For his latest column in The Daily Beast, my friend and former colleague Conor Friedersdorf wonders why conservatives are not more concerned about the purported murder of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay:
With their victory in Massachusetts, Republicans are eager to defeat the Democratic health-care bill and obstruct a big-government domestic agenda that they regard as creeping tyranny. But an article in Harper’s magazine reminds us that the right is far less willing to question government and champion liberty in foreign policy. In the magazine’s March issue, writer Scott Horton provides circumstantial evidence that the United States government covered up the 2006 murders of three Guantanamo Bay detainees.
The official report issued by the U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service called the deaths suicides, implausibly claiming that the trio simultaneously hung themselves in separate, non-adjacent cells after binding their own hands and shoving rags down their own throats. Now four military personnel assigned to guard duty on the night in question “provide evidence that authorities initiated a cover-up within hours of the prisoners’ deaths,” Mr. Horton writes, disclosing evidence “that strongly suggests that the three prisoners who died on June 9 had been transported to another location prior to their deaths.” . . .
This new case is nevertheless worth our attention. Beyond the fact that laws were broken and lives extinguished, the Gitmo Three may provide additional proof that the United States perpetrated extreme abuses of power in recent memory—a painful fact that we must acknowledge if we’re to prevent its recurrence.
And yet conservatives are so far content to ignore the story.
Conor has developed an unfortunate tic—oft pointed out by his critics—of calling out conservatives for our myriad failings, whether real or imagined. At times such criticism is helpful, but when it becomes the shtick you are best know for, there is a temptation to overreach. In this case, Conor goes too far and damages his own credibility. It is shocking that someone who is as committed to the promotion of journalism—especially investigative journalism—as he is would give any credence at all to such an embarrassingly shoddy story.
To say that Harper’s Magazine has the credibility of the National Enquirer would be an insult to the supermarket tabloid. For over a decade, Harper’s has been a second-rate liberal rag that fails to produce quality work. The “investigative” piece they published by Scott Horton, who happens to be a human rights lawyer rather than a journalist, is a prime example of why few people—and no one on the right—takes the magazine seriously anymore.
The sheer hubris of Horton’s claim is extraordinary. He would have us believe that an unprecedented conspiracy involving Army enlisted and officers, Navy enlisted and officers, the U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, the Justice Department, the State Department, the Pentagon, the Bush administration and the Obama administration was carried out in order to cover up the murder of three low-level prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. This would be enough to give a 9/11 Truther pause, but Conor (and the editors of Harper’s think it is not only entirely plausible but extremely likely. Obviously, there must be strong evidence to overcome the improbability of this level of collusion, right? Well, no. Here is the gist of Horton’s claim:
1. People around Gitmo who had no firsthand knowledge of the prisoners’ deaths heard a rumor that they had committed suicide during the night by swallowing rags, causing them to choke to death.
2. A former National Guard soldier claims to have seen prisoners loaded into a paddy wagon and driven to what he believed to be a super-secret area of the base. (The guard knows this because he abandoned his watch post to drive a quarter of a mile down the road to see which way the paddy wagon turned.) The paddy wagon then came back, and “backed the vehicle up to the entrance of the medical clinic, as if to unload something.”
Did you connect the dots? The prisoners were pulled out of their cells, driven to a super-secret part of the camp where they were allegedly murdered (by shoving rags down their throats) and then driven to the medical facility. They were later moved <em>back</em> to their cells where an elaborate cover-up involving dozens of people attempted to make the murders look like suicides.
It would be tempting to go line-by-line and pick apart all the flaws in Horton’s piece. Fortunately, that is not needed since anyone who reads the article carefully will see so many obvious holes and find the case is so unpersuasive that it hardly needs rebutting. On every point, Horton accepts without question rumors or hearsay that might imply that the prisoners were murdered. Yet he dismisses out of hand the overwhelming evidence that the deaths were suicide. For example, the fact that medical personnel would attempt to revive one of the prisoners would cast doubt on the claims that the bodies were nearly in rigor mortis when they were found. Also, he mentions only in passing that suicide notes written in Arabic were found in the cells at the time of the incident (a fact noted not only in the NCIS investigation but reported in the New York Times the day after the deaths occurred).
Obviously, when you’re attempting to cover up a murder by making it look like suicide you want to make it as complicated as possible. Finding an Arabic linguist to fake three suicide notes and having a corpsman give CPR to a corpse that has been dead for hours may seem like overkill, especially considering that suicide attempts at Gitmo are quite common (at the time 25 detainees had made 41 suicide attempts). But if you’re going to have a conspiracy that involves two presidential administrations and a half dozen federal agencies, you might as well go the extra mile, right?
Now I’m a skeptical of the government as the next guy. But my skepticism includes the government’s ability to pull off such an elaborate and complex scheme. I’m also think that when an investigation concludes with a 1,700 page report that was reviewed by over a hundred people it is difficult to claim that the process wasn’t thorough. All of that, however, pales in comparison to my inability to believe that the Obama administration would risk their own credibility to cover up murder that happened on Bush’s watch. That strikes me as extremely implausible and no credible narrative for their motives has even been attempted. (Did the Kenya branch of the Illuminati—the one that forged the President’s birth certificate—pressure Obama into going along with the conspiracy?)
If Conor wants to believe a claim that is so outlandish it would make a Birther blush, it’s certainly his prerogative. But for him to call out his fellow conservatives for not following him into the land of creepy conspiracy theories is both lazy and irresponsible. Let’s hope he moves on to doing real investigative work of his own rather than vying for the position of the Right’s premier concern troll.
Update: I had missed that Andrews Sullivan had also written about this story:
As usual, the foreign press cover the new and powerful evidence that the Bush administration was using torture methods so severe they killed prisoners in Gitmo as late as 2006 – and then covered it up with claims of a triple-simultaneous-suicide.
And then today he added:
It is, in my view, simply indisputable that if a Democratic president had tried even an ounce of this, Mark Levin and the GOP would have demanded impeachment a long time ago. Which tells you a lot about what their real principles actually are: power, power and power.
It’s apparent that Sullivan hasn’t done much checking on the story himself. If he had bothered to do his homework (rather than relying on his ghostwriting interns) he might have discovered that a Democratic president— Mr. Obama—is implicated in the purported “cover-up.” According to the AP story that he linked to (but obviously didn’t read), Obama’s Justice Department looked into the the claims and found them baseless. Surely Sullivan isn’t claiming that Obama is in on the cover up too?
I’ve never understood why anyone would ever take Sullivan seriously. His propensity to believe the most outlandish conspiracy theories should make anyone embarressed to be associated with him. But for him to claim that almost 100 military personnel colluded to cover-up the murder of three prisoners and that they were aided in their efforts by NCIS and the Justice Department is beyond the pale.
