• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Red Cross warned U.S. over Quran

Status
Not open for further replies.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The International Committee of the Red Cross gathered "credible" reports about U.S. personnel at the Guantanamo Bay naval base disrespecting the Quran and raised the issue with the Pentagon several times, a group spokesman said Thursday.

Simon Schorno said the allegations were made by detainees to Red Cross representatives who visited the detention facility throughout 2002 and 2003.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Thursday the Pentagon in 2003 issued strict guidelines on how U.S. personnel should handle the Quran.

Schorno said the Red Cross heard no more allegations about mishandling of the Quran after the guidelines were issued.

Boucher said the United States works closely with the Red Cross and acknowledged the group "had heard some concerns about the handling of Qurans, which it shared with the U.S."

But he said actions taken in respect of detainees' religious practices at Guantanamo include providing them with Qurans, indicating the direction to Mecca, providing the call to prayer and serving meals according to Muslim customs.

"We have very extensive guidelines about how Qurans are to be handled, who they're to be handled by, the wearing of gloves, how they're to be moved and transported, in order to ensure that no such concerns will arise," Boucher said.

Schorno did not provide specific instances of alleged desecration, instead addressing only to the general issue of disrespecting the Muslim holy book.

"The fact that ICRC documented these allegations, documented them and formalized them, I think makes a difference," Schorno said. "We researched them and found they were credible allegations."

Although Red Cross employees did not personally witness any mishandling of Qurans, Schorno said, they documented and corroborated enough reports from detainees to share them with Pentagon and Guantanamo officials in confidential reports.

Schorno said the Red Cross would not have raised the issue if it had been an isolated incident, but he would not offer specifics about the number of complaints.

"The very fact that we brought up the issue speaks for itself," he said. "We don't make such reports for minor problems."

U.S. officials have often downplayed such complaints about Quran desecration because they came from detainees.

Teams of Red Cross representatives have been making six-week visits to the U.S. detainee camp in Cuba every three months since 2002.

A Red Cross team is currently on the ground at Guantanamo, Schorno said.

A recent Newsweek magazine article alleged that U.S. investigators had concluded that U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Quran, in one instance by flushing the Muslim holy book down a toilet.

Newsweek subsequently retracted the report, saying its government source had indicated doubts about his information after publication.

The Bush administration blamed the report, at least in part, for deadly violence that erupted in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world.

Human Rights Watch said that despite the Newsweek retraction it also had received reports from Muslim detainees -- at Guantanamo Bay, in Afghanistan and in Iraq -- that U.S. interrogators had repeatedly sought to offend their Islamic beliefs in order to humiliate them.

"Several detainees have alleged to Human Rights Watch and others that U.S. interrogators disrespected the Quran," according to a statement issued by the group Thursday.

Reed Brody, a spokesman for Human Rights Watch, noted the Newsweek story "would not have have resonated had it not been for the United States' extensive abuse of Muslim detainees and the government's failure to fully investigate all of those implicated."

The group also denied Newsweek's report caused the damage during last week's anti-American rioting in Afghanistan, blaming instead "violent protesters and poorly disciplined Afghan police and troops."

U.S. officials have acknowledged that investigations are ongoing into reports of religious intolerance -- including desecration of the Quran -- by interrogators at Guantanamo Bay.

"We do listen when people raise questions about the handling of the Quran, and we have made very clear what our policies are," Boucher said.

"The policy and practice that we follow at Guantanamo is to respect the religious rights of the prisoners."

"If there are credible instances that are called to our attention of where those rules were not followed or the policy is not carried out thoroughly, then we investigate," he said.

"We make sure the practices are corrected and improved."

The administration caught yet another bold face lie. Looks like the Newsweek article wasn't too far off the mark. And it's the Media that is the problem obviously. The sad thing is that this Administration had been extremely effective in blunting any and all critique of what I see is the an upper level policy on practices and procedures.
 

Macam

Banned
Pedigree Chum said:
Is it me or are these types of articles becoming increasingly harder to read? SO much misinformation...ugh.

It's mostly because news outlets seem intent on limiting paragraphs to three sentences at best, so you get these messy, long articles that takes two minutes to read, once you get past the shoddy formatting.

