practices are in that part of the world, because it’s in that region where this report has been exploited and used to cause lasting damage to the image of the United States of America. It has had serious consequences. And so that’s all I’m saying, is that we would encourage them to take steps to help repair the damage. And I think that they recognize the importance of doing that. That’s all I’m saying.

Does McClellan really want the press to report more widely on what has been going on at Guantanamo Bay? Does he really want more stories about forced nakedness, female interrogators using panties and fake menstrual blood, and many reports from former inmates about deliberate misuse of the Koran? Well, let it rip, I say. The press’s response should not be to whine about the Bush administration pestering them. It should be call McClellan’s bluff. Demand far greater access to inmates at Gitmo. Demand that former interrogators be allowed to speak freely to the media. Ask for interviews with CIA interrogators at Gitmo and in Afghanistan. Get military permission to debrief Muslim military chaplain, James Yee. Run long, detailed stories debriefing released Gitmo detainees and try to confirm or debunk their allegations of abuse. Pull together all the reports of abuse of religion in U.S. facilities and explain the full context for readers. And when the administration and Pentagon resist such efforts for deeper exploration of “policies and practices,” refer to McClellan’s briefing. The administration has now opened the door for a fuller exploration of their policies and actual practices regarding detainees. Let’s walk in and see what’s in there, shall we?

This one is on Glenn Reynolds’ comparative coverage of the Newsweek error and the original Abu Ghraib revelations:

Like yourself, I was particularly struck by the suggestion made by Instapundit that Newsweek’s error was “the press’s Abu Ghraib”. Initially, I interpreted the parity as one of moral fault: the idiotic idea that similar consequences make similar crimes. But in considering its relation to the surrounding arguments – i.e. Reynolds’ not-so-subtle premonitions about the future of free speech – I arrived at a more cynical interpretation: namely, that it ultimately didn’t matter whether the reports of torture were true or not (since we now know that Muslims will riot and hate us either way) and so just as Newsweek shouldn’t have reported its story, the original Abu Ghraib story should have been likewise silenced. This also fits with Reynolds’ recent musings that other documentation may also be fake, thus calling into question the legitimacy of the entire torture story.
To evaluate these two interpretations, I went back to the week in May ’04 when the torture story broke, and took a random sample (as a social scientist, such are my habits) of Instapundit’s posts/updates to compare his reaction to that of the Newsweek scandal. The Newsweek story was the subject of 22 of the 40 posts/updates, all of which expressed admonishment. In contrast, the sample of 40 posts from the Abu Ghraib weeks contained only 2 expressing admonishment of the abuse (and even there, it is qualified), while the 12 other posts/updates on the abuse scandal either: A) Attempted to minimize its moral and practical significance, or B) Tried to discredit the evidence as fake or exaggerated by anti-troop, liberal media bias.
In other words, Reynolds’ treatment of the real torture story was almost indistinguishable from his treatment of the fake torture story. For Reynolds, a false report of torture represents the same, basic problem as its demonstrable, photographic truth: namely, the subordination of the media’s liberal agenda to that of the U.S. in wartime. This, it seems to me, is the real implication of the notion of “the press’s Abu Ghraib”: the tendency to view The News, not by the criteria of empirical validity, but by the patriotism and political pragmatism of its consequences.

I think the emailer is being too kind. Instapundit’s coverage suggests that he believes that the erroneously-sourced Newsweek story is actually more offensive and important than what happened at Abu Ghraib. A more direct expression of an even more hardline position is given by LaShawn Barber:

Let me clear up one thing. Whether Americans flushed the Koran down the toilet is irrelevant. Newsweek should not have reported it, even if true.

Now there’s a new standard.

Today is the first anniversary of the full civil liberation of gay citizens in one state in the United States. I’m celebrating. I do not believe for a second that we are going to lose this battle, because I deeply believe in the truth and justice of the cause of equality, and I believe that, in America, that cause always wins in the end. Setbacks are inevitable. But the progress we have made is astonishing by any historical standard:

Above all, we have changed consciousness. In civil rights movements, that’s what matters and that’s what endures. People forget that two decades ago, homosexuality meant simply sex for most Americans – and unsavory sex at that. Or it meant counter-cultural revolution. Or left-wing victim politics. By fighting the marriage fight, we changed the terms of that debate. We co-opted the language of our enemies – the language of family, love, responsibility, commitment. We did this not simply because it helps us win over the middle of American politics. But because it’s actually reflective of the reality of many of our lives … The next generation will grow up – gay and straight – fully aware of the existence of marriage as an option for gay couples, even if that option is in another state or another country. That will deeply and subtly change social expectations for gay men and women; it will alter sex and dating; it will counter some of the homophobia and low self-esteem that strangles some gay youth. It will tell the next generation of homosexuals: you have a future. That future is one of love and commitment and social integration. It is not assured. But it is conceivable.

Time to thank all those people – gay and especially straight – who have had the courage to support us, and to see that, in America, equality, fairness and human dignity is everyone’s business.

Europeans agree with Americans, it seems.

EVANGELICALS AND TORTURE: Not everyone is gung-ho. The position of the religious right in this developing story is going to be fascinating.

This emailer has a good point:

“The White House’s spinning of the Newsweek error is a huge miscalculation. It worked with Rathergate, which involved non-existent 30-year old documents related to a tired, worn out story. The White House got the last word because the Bush National Guard story was toast. Does Karl Rove really believe this is the last word on Islam-and-Interrogation?
Rove is daring every media organization in the US to make prisoner abuse a Page 1 story again. What is he thinking? Stories of Koran-abuse are coming – and the harder the White House spins, the worse they’ll look when they arrive. For the life of me, I can’t understand why Rove didn’t just let the story die. The media had nearly convinced itself that prisoner abuse stories don’t matter, but Rove has just lit a flame under journalists everywhere.”

The White House’s high profile attack on Newsweek – and the reliable media pouncing on the story – is a good strategy if the underlying story is untrue and will not be verified by future reporting. But if the story is true – and no one has denied it – then it will surely come out. Worse, it will raise the whole issue of the abuse of Islam in the treatment of prisoners, which goes far beyond merely one alleged incident of a toilet flush. This may not be close to torture, but it sure does violate the Geneva Conventions; more importantly, it’s explosive in terms of alienating Muslims we need and winning the broader war.

JOURNALISM AND PATRIOTISM: One thing that really struck me when reading through all the reports of detainee abuse was the consistency of anti-Islamic rhetoric and tactics. Captain James Yee, originally and unsuccessfully framed by the military as a spy, was the Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo. He doubtless has stories to tell. So will others – unless the military gets to them. Did a hunger strike take place at Gitmo because of issues related to treatment of the Koran? Karl Rove has just made that a much bigger story than it ever would have been otherwise. The bigger point here is that highlighting these abuses is not, pace Glenn, reflective of a loyalty to journalism rather than to America. It is precisely a belief in America, in her proud traditions of fair treatment of prisoners, that motivates many of us to expose these horrors. And it is out of a desire to win this war of ideas, especially among moderate Muslims, that many of us want to stop the kind of insanity that prevailed at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and many other military facilities across the globe. Many Muslims already believe the Koran-flushing story and are being accused (not without reason) of paranoia. But what if this time – or at other times – their paranoia is justified? The consequences of the Bush administration’s new, half-baked policies on interrogation are only beginning to be felt. And they threaten our entire position in this war. That’s why some of us won’t stint in exposing these issues. We’re in this war to win it; not to engage in dumb, unnecessary self-inflicted wounds.

HERE’S THE PROBLEM FOR BUSH: Susan Hu over at Daily Kos is on the case. Here’s an important piece of reporting:

I took the extra step today of contacting an attorney that is representing over ten Guantánamo detainees. He works for a prominent, private, Washington, D.C. law firm, and has visited Guantánamo four times since late last year. All of his clients share the same nationality and, partly for this reason, all of his clients have been kept in complete isolation from each other.

Seeing his clients is not easy. First of all, it requires a week’s stay in barracks to meet with all his clients for a sufficient amount of time. The barracks are located on the other side of the base from the camps, and the two and half-hour transit time involves a bus and a ferry.

He must prepare, in advance, a list of which clients he wishes to see, and in what order. Once, he was told that the guards could not locate one of his clients.

He meets with his clients one-by-one, never in groups. The detainees have had no contact with each other, and no opportunity to collaborate on false allegations of abuse.

I asked him, “Have you heard any accounts of Qur’anic desecration?”

He replied, “Yes, two detainees told me completely independently that they had witnessed a Qur’an being thrown in the toilet. Another told me that he had witnessed a Qur’an being stomped on. And another told me he had witnessed a Qur’an being urinated on.”

He continued, “Most disturbances, like hunger strikes, have been over religious issues, like non-Muslims handling the Koran.” I asked how the guards were supposed to supply Qur’ans to the detainees without handling them? He told me that the Muslim chaplains could provide this service, but there were fewer and fewer chaplains available.

Are all these detainees lying? Hasn’t the White House now challenged the entire news media to find out what the allegations are and whether they have merit? If these stories are true, will the media have “blood on its hands” for reporting them? Or is the real responsibility to be found among those officials who constructed the policies that made such abuses possible?

“[D]ump the hyperbole and call Abu Ghraib what it was: rank felony abuse, not deadly torture.” – May 15, 8pm.
“Yes, prisoners have died at Abu Ghraib – that place is hideous, like Ralph Peters I think we should have blown it up in May 2003- but I don’t see any murder charges on the list… There is this: “Manadel al-Jamadi, Abu Ghraib, Iraq, Nov. 4, 2003. Died during interrogation. Several Navy SEALs charged; and two CIA personnel under investigation.” That’s suspicious. Is there an update on this particular investigation?” – May 16, 8.34 pm. To recap:

On Nov. 4, 2003, Manadel al-Jamadi was found dead in the showers of Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad. Al-Jamadi was a detainee who, according to a Navy SEAL testifying in a military court a year later, had probably been beaten by interrogators the night before.

Perhaps you could argue that beating someone in the head until they are dead and then celebrating that death does not constitute “deadly torture.” I’d prefer not to start making those kinds of distinctions. I’ll leave that to Alberto Gonzales. One of the most sickening pictures we have been allowed to see of Abu Ghraib was of Sabrina Harman, smiling and giving a thumbs up next to the battered face of al-Jamadi’s corpse. Here’s a pic of Graner, grinning over the quarry. This morning, Harman was found guilty of six different charges of prisoner abuse.