Are we really going to let him claim—without any evidence at all—that men and women of the U.S. military murdered someone and Obama’s Justice Department covered it up? Will his apologists continue to support his making such stupid and scurrilous remarks without challenge?
See Also:
On the Shameful “Murders at Gitmo” Conspiracy (Part II)
On the Shameful “Murders at Gitmo” Conspiracy (Part III)
On the Shameful “Murders at Gitmo” Conspiracy (Part IV)
Harper’s and the “Guantanamo Murders” Conspiracy
January 21st, 2010 | 5:53 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by First Things, DNC DUDES. DNC DUDES said: On the Shameful “Murders at Gitmo” Conspiracy: For his latest column in The Daily Beast, my friend and former… http://bit.ly/5wcigD #tcot [...]
January 21st, 2010 | 7:58 pm
Joe – You raise good points, but …
(1) Why did the military remove the necks from the corpses? The mere fact that their necks were missing doesn’t prove the prisoners were murdered, but it’s bizarre enough to prevent me from automatically accepting the government’s story.
(2) Is it really that ridiculous if, after bringing the prisoners to a special black site, the interrogators accidentally went too far with torture and killed the prisoners, and then brought them to the medical station to try to revive them? And then decided on covering it up as a suicide? All that driving around and medical care would be pointless if the murders had been planned from the beginning of the night, but if it was a case of torture gone too far, it doesn’t seem so implausible.
(3) I’m sure the CIA was involved in the interrogations and had Arab linguists on hand – finding an Arab linguist wouldn’t be that hard.
(4) Spellcheck!
In the end, I’m also very sceptical that the government is capable of pulling off such a comprehensive coverup, but I think you need to work harder on explaining why Horton’s story is beneath a response.
January 21st, 2010 | 8:08 pm
So, Joe, your argument that the deaths weren’t murders is that you don’t understand how they could have been murders. But maybe your not understanding how something happened doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Never mind Horton, explain the anomalies in the NCIS report that were noted by the Seton Hall study.
Next you can explain how Pat Tillman was really killed by enemy fire and how Jessica Lynch was wounded in a firefight.
January 21st, 2010 | 9:05 pm
Yeah, I’m not sure why it’s supposed to be so unlikely that they could coerce the cooperation of an Arab linguist. Wouldn’t it simply be sufficient to order any one of the large number of military Arab linguists they have at Gitmo to do it? Your argument seems to be “people in the military doing strange things just because they were told – how likely is that?”
One of these guys was a teenager who was scheduled to be released. In your opinion, how likely is it that someone would wait until they were about to be released from a prison before they killed themselves? Suicides are usually people with nothing to look forward to.
For example, the fact that medical personnel would attempt to revive one of the prisoners would cast doubt on the claims that the bodies were nearly in rigor mortis when they were found.
This makes no sense to me. Obviously, CPR was performed when they died at the secret site (which we know exists.) Then, the cover-up began, the bodies were returned to their regular cells, rigor had already sat in, and that’s when they were “discovered.”
January 21st, 2010 | 9:52 pm
John (1) Why did the military remove the necks from the corpses?
Actually, it was the neck organs that were removed. Examination of neck organs would be an essential part of any autopsy conducted on a body in which strangulation or hanging occurred. Horton concedes this point when he mentions that the Saudi pathologists wanted the organs to do their own examination.
What Horton is raising questions about is not that the American pathologists did anything unusual, only that since they didn’t turn over the organs to the family they must have something to hide. The idea that the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology—located in Washington, D.C.—would be complicit in a cover-up in Gitmo is quite a stretch.
(2) Is it really that ridiculous if, after bringing the prisoners to a special black site, the interrogators accidentally went too far with torture and killed the prisoners, and then brought them to the medical station to try to revive them?
Let’s examine some of the evidence that we must accept before this is considered plausible. The only reason that Horton’s entire claim that the “special black site” (which he doesn’t really claim exist—he just raises questions about) is based on one former Guardsman. There are almost 10,000 people stationed at Gitmo yet Horton doesn’t ask any of them if they know what the area could be. Instead, he bases his speculation on a former soldier’s claim that the area might be suspicious.
This guard, who is stationed on a tower, is able to see prisoners—not necessarily the prisoners that died even—being loaded into a van and driven somewhere (he really has no clue where since he can’t see it) and then comes back to the medical facilities. Oddly enough, the guard fails to mention seeing the van transport the prisoners back to the prison facilities.
So even if we believe the guard saw everything he claimed, we have to believe that of all the prisoners that could be removed, it was these three particular ones. A remarkably unlikely event. Then, instead of taking the dead prisoners back to the jail to begin the cover-up, the killers drive over to the medical facilities and unload them. Later, the dead prisoners have to be reloaded back into the van and driven to the jails, propped up to make it look like they killed themselves, etc. All of this is believed to have occurred without anyone noticing anything out of the ordinary.
I’m sure the CIA was involved in the interrogations and had Arab linguists on hand – finding an Arab linguist wouldn’t be that hard.
Assuming that they were interrogated, why bother with a suicide note? It creates a piece of evidence that is not necessary but can easily be determined to be forged. It would be completely stupid for a CIA agent to bungle a cover-up by making such a stupid, unnecessary mistake.
(4) Spellcheck!
Eeck. That was indeed the most poorly spell-checked post I’ve ever written. Sorry about that.
In the end, I’m also very sceptical that the government is capable of pulling off such a comprehensive coverup, but I think you need to work harder on explaining why Horton’s story is beneath a response.
If you read through the scenario quickly then it might seem plausible (if you don’t think about it too hard). But if you stop and think about each step of what is being claimed, what it would require and how many hundreds of people—from Navy guards to Justice department officials—have to be involved to pull this off—its so mind-boggling inane that its amazing that even Harper’s would publish its.
Horton’s only contention is that an Army guard may or may not have seen something. That’s it. Nothing else in the story even comes close to being deemed corroborating evidence for the crimes, much less the cover-up that followed.
Mike Never mind Horton, explain the anomalies in the NCIS report that were noted by the Seton Hall study.
The inconsistencies in the Seton Hall report are about the failures of the military to follow proper procedures. From the sound of it, the guards were too lax in their treatment of the prisoner.
Chet Your argument seems to be “people in the military doing strange things just because they were told – how likely is that?”
Very, very unlikely. As a former Marine I can attest that trying to get hundreds of people to go along with a murder cover-up would be well-nigh impossible.
One of these guys was a teenager who was scheduled to be released.
The three prisoners were Salah Ahmed Al-Salami (age 37), Mani Shaman Al-Utaybi, (age 30) , and Yasser Talal Al-Zahrani (age 22).