I saw this article earlier and it's not surprising. Nearly everything the administration says about the military has been wrong -- and of course, things only get worse:

In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths

The story of Mr. Dilawar's brutal death at the Bagram Collection Point - and that of another detainee, Habibullah, who died there six days earlier in December 2002 - emerge from a nearly 2,000-page confidential file of the Army's criminal investigation into the case, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.
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 harsh treatment, which has resulted in criminal charges against seven soldiers, went well beyond the two deaths.

In some instances, testimony shows, it was directed or carried out by interrogators to extract information. In others, it was punishment meted out by military police guards. Sometimes, the torment seems to have been driven by little more than boredom or cruelty, or both.

In sworn statements to Army investigators, soldiers describe one female interrogator with a taste for humiliation stepping on the neck of one prostrate detainee and kicking another in the genitals. They tell of a shackled prisoner being forced to roll back and forth on the floor of a cell, kissing the boots of his two interrogators as he went. Yet another prisoner is made to pick plastic bottle caps out of a drum mixed with excrement and water as part of a strategy to soften him up for questioning.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?
 
Pedigree Chum said:
Is it me or are these types of articles becoming increasingly harder to read? SO much misinformation...ugh.

I'm numb to the incredulous feeling that I used to get.

Reporter - We have reports that interrogators are skeet shooting detainees.

Adminsitration - Impossible, we respect human life and would never do anything like that once again it is the media being irresponsible and endangering the lives of or troops. We are thinking to moving the Media to communist Russia where that type of thing floursihes.

Reporter - I am sorry from here on out we shall only report accurate fluff jobs for the administration

Administration - That's better

New source - We have substainated reports that the interrogators skeet shot detainees for 10 months prior to the report that was just disavowed by reporter we also have pictures of skeet shooting detanee catapult.

Administration - OH that skeet shooting catapult. Yeah well we'll get right on that. Next question, yes the President does enjoy grits sometimes in the morning usually on Sundays before Church. I'm glad that some reporters know how to ask the hard hitting questions.
 
Sokar said:
Better them then us.

We keep it up and one day it will be us, that's the point. The US has become the world leader becasue it attempts to lead by example. What is the example that this activitiy sets forth. It doesn't take much for "them" to become "us".
 

Triumph

Banned
Sokar said:
Better them then us.
I know right? If I can't drive my Canyonero from my shitty McMansion in the burbs to work in a city with crumbling infrastructure that my parents and grandparents abandoned to the black folks, then the terrorists have truly won.
 

Macam

Banned
The press has been quietly stirring lately, thanks in large part to being directly threatened twice in a week's time: once by the shoddy White House evacuation and once by the administration's scapegoating of Newsweek, effectively dropping a wide swath of violence across the Middle East at their footsteps.

If you want to see the press in action for once, I highly suggest reading these two White House Press Briefing transcripts or watching the accompanying videos: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050517-2.html and http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050512-2.html.

Here are some choice excerpts:

Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not telling them. I'm saying that we would encourage them to help --

Q You're pressuring them.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm saying that we would encourage them --

Q It's not pressure?

...

Q Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is; is that what you're saying here?

MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth, let me finish my sentence. Our military --

Q You've already said what you're -- I know what -- how it ends.

Apparently, once the media is threatened, they begin to care.

Coincidentally, I literally got run off the road today by some 80-year old woman in her Buick, which was poignantly decorated with "Bush/Cheney '04" and "W STILL the President" bumper stickers, when she decided to change lanes without ever taking a look over or signaling on an uphill sharp curve. I mean, geezus, bitch, I'm not the one trying to take away your Social Security, lay off. I don't know what's with this state; I've never had problems with people wanting to Save Our Springs, Nader supporters, or Kerry supporters. But the second that F350 with the "Boycott France" sticker comes rolling on the freeway....watch out.
 

Drozmight

Member
Haha. My Acura Integra (Honda Civic in disguise) with it's Kerry sticker almost gets run over by monster trucks with "Incase of rapture, car will be empty" stickers on them daily. I hate people. Compensating? The nuclear holocaust can't come soon enough.
 

SFA_AOK

Member
Reminded me of a mail I got recently...

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=428&row=0

owardice in Journalism Award for Newsweek
Goebbels Award for Condi
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
E-Mail Article
Printer Friendly Version

by Greg Palast

"It's appalling that this story got out there," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on her way back from Iraq.

What's not appalling to Condi is that the US is holding prisoners at Guantanamo under conditions termed "torture" by the Red Cross. What's not appalling to Condi is that prisoners of the Afghan war are held in violation of international law after that conflict has supposedly ended. What is not appalling to Condi is that prisoner witnesses have reported several instances of the Koran's desecration.

What is appalling to her is that these things were reported. So to Condi goes to the Joseph Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda Iron Cross.

But I don't want to leave out our President. His aides report that George Bush is "angry" about the report -- not the desecration of the Koran, but the reporting of it.

And so long as George is angry and Condi appalled, Newsweek knows what to do: swiftly grab its corporate ankles and ask the White House for mercy.

But there was no mercy. Donald Rumsfeld pointed the finger at Newsweek and said, "People lost their lives. People are dead." Maybe Rumsfeld was upset that Newsweek was taking away his job. After all, it's hard to beat Rummy when it comes to making people dead.

And just for the record: Newsweek, unlike Rumsfeld, did not kill anyone -- nor did its report cause killings. Afghans protested when they heard the Koran desecration story (as Christians have protested crucifix desecrations). The Muslim demonstrators were gunned down by the Afghan military police -- who operate under Rumsfeld's command.

Our Secretary of Defense, in his darkest Big Brother voice, added a warning for journalists and citizens alike, "People need to be very careful about what they say."

And Newsweek has now promised to be very, very good, and very, very careful not to offend Rumsfeld, appall Condi or anger George.

For their good behavior, I'm giving Newsweek and its owner, the Washington Post, this week's Yellow Streak Award for Craven Cowardice in Journalism.

As always, the competition is fierce, but Newsweek takes the honors by backing down on Mike Isikoff's exposé of cruelity, racism and just plain bone-headed incompetence by the US military at the Guantanamo prison camp.

Isikoff cited a reliable source that among the neat little "interrogation" techniques used to break down Muslim prisoners was putting a copy of the Koran into a toilet.

In the old days, Isikoff's discovery would have led to Congressional investigations of the perpetrators of such official offence. The Koran-flushers would have been flushed from the military, panels would have been impaneled and Isikoff would have collected his Pulitzer.

No more. Instead of nailing the wrong-doers, the Bush Administration went after the guy who reported the crime, Isikoff.

Was there a problem with the story? Certainly. If you want to split hairs, the inside-government source of the Koran desecration story now says he can't confirm which military report it appeared in. But he saw it in one report and a witness has confirmed that the Koran was defiled.

Of course, there's an easy way to get at the truth. RELEASE THE REPORTS NOW. Hand them over, Mr. Rumsfeld, and let's see for ourselves what's in them.

But Newsweek and the Post are too polite to ask Rumsfeld to make the investigative reports public. Rather, the corporate babysitter for Newsweek, editor Mark Whitaker, said, "Top administration officials have promised to continue looking into the charges and so will we." In other words, we'll take the Bush Administration's word that there is no evidence of Koran-dunking in the draft reports on Guantanamo.

It used to be that the Washington Post permitted journalism in its newsrooms. No more. But, frankly, that's an old story.

Every time I say investigative reporting is dead or barely breathing in the USA, some little smartass will challenge me, "What about Watergate? Huh?" Hey, buddy, the Watergate investigation was 32 years ago -- that means it's been nearly a third of a century since the Washington Post has printed a big investigative scoop.

The Post today would never run the Watergate story: a hidden source versus official denial. Let's face it, Bob Woodward, now managing editor at the Post, has gone from "All the President's Men" to becoming the President's Man -- "Bush at War." Ugh!

And now the Post company is considering further restrictions on the use of confidential sources -- no more "Deep Throats."

Despite its supposed new concern for hidden sources, let's note that Newsweek and the Post have no trouble providing, even in the midst of this story, cover for secret Administration sources that are FAVORABLE to Bush. Editor Whitaker's retraction relies on "Administration officials" whose names he kindly withholds.

In other words, unnamed sources are OK if they defend Bush, unacceptable if they expose the Administration's mendacity or evil.

A lot of my readers don't like the Koran-story reporter Mike Isikoff because of his goofy fixation with Monica Lewinsky and Mr. Clinton's cigar. Have some sympathy for Isikoff: Mike's one darn good reporter, but as an inmate at the Post/Newsweek facilities, his ability to send out serious communications to the rest of the world are limited.

A few years ago, while I was tracking the influence of the power industry on Washington, Isikoff gave me some hard, hot stuff on Bill Clinton -- not the cheap intern-under-the-desk gossip -- but an FBI report for me to publish in The Guardian in England.

I asked Isikoff why he didn't put it in Newsweek or in the Post.

He said, when it comes to issues of substance, "No one gives a sh--" -- not the readers, and especially not the editors who assume that their US target audience is small-minded, ignorant and wants to stay that way.

That doesn't leave a lot of time, money or courage for real reporting. And woe to those who practice real journalism. As with CBS's retraction of Dan Rather's report on Bush's draft-dodging, Newsweek's diving to the mat on Guantanamo acts as a warning to all journalists who step out of line.

Newsweek has now publicly committed to having its reports vetted by Rumsfeld's Defense Department before publication. Why not just print Rumsfeld's press releases and eliminate the middleman, the reporter?

However, not all of us poor scribblers will adhere to this New News Order. In the meantime, however, for my future security and comfort, I'm having myself measured for a custom-made orange suit.
 

Macam

Banned
To follow on that last post, this is essentially what was being asked in the first WH press briefing I listed and whomever wrote that e-mail to you above is absolutely correct. The White House does not tolerate any unfavorable reporting, regardless of the realities of the situation. Point in case, just take a look at the excerpts below:

Q In context of the Newsweek situation, I think we hear the caution you're giving us about reporting things based on a single anonymous source. What, then, are we supposed to do with information that this White House gives us under the conditions that it comes from a single anonymous source?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to.

Q Frequent briefings by senior administration officials in which the ground rules are we can only identify them as a single anonymous source.

MR. McCLELLAN: Ken, I know that there is an issue when it comes to the media in terms of the use of anonymous sources, but the issue is not related to background briefings. But I do believe that we should work to move away from those kind of background briefings. I've been working with the bureau chiefs on that very issue. And I think we have taken some steps, and I think you have noticed that.

But there is a credibility problem in the media regarding the use of anonymous sources, but it's because of fabricated stories, and it's because of situations like this one over the weekend. It's not because of the background briefings that you may be referring to.

Q What prevents this administration from just saying from this point forward, you will identify who it is that's talking to us?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, in terms of background briefings, if that's what you're asking about, which I assume it is, let me point out that what I'm talking about there are officials who are helping to provide context to on-the-record comments made by people like the President or the Secretary of State or others. I don't think that that is the issue here when it comes to the use or widespread use of anonymous sources by the media. I think it's --

Q But--

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me finish -- I think it's a much larger issue. And as I said, one of the concerns is that some media organizations have used anonymous sources that are hiding behind that anonymity in order to generate negative attacks.

Q But to our readers, viewers and listeners, I think it's all the same.

MR. McCLELLAN: And then you have a situation -- you have a situation where we found out later that quotes were attributed to people that they didn't make. Or you have a situation where you now learn that a single source was used for verifying this allegation -- and that source, himself, said he could not personally verify the accuracy of the report. And I think that that's -- you know, that's one of the issue that concerns the American people when they look at the media, and I think sometimes the media does have difficulty going back and kind of critiquing itself. And sometimes it's convenient for the media to point to others or to point to something other than internally. I think it's an issue that they need to work to address internally, and we'll work to address from our standpoint, as well. And those bureau chiefs that I met with have indicated that it is a problem that they're working to address internally, as well.

So I think we need to talk about the larger issue here when we talk about it.

Q With all due respect, though, it sounds like you're saying your single anonymous sources are okay and everyone else's aren't.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I think you may have missed what I said. I think that we should move away from the use of -- the long-used practice of the background briefings, and we've taken steps to do that. But I was putting in context what these background briefings that you're referring to are about. They're about individuals providing context to remarks or policies that may have been implemented by the administration, and you have other officials on the record talking about --

Q Sometimes you do --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- hang on -- talking about those policies. You also have incidents, or instances, where individuals are providing context to meetings with world leaders, and there's some diplomatic sensitivities involved there.

Q We also have incidents, like most recently with the energy speech, where it was before the President made his comments, it was all we had -- and we had to make the decision of whether to report this from anonymous sources who, frankly, in that case, we didn't even know who they were.

MR. McCLELLAN: This is one of the issues that I sat down and discussed with the bureau chiefs. I think it's best to kind of have those discussions with the bureau chiefs; I did. We've made some progress. I think they had a legitimate issue that they brought up. But there's a larger issue here. Let's not point to the background briefings as the problem with the credibility in the media about using anonymous sources, because it's a much larger issue than that, Ken. And I think you recognize that.

The bottom line is there's credibility problems all around, most notably from the White House, and though there may be some faults from some critical reports from the media, generally speaking, the faults are far, far greater and more severe with the more favorable ones. The cumulative result has been tremendous distortion and disillusionment.
 

bionic77

Member
Wow our government and military is seriously fucked up. Just think of all the shit that goes on that never gets discovered. It is obvious that they are committing all sorts of atrocities because it seems we keep finding out about a new one every couple of months. And if there is one you hear about there are probably many other that were effectively hidden from us.
 

MIMIC

Banned
What I don't fucking get is how up-in-arms the White House has been over this Newsweek story. They say it further hurts U.S. creditability abroad.

WHAT ABOUT ABU GHRAIB?!
WHAT ABOUT THE NONEXISTENT WMD?!
WHAT ABOUT THE ILLEGAL INVASION OF A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY?!

They sure do know how to piss me off.

Furthermore, they are pressuring Newsweek to investigate how they got they allegedly got their facts wrong.... @_@

Facts wrong?! Ahem...
 
This government is so fundamentally corrupt that it boggles the mind -- and it's corrupt in such a hideously petty way. Where the hell's Teddy Roosevelt when we need him? He'd be draggin' Scott McClellan around the White House with his meanest stallion right about now.
 

Pimpwerx

Member
Um, there's no spine in Congress. There's no spine in the media. The administration has a mandate now, remember? Who cares about the fucking Quran when there's legitimate torture going on. Not verbal abuse, not denial of right, TORTURE. Sad as it is, I've just stopped caring, much like the rest of the clueless public. There's really no point in working myself up over this anymore. I'm gonna be out of this place in a few years with any luck, and then maybe I can get worked up over some more humane, local problems. Sucks for the detainees, but hey, no one here cares enough to be outraged. The media is a fucking joke. PEACE.
 
Of course, all sort of crap happens in Guantanamo, prisoners with no right and away from prying eyes. It's just a recipe for abuse and the government gets away with it. Disgusting.

With that said, disrespecting a book no matter how *holy* is not a huge offense to me. Not smart considering religious sensibilities for sure, but it's pretty insignificant with al things considered. I find it ironic this is what finally gets attention and not the torture (or whatever euphenism the US uses to describe it).
 
Instigator said:
With that said, disrespecting a book no matter how *holy* is not a huge offense to me. Not smart considering religious sensibilities for sure, but it's pretty insignificant with al things considered.

I'm with you on that one to be honest. That fucking book has nothing to do with faith and has everything to do with tradation. If your faith is tied to something that is mass produced then you don't have much faith. Oh no! My book hit the floor and now God is dead.

Get the fuck out of here.
 
Instigator said:
Of course, all sort of crap happens in Guantanamo, prisoners with no right and away from prying eyes. It's just a recipe for abuse and the government gets away with it. Disgusting.

With that said, disrespecting a book no matter how *holy* is not a huge offense to me. Not smart considering religious sensibilities for sure, but it's pretty insignificant with al things considered. I find it ironic this is what finally gets attention and not the torture (or whatever euphenism the US uses to describe it).

... and the crap they do there comes on top of the U.S. being at Guantanamo in the first place. Of course that is another issue entirely.

As far as the books go, it seems stupid to me too, but I can understand how they would get all up in arms over it. That book (although I find all 'holy' books to be fairy tales) is sacred to them, and them disrespecting it would be like someone defiling the body of a dead person one of us cares about, or ... well you get the general idea. It's sick and it's psychological warfare.
 
ManDudeChild said:
... and the crap they do there comes on top of the U.S. being at Guantanamo in the first place. Of course that is another issue entirely.

Yeah, I mean we could go into the skirting of US law to dispense justice or laugh at the irony of a Democracy doing it freedom walk in a Communist country. I choose the latter.

ManDudeChild said:
As far as the books go, it seems stupid to me too, but I can understand how they would get all up in arms over it. That book (although I find all 'holy' books to be fairy tales) is sacred to them, and them disrespecting it would be like someone defiling the body of a dead person one of us cares about, or ... well you get the general idea. It's sick and it's psychological warfare.

I can understand it but, I (as do you I assume) put more value in the body of a human than a book. Of course I'm an agnostic westener so I'm not the best source. However this is why the seperation of Church and State is a good thing. Here in America someone could burn a Bible, shit on it, shoot it or whatever and people would be mad no doubt but, in the grand scheme of things we understand that OUR faith in God isn't shaken or moved by the actions of others. When faith is a personal matter people can compartmenatlize and rationalize much better.

.02
 
MIMIC said:
What I don't fucking get is how up-in-arms the White House has been over this Newsweek story. They say it further hurts U.S. creditability abroad.

WHAT ABOUT ABU GHRAIB?!
WHAT ABOUT THE NONEXISTENT WMD?!
WHAT ABOUT THE ILLEGAL INVASION OF A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY?!

They sure do know how to piss me off.

Furthermore, they are pressuring Newsweek to investigate how they got they allegedly got their facts wrong.... @_@

Facts wrong?! Ahem...

That reminds me. Did they ever apologize for invading another country over "bad intelligence" (if you can believe them for that)? My instincts say no.
 

Dilbert

Member
So a single anonymous source which reports on inappropriate interrogation techniques is bad, but a single anonymous source which says Iraq is trying to purchase uranium is good?

Fucking tools.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Hammy said:
That reminds me. Did they ever apologize for invading another country over "bad intelligence" (if you can believe them for that)? My instincts say no.
Uh, that would imply we weren't REALLY invading to free the Iraqi people. ;)
 
Hitokage said:
Uh, that would imply we weren't REALLY invading to free the Iraqi people. ;)


Well why else are we here then? We already made off with 75% of the oil from the oil for food program. So liberation of the noble Iraqi people is all that's left.
 

Boogie

Member
Sokar said:
Better them then us.

I cannot believe he just said that.

Once upon a time your type would try to argue coherently, but now just this?!

Fucking listen to yourself, you moron. Hitler indeed :p
 

Macam

Banned
More on the story:

Karzai angry at US Afghan 'abuse'

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has condemned as unacceptable new details of alleged abuse of prisoners by US troops in Afghanistan.
The president's spokesman told the BBC the soldiers involved in the deaths of two inmates and alleged abuse of others should be punished.

The allegations are detailed by the New York Times citing a 2,000-page document leaked from a US army investigation.

They come at a sensitive time as Mr Karzai flies to the US on Saturday.

...

The New York-based organisation Human Rights Watch says the Afghan abuse allegations will not be adequately investigated or prosecuted until an independent commission deals with the issue.

An HRW spokesman said the US military and the CIA had shown that they could not police themselves.

'Innocent man'

One of the men who later died - a 22-year-old Afghan known as Dilawar - was said to have been chained to a ceiling by his wrists for four days, and then beaten on his legs more than 100 times during a 24-hour period.


He was being questioned about an attack on a US air base, but the report says most interrogators believed him to be an innocent taxi driver who simply drove past at the time of the attack.

Other reported abuses included:

A prisoner being forced to kiss the boots of interrogators
Another prisoner being forced to pick plastic bottle tops out of a drum filled with excrement and water
A female interrogator stepping on a man's neck and kicking another in the genitals.

A Pentagon spokesman said the New York Times was trying to make a new story out of old material, adding that the investigation was "very serious and very detailed".

More below...

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4568031.stm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom