People who wanted to believe that the retracted Newsweek story was plausibly true, (the ones who argued that the real problem was that the rioters could find it plausible) continued to focus on the fact that all their source pulled back on was which report he had seen the Koran-flushing story in. So, he could no longer be sure it was in the SouthCom report, they said, he'd still seen it somewhere.
Of course, without knowing what report he had seen it in, without getting a copy of the report, the problem is that that really doesn't tell us that much. The whole problem is that the Newsweek story doesn't address the fact that Koran-flushing stories are a dime a dozen, as Jack Shafer demonstrated. Newsweek's source was not the first government confirmation of Koran-flushing stories: it was yet more recycling of the same old allegations that had been made for some time, yet this time those allegations were apparently being recycled in a government report.
Today there's a big, huge, enormous headline from the Washington Post: newly released documents from the FBI also include these allegations.
It's a lock, a guarantee, this one's in the bank, Hank, that this will be taken as complete and total vindication of Newsweek.
Sort of.
It may be that the Post has discovered which government report (or, at least, which government documents) Newsweek's source was thinking of when he passed on that original story. In that very narrow and circumscribed sense -- did Newsweek's source see reference to allegations of a toilet flushing on government paper? -- Newsweek may be vindicated. (Although if they couldn't prove the story at the time, can vindication really come ex post facto for the press?)
Has the Post uncovered never before seen, final and incontrovertible evidence that Korans were being flushed?
It doesn't look like substantively the Post is actually adding much new at all.
Their reporters write:
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.
Bracket the physical abuses, since for now we are focusing on the Koran (since at least the rioters seem to believe books to be more important than people.) That's really the part of the Post's story that's presented as a scoop. Well, we know already that prior to the institution of specific policies for the treatment of the Koran, there were allegations of the book being mistreated. We got that from the ICRC, as well as verification that the abuses stopped. That there was a specific allegation of the toilet story is new, but, again, just an allegation. No proof, no independent confirmation or verification, and we await evidence it got to the DOD.
Still waiting for an acknowledgement that al Queda prisoners are adept at disinformation, that their allegations and claims should be at least tested with some form of additional information cross-checking their claims.
This is consistent with what we should anticipate from their behavior.
But the Pentagon said yesterday that the same prisoner, who is still in custody, was reinterviewed on May 14 and "did not corroborate" his earlier claim about the Koran.
Is this new information?
Some captives said they witnessed mistreatment of the Koran. Three told FBI interrogators that they had only heard about incidents from other inmates, the records show.
Yes, underscore in the sense that we already knew. (Where's the mention of the fact that even the Red Cross admits that this is all no longer the case?)
More:
Whitman said in his statement last night that al Qaeda members have been trained to lie about their treatment during incarceration, and that officials at Guantanamo Bay have had "a great deal of sensitivity to the importance of the Koran and other religious items and practices and . . . extensive procedures were put in place to respect the cultural dignity of the Koran." In January 2003, the Pentagon issued rules for handling the holy book.
Ah ha. At last comes mention that al Queda lies, but it comes as a quote from a Pentagon spokesman, thus it comes with the suggestion that it's said because the speaker comes with agenda, rather than as simple statement of fact.
Given the problem of credibility, where is evidence in support of the new additional allegation regarding the toilet? Where is proof these emails entered the logs DOD said have no mention of toilet flushing? (was it reported to military guards, as well as the FBI?) Where's the statement that even the ICRC says the abuse of the book has passed?
Nothing.
So what we've got here is proof that detainees who may or may not have complained to their guards -- the Post is agnostic -- did complain to FBI interrogators during the period before the DOD put a stop to it.
So we have yet another unconfirmed, unverified story with no independent verification or confirmation.
This does not, in and of itself, negate the stories told to the Congress. It's another unevidenced allegation versus thousands of pages of personal and individual reports.
So, at the end of the day, with the exception of the fact that agents likely need to speak to the hearing, or tribunal, or whatever it is down there, what's changed?
Newsweek started from a false premise and went on to reach an incorrect conclusion. So what else is new when one bases your reporting on "it could be true standard."
Posted by: TJ Jackson | May 26, 2005 at 11:45 PM
出会い出会いデリヘル
Posted by: hhhhh | June 03, 2008 at 11:16 PM