This makes no sense to me. Obviously, CPR was performed when they died at the secret site (which we know exists.) Then, the cover-up began, the bodies were returned to their regular cells, rigor had already sat in, and that’s when they were “discovered.”
The medical attention was given in the cell after an emergency responders arrived on the scene.
they died at the secret site (which we know exists.)
I assume your being facetious, right?
January 21st, 2010 | 10:12 pm
Perhaps you can persuade this Catholic apologist to read with a critical eye?
January 21st, 2010 | 11:07 pm
As a former Marine I can attest that trying to get hundreds of people to go along with a murder cover-up would be well-nigh impossible.
“Hundreds of people”? Where on Earth does that come from? Why on Earth would it take “hundreds of people” to cover up three murders on an incredibly secure military base at a site most of the people stationed at Gitmo didn’t even know existed?
The idea that the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology—located in Washington, D.C.—would be complicit in a cover-up in Gitmo is quite a stretch.
Why would the entire institute be involved in the same three autopsies?
January 21st, 2010 | 11:28 pm
Chet “Hundreds of people”? Where on Earth does that come from?
Read the reports and count the number of people involved. Horton’s claim is not that this was something carried out by two or three bad seeds. It’s that after the murders there was a cover-up that involved at least 100 people in at least six different units and agencies.
Why on Earth would it take “hundreds of people” to cover up three murders on an incredibly secure military base at a site most of the people stationed at Gitmo didn’t even know existed?
Why wouldn’t they know it existed? The prison has been on the base since 1991 and the public has been aware of it since it became infamous in 2001.
Why would the entire institute be involved in the same three autopsies?
Because that’s what Horton is implying. (You did read his article, didn’t you?) He says:
“Both [Saudi] pathologists contacted the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, requesting the missing body parts and more information about the previous autopsies. The institute did not respond to their requests or queries. (It also did not respond to a series of calls I placed requesting information and comment.)”
January 22nd, 2010 | 12:07 am
Both [Saudi] pathologists contacted the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, requesting the missing body parts and more information about the previous autopsies. The institute did not respond to their requests or queries
Why do you think it takes literally the entire staff of the institute to tell a reporter “no”?
January 22nd, 2010 | 12:12 am
Read the reports and count the number of people involved.
I count less than 20, and most of them criminally implicated (and therefore with a pretty substantial motive to participate in a cover-up.)
The prison has been on the base since 1991 and the public has been aware of it since it became infamous in 2001.
Um, so what? I literally don’t understand the relevance of this remark.
January 22nd, 2010 | 6:47 am
For info, Seton Hall University published their own report here:
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/death_investigation/NCIS_DeathInvestigativeFiles.pdf
It contains a link to a redacted NCIS report here:
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/death_investigation/NCIS_DeathInvestigativeFiles.pdf
January 22nd, 2010 | 9:15 am
Chet,
Start with the known facts and apply Occam’s razor when you get into dilemmas. That’s standard investigative and scientific methodology. Of course, you could also start with what you want to believe and challenge others to prove you wrong. That’s standard conspiracy theory.
So, who you gonna believe: me or your own eyes?
January 22nd, 2010 | 9:29 am
Skeptical: That would be Mark Shea, as in “No Matter How Stupid”, right? That would be Mark Shea, who has called former VP Cheney a war criminal, right? The Catholic Church is a big tent; I get that. But sometimes I regret having left the Orthodox Presbyterians. No intemperate peaceniks – and no Obama bumperstickers in the parking lot.
January 22nd, 2010 | 9:52 am
Joe – thanks for your response. I didn’t pay attention to the distinction btwn the neck and neck organs, which is important. I would still be interested to know whether it is normal procedure to remove organs in an autopsy and not put them back in the body.
TomG – what makes your comment different than every other comment to this post? Every other comment to this post had something to do with what Joe wrote. And Skeptical linked to Mark Shea’s blog, so anybody could tell that’s who he meant. Your comment didn’t add any information to the discussion; you just needed to let the rest of us know you don’t like Mark Shea. Thank you so much.
January 22nd, 2010 | 11:14 am
The utter lack of interest by the blogger here regarding the possibility that the US might have tortured prisoners of war to death would be pretty appalling even if this wasn’t a leading Catholic publication. The slow creep of allegedly “Christian” media types like the blogger here towards openly embracing torture has been increasingly disturbing.
I guess there’s really something to that whole “banality of evil” thing we hear about whenever we try to comprehend why societies blindly follow regimes that commit human rights violations and even genocide.
January 22nd, 2010 | 11:19 am
I might be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that Joe and most commenters here are misreading the Harper article on a key point.
The article is not suggesting that the prisoners were tortured to death and then placed in their cells as if they committed suicide, but rather that they were taken straight to the clinic from interrogation and the story about them being found in their cells was made up.
From the Harper article:
“Penvose, from his position at Tower 1, had an unobstructed view of the walkway between Camp 1 and the medical clinic—the path by which any prisoners who died at Camp 1 would be delivered to the clinic. Penvose told Hickman, and later confirmed to me, that he saw no prisoners being moved from Camp 1 to the clinic. In Tower 4 (it should be noted that Army and Navy guard-tower designations differ), another Army specialist, David Caroll, was forty-five yards from Alpha Block, the cell block within Camp 1 that had housed the three dead men. He also had an unobstructed view of the alleyway that connected the cell block itself to the clinic. He likewise reported to Hickman, and confirmed to me, that he had seen no prisoners transferred to the clinic that night, dead or alive.”
January 22nd, 2010 | 11:30 am
So why the silence from the Obama Administration? Sullivan says it is frustrating. Okay, I would think they would pursue this? Not like Obama has any problems blaming things on Bush. If true, this would be a damning coverup.
January 22nd, 2010 | 11:34 am
BTW, Conor is right on the money about how conservative’s unwillingness to talk frankly about torture is a long-term problem for the movement. When the whole subject of waterboarding first came up, it was initially rationalized as being done “just a few times on the worst of the worst”. Then it turned out that we waterboarded KSM over 300 times in one month. Then it turned out we were waterboarding MANY prisoners and implemented techniques that the Khemer Rouge and Viet Cong had used on prisoners.
All of a sudden, waterboarding was rationalized as “needed to stop the ticking time bomb”. Lo and behold, the very first thing that was suggested by some on the right after the failed Underwear Bomber was that he too should be waterboarded to see what he knew.
Frankly, it is debatable that the Underwear Bomber was either the “worst of the worst” or a Jack Bauer style “ticking time bomb”. Look how much the goalpost has been moved in the 6 years since the pictures of the “few bad apples” at Abu Ghirab surfaced. Just how far are conservatives willing to go when it comes to torture? Will the methods being used against suspected terrorists soon be used against American citizens? When you give a government the green light to torture people, that’s something that can’t be controlled or undone easily.
January 22nd, 2010 | 11:42 am
FYI, Sullivan justed pwned you in a recent post. Repent!
January 22nd, 2010 | 11:46 am
Pete
You make claims that would be appalling if they weren’t so banal and commonplace. On the other hand, they aren’t very disturbing. My reading of history says that assuming people who disagree with you have bad motives is what leads to human rights violations and even genocide.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
January 22nd, 2010 | 11:54 am
Another point worth noting, since it corrects a slander against a soldier.
Carter says this:
“A former National Guard soldier claims to have seen prisoners loaded into a paddy wagon and driven to what he believed to be a super-secret area of the base. (The guard knows this because he abandoned his watch post to drive a quarter of a mile down the road to see which way the paddy wagon turned.)”
The national guardsman in question is identified in the article as “sergeant of the guard for Camp America’s exterior security force” on the night in question. He was therefore responsible for all the enlisted national guardsmen detailed to exterior security that night. Tower 1 was merely his “his preferred vantage,” and from there “he would make his rounds.”
He did not abandon his post.
January 22nd, 2010 | 11:54 am
Pete The utter lack of interest by the blogger here regarding the possibility that the US might have tortured prisoners of war to death would be pretty appalling even if this wasn’t a leading Catholic publication.
Let me clarify a few points of confusion for you. First, First Thing is not a “leading Catholic publication” but an interreligious publication (though I would keep the modifier “leading). I’m an evangelical, not a Catholic. Second, if you had read this blog recently you would have noticed that I take a very hardline against torture. I am the last person that would show an “utter lack of interest” in torture.
Third, the reason I don’t regard the possibility that these prisoners might have been tortured to death is because there is absolutely no evidence to support that claim. Let me repeat that: There is no evidence to suggest that these prisoner were even interrogated, much less tortured. So the claim that they were tortured to death is so absurd that it isn’t even worth considering. It is slanderous, reckless, and irresponsible to accuse people of the heinous crimes of torture and murder without a shred of evidence.
The slow creep of allegedly “Christian” media types like the blogger here towards openly embracing torture has been increasingly disturbing.
It really irks me when drive-by commenters make claims about which they know nothing. Why don’t you start with this post: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/01/04/do-only-radical-pacifists-oppose-torture/
David J. Lohnes I might be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that Joe and most commenters here are misreading the Harper article on a key point. The article is not suggesting that the prisoners were tortured to death and then placed in their cells as if they committed suicide, but rather that they were taken straight to the clinic from interrogation and the story about them being found in their cells was made up.
You could be right, though I was trying to take the most charitable view possible. Horton is already floating a conspiracy theory but if he really were implying that the entire scenario was fabricated then he has entered a realm of delusion that is beyond anything I can imagine.
The government has 1700 pages of documents in the investigation, which includes sworn statements about what occurred by the guards, medical staff, officers, investigators, etc. For that many people to come up with the same story would take an incredible cover-up. But read over the stories and you’ll find that some of the people involved admitted to not following the standard operating procedures. This means that they were subjected to disciplinary measures for failing to do their job properly.
If they were making up a story to cover-up three murders, why would they include statements that would be detrimental to their careers? We are talking about low-level people (medical personnel, for example) who would have nothing to gain by covering up these murders and everything to gain by admitting that they were forced to lie about their involvement.
(I don’t expect people to read all or even most of the relevant documents for themselves. But if they do they will begin to understand why this whole claim of murder is ridiculous. What appears to be the case is that rather than being treated too harshly, the prisoners were treated in such a lax manner that they were able to commit suicide without immediately noticing it.)
So why the silence from the Obama Administration? Sullivan says it is frustrating. Okay, I would think they would pursue this? Not like Obama has any problems blaming things on Bush. If true, this would be a damning coverup.
As usual, Sullivan is willing to spout off about stuff he doesn’t know a thing about. What is surprising, though, is that he is willing to throw Obama under the bus in the process. Does he really think Obama would be involved in a cover-up to protect Bush?
January 22nd, 2010 | 11:58 am
Mike,
Torture isn’t something that you “disagree” with akin to debating something simple like Colts versus Jets. You are either for torture or against it. Frankly, once you give the greenlight for your government to torture, then you are taking our society as a whole down a road that won’t be easy to get off of. It is mystifying that allegedly “Christian” people on this site and others truly don’t see this.
January 22nd, 2010 | 12:07 pm
There are a lot of suspicious things about this story that Carter doesn’t bother to address. As David Lohnes pointed out, according to two different sources no prisoners were transferred from camp one to the medical clinic.
In addition, have you ever heard of someone committing suicide by swallowing a rag? Why would one swallow a rag before hanging himself? Why would one bind his limbs before hanging himself?
How did three bodies go undiscovered for two hours when guards are supposed to check the prisoners every ten minutes?
If the answer is that the guards weren’t doing their jobs, then why was no one disciplined?
How did all three prisoners get extra bedding materials to doctor up their cells?
Carter’s claim that there isn’t enough here for a reasonable person to at least be suspicious is crazy.
January 22nd, 2010 | 12:36 pm
Carter wrote:
“On every point, Horton accepts without question rumors or hearsay that might imply that the prisoners were murdered. Yet he dismisses out of hand the overwhelming evidence that the deaths were suicide. For example, the fact that medical personnel would attempt to revive one of the prisoners would cast doubt on the claims that the bodies were nearly in rigor mortis when they were found.”
This casts doubt on the claims made by who, exactly? The fact that rigor mortis had already set in is part of the official pathology report. Try doing your own homework, Carter, before criticizing others.
January 22nd, 2010 | 12:44 pm
Your rebuttal seems to consist of attacks. Much less convincing than Horton’s story.
January 22nd, 2010 | 1:06 pm
Pete,
Take Joe’s advice and read his earlier posts.
January 22nd, 2010 | 1:10 pm
[...] pushback against the usual denialism. Joe Carter writes the following: If he had bothered to do his homework (rather than relying on his ghostwriting interns) he might [...]
January 22nd, 2010 | 1:22 pm
There have been numerous cases of the government denying or covering up homicides or clear abuse of detainees (e.g, Dilawar, Ameen Sa’eed Al-Sheikh, Sadiq Zoman, Salah Salih Jassim, or the leaked ICRC report). Given this and the other well-publicized cases that Mike Toreno mentioned, it is stunning that you are still so willing to accept official stories that seem implausible, as this one does.
“As a former Marine I can attest that trying to get hundreds of people to go along with a murder cover-up would be well-nigh impossible.”
Agreed. So why do you then reject that several guards at Gitmo have come forward? They are refusing to go along with this, and don’t deserve to be dismissed.
Moreover, Obama has repeatedly made it clear that he wants to “move forward” and not dig into abuses committed during the Bush Administration. His refusal to investigate or call attention to this matter is very consistent with past actions on this topic.
Torture corrupts, and there is no example in human history in which a government successfully limited and controlled the use of “enhanced interrogation” in the way that you believe we can. Darius Rejali’s book Torture and Democracy would be a good place for you to look into this further.
January 22nd, 2010 | 1:56 pm
Sorry I messed the links in my previous comment. Here is the link to the Seton Hall Univeristy report.
http://tiny.cc/Mq2W0
January 22nd, 2010 | 1:58 pm
I think the problems lies with the determination of suicide given the incredible machinations one would have had to have gone through in order to kill oneself in the manner described. Think about the sequence: Prepare noose, bind hands, swallow rags, step into noose, hang self. This beggars my belief as much as Horton’s account beggars Mr. Carter’s.
As for “[d]oes he [Sullivan] really think Obama would be involved in a cover-up to protect Bush?” See Sullivan’s blog post regarding the withholding of the Abu Gharaib photos, http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/obamas-uturn-on-the-torture-photos.html
January 22nd, 2010 | 2:23 pm
Thanks Matt for forwarding the link.
I read though the summary and the beginning of the report and wasn’t impressed. I would expect evidence of foul play that was left out of the official reports. Instead, I read about the absence of evidence. There are a few claims that are of concern. As noted above, the report claims, by indirection, that the three men had their hands and feet bound. Can we find the original reports that included that evidence and what they had to say about the curiosity given the claim of suicide?
January 22nd, 2010 | 3:22 pm
Robert There are a lot of suspicious things about this story that Carter doesn’t bother to address. As David Lohnes pointed out, according to two different sources no prisoners were transferred from camp one to the medical clinic.
The two sources that make that claim are guards who had no firsthand knowledge of the event. In contrast, there were 53 interviews of medical personell by NCIS that describe in great detail all of the procedures that were performed after the prisoners were brought to the medical clinic.
In addition, have you ever heard of someone committing suicide by swallowing a rag?
The suicides were by hanging, not by swallowing a rag. That part of the rumor crept in during Horton’s story. No one who testified in the investigation claimed that the deaths were caused by swallowing rags.
Why would one bind his limbs before hanging himself?
There are a number of possible reasons, such as to prevent yourself from changing your mind after the noose began to tighten or as a symbolic representation of being in “chains.”
What everyone seems to miss is who it is that noted the fact that the prisoner’s hands and feet were bound: the prison guards.
Why would the prison guards add this detail if (a) they were supposedly murdered and (b) the prisoners were not found in their cells. If you were going to murder someone and make it look like a suicide, why bind their hands and feet? The only explanation I can think of is that (a) the murderers are really, really stupid or (b) the murderers knew this was a common practice in suicides.
How did three bodies go undiscovered for two hours when guards are supposed to check the prisoners every ten minutes?
That one is simple: the checks were not done properly. Admiral Harris admits this in the investigation. It’s a great idea to “see skin” on a prisoner every ten minutes but in real-world conditions it just won’t happen. Prison work is boring and guards regularly take shortcuts. This does not excuse the behavior, but it certainly makes it understandable.
If the answer is that the guards weren’t doing their jobs, then why was no one disciplined?
The claim that they weren’t disciplined is based on an absence of evidence. I have no doubt that these guards were disciplined for their incompetence.
How did all three prisoners get extra bedding materials to doctor up their cells?
According to the Seton Hall report, compliant prisoners were often given extra comfort items as a reward.
Carter’s claim that there isn’t enough here for a reasonable person to at least be suspicious is crazy.
I still don’t see what evidence there is to claim that they were murdered, much less enough to override the overwhelming evidence that the deaths were suicides.
This casts doubt on the claims made by who, exactly? The fact that rigor mortis had already set in is part of the official pathology report.
I’m talking about Hickman’s testimony. The rigor mortis doesn’t imply murder—in fact, it shows just the opposite. When I studied forensic sciences in grad school (before dropping out after realizing I could just watch CIS) we learned that you can tell if a body has been moved based on analysis of rigor mortis. Unless they were immediately returned to the cells after being murdered, the bodies would be stiff and difficult to get in the position to make it look like they were hanged.
Gus Your rebuttal seems to consist of attacks. Much less convincing than Horton’s story.
I encourage you to read the actual NCIS report (or the Seton Hall analysis). They both refute Horton’s theory.
whistlerblue Agreed. So why do you then reject that several guards at Gitmo have come forward? They are refusing to go along with this, and don’t deserve to be dismissed.
First, there was only one guard that came forward: Scott Hickman. The others are either not mentioned in Horton’s story or add nothing of relevance. Second, Hickman has no firsthand knowledge of the events. Everything he says is based on wild supposition. The FBI and Justice Department investigated his story and found it worthless.
Now if you want to believe that Obama is involved in the most massive cover-up in the history of the United States, well, then I’ll treat your opinion as I would a Birther or 9/11 Truther.
Bill Sherlock Think about the sequence: Prepare noose, bind hands, swallow rags, step into noose, hang self. This beggars my belief as much as Horton’s account beggars Mr. Carter’s.
Why is it so hard to stick a rag in your mouth, wrap cloth around your wrists, and then slip a noose over your neck? Try it yourself (just don’t put the noose around your neck) and you’ll see that this is rather simple.
Mike Melendez I would expect evidence of foul play that was left out of the official reports.
Oh, good grief. Birthers, 9/11 Truthers, Trig Truthers and now Gitmo Truthers? Is their any stupid conspiracy theory that you guys won’t fall for?
January 22nd, 2010 | 4:08 pm
By the way, in case you missed it, I’ve responded to Andrew “Gitmo Truther” Sullivan’s rebuttal in this post.
January 22nd, 2010 | 4:17 pm
Carter mischaracterizes the entire piece. Horton, ad hominems notwithstanding, makes no specific claims for explanations to what happened that night. Of course, the existence of the story and the implications of Sgt. Hicks’ statements are that something happened; the possibilities of what that something are are pretty much all bad unless you’re pro-torture. But Horton’s piece is evidence-based; in this case the evidence is from his sources. To suggest that it’s either pushing a conspiracy theory or a hit-job is to fail completely (or perhaps purposely) to distinguish between journalism and bias-blogging.
And unfortunately, Carter doth protest too much on the question of being pro-torture. It’s not a gray question. Any inconsistency in the accounts of the events of June 9 is a grave matter; there is no easy threshold of doubt. If three men hang themselves simultaneously under those circumstances, we should expect multiple elements of consistency with perhaps a few red herrings. Not here; even the most optimistic description of events creates dozens of odd and unexplainable questions. Kick a haystack and a dozen needles fall out.
Finally, to characterize Horton’s story as a conspiracy theory is bogus. Conspiracy is an explanation or a charge. Horton has offered evidence. So far I’ve seen few refutations of that evidence, and none that prevail; I’ve also seen lots of further oddments bobbing up, such as Bumgarner’s falsehoods when confronted with evidence of bad behavior. And I’m alert to confirmation bias, thanks.
The weird silence is troubling, too–and I say that fully aware that silence proves nothing. The three men died, in custody, in strange circumstances. That’s a real event, not some fantasy of disqualifying a president.
ice9
January 22nd, 2010 | 5:14 pm
ice9 Carter mischaracterizes the entire piece. Horton, ad hominems notwithstanding, makes no specific claims for explanations to what happened that night.
Technically, that’s true. Horton doesn’t have the courage to claim that they were murdered so instead he “raises curious questions” knowing that the nutcases on the internet (like Andrew Sullivan) will run with it but leave him some plausible deniablity. Still, Horton is claiming that there is a massive cover-up that extends to the highest levels of government.
Of course, the existence of the story and the implications of Sgt. Hicks’ statements are that something happened; the possibilities of what that something are are pretty much all bad unless you’re pro-torture.
I encourage to read Hickman’s statements again. He presents no evidence that any prisoners, much less the ones that were found dead, were even interrogated, much less tortured. Instead, Horton relates Hickman’s “I didn’t really see anything story” in such a way that gullible people will start making the most irrational leaps (Prisoners have been tortured ergo these prisoners were tortured to death.) It’s so bizarre that I’m not even sure why I bother discussing it. I don’t entertain Birthers or Truthers so why am I bothering with Gitmo Truthers? (I’m not saying that you are . . . )
But Horton’s piece is evidence-based; in this case the evidence is from his sources.
Horton provides no evidence at all—none, nada, zilch—that a CIA black site exists outside of the camp or that these prisoners were intererrogated. Please show me otherwise. It’s simply not there.
Finally, to characterize Horton’s story as a conspiracy theory is bogus.
A conspiracy is a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose. Here is Scott Horton’s claim: “When a cover-up is exposed, nothing is more telling than the first reactions from those who are involved.” Horton is claiming there is a conspiracy involving the military, NCIS, FBI, and the Justice Department to cover-up the events of that night.
Horton has offered evidence.
What “evidence” has Horton offered? Not speculation and rumors, but actual evidence?
The three men died, in custody, in strange circumstances. That’s a real event, not some fantasy of disqualifying a president.
Yes, and three investigations into the events produced 1700 pages worth of documents which were reviewed by the Justice Department. Why is this not enough?
January 22nd, 2010 | 5:20 pm
Bill Sherlock: Think about the sequence: Prepare noose, bind hands, swallow rags, step into noose, hang self. This beggars my belief as much as Horton’s account beggars Mr. Carter’s.
Joe Carter: Why is it so hard to stick a rag in your mouth, wrap cloth around your wrists, and then slip a noose over your neck? Try it yourself (just don’t put the noose around your neck) and you’ll see that this is rather simple.
It’s bound hands, rag in throat (not mouth). Seems like these guys went to an awful lot of trouble to off themselves. Please don’t reword my statement to support your argument.
If you want to be taken seriously as a thinker then a certain consistency of position with facts must be observed. If you discount Horton’s article as bogus, requiring a conspiracy so vast as to render it inconceivable, then what is Horton’s motive?
January 22nd, 2010 | 9:47 pm
Carter: “Instead, Horton relates Hickman’s “I didn’t really see anything story” in such a way that gullible people will start making the most irrational leaps (Prisoners have been tortured ergo these prisoners were tortured to death.)”
I don’t really think its that irrational of a leap. When three men in their twenties all die at the exact same time, i think its safe to assume the deaths were not of natural causes. Considering the three men were in isolated cells and did not have access to eachother, I think its safe to assume they did not cause eachother’s deaths. Plus, there would be no motivation to cover up either of those scenarios as suicides. The government would absolutely have a motive to cover up these deaths as suicides if they died while being interrogated. We also know for a fact that other prisoners in US custody have been beaten to death by US officers. We also know for a fact the government has engaged in other cover ups (Pat Tillman).
Therefore, I don’ think the suspicion is so irrational.
Carter: “The two sources that make that claim are guards who had no firsthand knowledge of the event.”
What do you mean they had no firsthand knowledge? They were the guards on duty with views of the relevant walkways with their own eyeballs. How much more direct can you get?
Carter: “If you were going to murder someone and make it look like a suicide, why bind their hands and feet? ”
How about because their hands and feet were bound before they died (because they were being tortured) and the markings would be evident in any medical examination.
Carter:
“The claim that they weren’t disciplined is based on an absence of evidence. I have no doubt that these guards were disciplined for their incompetence.”
No, its not, its stated in the SJA report. Your assertion that they were disciplined is, on the other hand, based on no evidence.
Carter: “I’m talking about Hickman’s testimony. The rigor mortis doesn’t imply murder—in fact, it shows just the opposite. ”
No, you weren’t. You were implying the claims that the bodies were in rigor mortis were not credible.
Carter: “The suicides were by hanging, not by swallowing a rag.”
Yes, but the men still had rags in their throats. Why put a rag in your throat prior to hanging yourself?
Listen, I’m not saying I’m CERTAIN these men were murdered. But to say the events are not even a little suspicious is crazy.
January 22nd, 2010 | 9:49 pm
I know the men were not all in their twenties, but they were all relatively young.
January 23rd, 2010 | 10:25 am
Carter,
This by you:
Joe Carter wrote,
“A former National Guard soldier claims to have seen prisoners loaded into a paddy wagon and driven to what he believed to be a super-secret area of the base. (The guard knows this because he abandoned his watch post to drive a quarter of a mile down the road to see which way the paddy wagon turned.)”
This is a lie and I think it might also be a libel of this serviceman. Several comments above this one David J. Lohnes corrected your error. It’s extremely discouraging that you haven’t corrected your lie, or even addressed it, after being made aware of it. I’m afraid it shows something about you and your relationship with honesty. Sgt Hickman’s behavior was, despite your lie above, completely consistent with his duties the night of the “suicides”.
Again for anyone who reads Carter’s libel about “The guard knows this because he abandoned his watch post to drive a quarter of a mile down the road to see which way the paddy wagon turned” and thinks it’s the truth, it’s not. Here’s David J. Lohnes comment that corrects Joe Carter:
“The national guardsman in question is identified in the article as “sergeant of the guard for Camp America’s exterior security force” on the night in question. He was therefore responsible for all the enlisted national guardsmen detailed to exterior security that night. Tower 1 was merely his “his preferred vantage,” and from there “he would make his rounds.”
He did not abandon his post.”
Carter, you should fix your post to remove your libel about Sgt Hickman abandoning his post.
January 23rd, 2010 | 5:01 pm
I think you have already lost control of the narrative, Joe.
Consider….Watergate was the result of 2 reporters and the WaPo….Rathergate was the result of a handful of blogs. Rathergate is interesting because that was the first point that the blogverse penetrated the MSM.
How many bloggers will it take for Torturegate to achieve critical mass and impact the MSM?
January 23rd, 2010 | 9:32 pm
As an ex-corpsman, and a practicing anesthesiologist, I found this interesting. It is pretty difficult to shove stuf down someone’s throat far enough to impede breathing w/o gagging. The best way to accomplish this would be with drugs which would blunt the response. This does suggest the possibility of interrogation using drugs.
As a corpsman who worked for a while on a psych ward, if one of our patients had succeeded in killing themselves, it would have been at least a Captain’s mast event. Three on the same night? I would expect demotions at least. That should not be difficult to find out.
Guard duty is boring, but going that long and not noticing that three bunks were not showing any skin? The worst of the worst and we were that sloppy?
On the resuscitation, I have seen a couple of attempted resuscitations on patients who were already cold and rigid. Teeth were broken. When you find someone dead whom you did not expect to be dead, it is difficult to hold back on rescue attempts.
I am not a pathologist. Does anyone know if removing the neck organs and not sending them with the body for burial is standard? Offhand, it sounds odd to me, but I dont really know.
Steve
January 23rd, 2010 | 10:20 pm
“I encourage to read Hickman’s statements again. He presents no evidence that any prisoners, much less the ones that were found dead, were even interrogated, much less tortured.”
Hickman only presents evidence inconsistent with the testimony of the others, suggesting cover-up, and consistent with interrogation at Camp No. However, the father of one of the dead men told Horton that there was clear evidence of torture on the body.
January 24th, 2010 | 4:54 pm
There’s also a telling cognitive dissonance evident in your argument Joe. You have a vigorous skepticism about the government’s ability to successfully pull off a cover-up. But then in response to the numerous instances of fishy details surrounding these events, your argument becomes “Why would they do X in such a stupid, obvious way?” So which is it – do you expect the government to be idiotic or expert in their cover-up attempts?
January 25th, 2010 | 10:00 am
[...] I pointed out yesterday, Scott Horton has concocted one of the most elaborate and extensive conspiracy theories to ever be [...]
January 25th, 2010 | 3:52 pm
Joe, it’s important work. Thank you for taking the time to do it, and I hope you’ll stay on the case, despite all the crap and confusion thrown at you by the many tiresome (or far worse) commenters here who SO want Horton’s theory to be true. (Not sayin’ this about all of ya!) The aughts showed us how contemptible rumors and half-truths could snowball subterreanly into politically powerful and indeed inerradicable myths, so it is unfortunately necessary to try to cripple these monsters as they first arise, prior to their decieving millions. Ugly work, but worthy work.
January 26th, 2010 | 3:58 am
[...] Friedersdorf and Joe Carter go back and forth (and back again) on the latest revelations out of Guantànamo [...]
January 26th, 2010 | 9:02 am
[...] I’ve written about this story before (here and here) it has primarily been in a stage two way. Now it has become apparent that otherwise [...]
January 26th, 2010 | 10:26 am
hmmm..I wonder who has more readers….Joe or……Andrew?
and……we all know who reads Sully.
January 26th, 2010 | 12:17 pm
I meant to link Andrew’s rather persuasive showcasing of Chet’s rebuttal comment, which you should probably extend the courtesy of linking for your readers.
January 26th, 2010 | 12:28 pm
matoko_chan I meant to link Andrew’s rather persuasive showcasing of Chet’s rebuttal comment, which you should probably extend the courtesy of linking for your readers.
My latest post is essentially a response to Chet:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/01/26/on-the-shameful-“murders-at-gitmo”-conspiracy-part-iii/
Why don’t you explain why you find his comment more persuasive than my post. I’d certainly be interested in hearing how I fall short.
January 26th, 2010 | 1:36 pm
[...] #5: Joe Carter on [...]
January 26th, 2010 | 1:40 pm
[...] Also, don’t miss this thoughtful post. A “Murders at Gitmo Conspiracy? Joe Carter takes a look and decides Sullivan is being sloppy and [...]
January 27th, 2010 | 9:09 am
The obvious tell for any experienced investigator as to the motivation of Scott Horton he revealed in the first paragraph of his article when he wrote, “crimes that occurred during the George W. Bush presidency.” Not alleged crimes? Horton would not forget to place ‘alleged’ in front of ‘Flight 253 bomber Abdulmuttalab’ even though it has been reported he was caught with his pants partially down and red-handed (red-crotched?).
Yet all you need to read is that Mark Denbeaux is involved. If you want to see his leanings, click on the link associated with my REAL name, then scan to the bottom on the article, and watch the video. (BTW, my leanings are and will always be to defend America and its defenders.)
January 27th, 2010 | 5:33 pm
[...] four in a series on the suicides of three detainees at Guantanamo Bay in 2006. The other posts are here, here, and [...]
January 29th, 2010 | 4:39 pm
[...] article, so I’ll leave that to Jack Shafer at Slate and Joe Carter at First Things (Parts one, two, three, and four). Remember folks, the burden of proof isn’t on you or me to disprove [...]
January 29th, 2010 | 6:15 pm
[...] at Guantanamo. In debunking Horton, Shafer points to writing by Joe Carter, who, in four parts, likewise gnawed away at Horton’s piece. The most damning evidence that Carter provides comes directly from the official investigation; in [...]
January 29th, 2010 | 10:21 pm
I wanted to correct something in your post. At one point you state the guard in question “abandoned his watch post”. This is not necessarily true. SSG Hickman, the soldier in question was the sergeant of the guard according to the Harper article. As head of the guard he would likely not have been confined to a single guard tower.
I know because I was deployed to Iraq for a year with the Army Reserves and was a sergeant of the guard at one point. My job consisted of driving out to a single guard post 4 miles away 2-3 times a day to check on the soldiers manning the guard point, as well as being on call if needed. No doubt, Hickman’s responsibilities at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility would have been greater, but it would not have been unreasonable for him to drive a quarter mile down the road to investigate something he found suspicious. Whether or not his account is credible is another matter.
January 30th, 2010 | 2:18 pm
[...] professor and contributing editor at Harper’s magazine, discusses the journalists attempting to rebut his Guantanamo “suicides” expose, the strong resemblance of Joe Carter’s [...]
January 30th, 2010 | 7:16 pm
I second Cark Scott’s remark, Joe, it’s important work; please keep on doing it. I think it’s more important because of the reasonable tone of the arguments you’re presenting (and most of the commenters). After years of polarization, we’ve reached the point where most controversies seem to degenerate into screaming matches. My own point of view is: I considered myself a Buckley conservative and a Republican until Nixon’s second term, and I now think of myself as a Roosevelt Progressive.
I think your most persuasive point is the difficulty of maintaining a conspiracy that required so many people. Considering that, in fact, you only need a dozen or so who know the whole truth, and given the power of the government to declare information classified, I don’t think it’s out of the question, especially since most of the people conspiring are guilty of crimes that are being covered up.
Given that I hated what Bush, Cheney, Addington, and the whole neocon cabal did to destroy adherence to law and order in this country, I really want them to be guilty of another crime, but I’m grateful to you for applying healthy skepticism to Horton’s story.
I think one point you’ve failed to address, how did the prisoners get the extra cloth they are supposed to have used to (a) braid ropes to bind their hands and feet and (b) hang up at the front of their cells to hide what they were doing. A second point that is troubling is that there is no evidence that the guards on duty that night were disciplined. However, I don’t thing this is a point that would be covered in the report of the investigation.
January 31st, 2010 | 1:14 pm
[...] professor and contributing editor at Harper’s magazine, discusses the journalists attempting to rebut his Guantanamo “suicides” expose, the strong resemblance of Joe Carter’s critiques to those [...]
February 2nd, 2010 | 9:12 pm
[...] FIRST THINGS MUST-READ– On the Shameful “Murders at Gitmo” Conspiracy …. [...]
February 3rd, 2010 | 9:43 pm
[...] A ‘First Things’ ‘follow-up to to the Harper’s article about the murders or … [...]
February 4th, 2010 | 3:34 pm
I read about half of the comments. That’s enough of my time wasted. Joe’s “rebuttal” of Scott Horton’s thesis is beyond feeble. Obviously he’s a full on Kool-aid guzzler who knows what must be true before he comes anywhere near anything resembling a fact. Fine. Two plus two equals seventeen. I get it.
Here’s the deal. The three were murdered intentionally– tortured to death. The proof is straightforward: had the first death been unintentional, the victim would have been rushed immediately to the medical clinic, and it would have stopped there.
That a cover-up followed is equally obvious: when the facility’s commanding officer says, “You all have heard that the detainees choked to death on rags. Keep your yaps shut about that. The “official” version will be that they committed suicide by hanging themselves in their cells.” It just doesn’t get more overt than that.
And one small note: the victims did NOT die while being interrogated. They’d already been in US custody for years, thoroughly interrogated years earlier, and — surprise! surprise! — found to be innocent bumpkins. No, these guys were killed intentionally, so forget about any delusional conscience salving you might hope to derive from the justification of “while being interrogated”.
Now for the kicker. Why were they killed? Give this a try. It was June 2006, the Iraq war was imploding, Bush was losing political control, the torture business — Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, renditions, and CIA black sites — had been exposed, and torture crews, CIA and JSOC, were seriously concerned about their increasing exposure to prosecution. How to avoid prosecution? Murder three detainees knowing full well that both the military and the Bush Justice Dept will cover it up. Problem solved. The cover-up would then be the torturers’ insurance policy. Any subsequent Justice Dept investigation would surely implicate the Justice Dept itself. And it wouldn’t matter if it was a Bush or Obama Justice Dept. Continuity of personnel would mean a Justice Dept attacking itself. That couldn’t happen under Bush, and Obama clearly wants nothing to do with “looking backward” because legal action to hold “patriots” accountable would be political poison.
This is why the three were killed, to create a poison pill for the government, that would shield the torturers from accountability.
February 4th, 2010 | 5:21 pm
Jeff, your views are rather fanciful.
You misquote Horton quoting Bumgarner. Horton says Bumgarner told the soldiers “you all know” three prisoners in the Alpha Block at Camp 1 committed suicide during the night by swallowing rags. Do you think Bumgarner really meant they all knew that, or was he being sarcastic? It’s no wonder he would have told them not to contradict the real story with silly rumors.
February 5th, 2010 | 5:11 pm
Sanpete,
From the Harper’s article:
… Bumgarner told his audience that “you all know” three prisoners in the Alpha Block at Camp 1 committed suicide during the night by swallowing rags, causing them to choke to death….
…But then Bumgarner told those assembled that the media would report something different. It would report that the three prisoners had committed suicide by hanging themselves in their cells.
*******end quote********
Fanciful? Misquote? The dead men had rags down their throats. Not a rumor, a fact. Whether the men who “all knew” this fact by directly looking down the corpse’s throat, by hearing it from someone who had, or from someone even further removed, doesn’t change a thing, it was still a fact. Not a rumor. Not a “silly” rumor. “Two plus two equal four” is not a rumor, it’s a fact. “Two plus two equals seventeen”,… that might be a “silly rumor”.
Baumgarner stands in front of fifty men and says “you all know”… This statement is put in quotes to show what Baumgarner knew to be the truth. Did you not get that? He confirmed the rag-choking-cause-of-death. He then told the troops that this truth would not be told, but concealed, and a suicide by hanging put in its place. How blatant does a lie have to be for you to acknowledge that it is a lie, Salpete?
Open your eyes. Drink less Kool-aid. Learn to think.
February 5th, 2010 | 6:09 pm
[...] at a secret CIA installation at Gitmo . . .” He also references several pieces — here, here, here, here — from First Things blogger Joe Carter that contests Horton’s article [...]
February 6th, 2010 | 8:15 pm
Jeff, you missed the point. No one, including Horton, believes the detainees committed suicide by swallowing rags. Horton doesn’t think they committed suicide at all, and it’s highly doubtful they could kill themselves by that method anyway. You think Bumgarner believed they killed themselves that way? Horton doesn’t think he did; he thinks Bumgarner was covering up what he knew was murder. I don’t think Bumgarner believed it either. Therefore, when he said “you all know” that, he can’t have meant that anyone really knew it. He was probably being sarcastic.
February 7th, 2010 | 10:52 pm
Sanpete
February 6th, 2010 | 8:15 pm
***Jeff, you missed the point. No one, including Horton, believes the detainees committed suicide by swallowing rags.***
Hmmm. Okay. I’ll go take a look at it again.
Uh, let me apologize for taking that tone with you. I do push-back, sometrimes. You seem inclined to be fair-minded, so I’ll dial it down some.
I find this business interesting. A real life murder mystery, maybe playing itself out not merely right in front of us, but possibly with our help, if we pay attention and push a little.
Look, I came to this discussion a little late, and didn’t realize there was a part two, and I think now, a part three. So if you agree, shall we take this over there (two or three, wherever it is) and stay current with the discussion. I’ve been thinking about this some, and I think I’m ready to take it to another level.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact