Andrew Sullivan and I don’t agree on much, but we share a disgust for torture and the abuse of prisoners. I admire this about him and believe he has the potential to be a powerful and influential voice in the defense of human dignity. So it is unfortunate that he undercuts his own credibility on this issue by allowing one of his most noteworthy flaws—gullibly believing outlandish conspiracy theories—to dominate his reasoning.
As I pointed out yesterday, Scott Horton has concocted one of the most elaborate and extensive conspiracy theories to ever be published in a once reputable magazine. His claim is that the murder and cover-up of three prisoners at Guantanamo Bay Prison involves hundreds of people, ranging from enlisted military men to the current President of the United States.
Extraordinary claims, as Carl Sagan used to say, require extraordinary evidence. Yet Horton’s supposition is based on rumors that are so baseless that it is difficult to imagine how any reasonable person could believe them. Sadly, as he proves with his Trig Trutherism, Sullivan is not a reasonable person. It is not surprising that he would take issue with my disdain for his support of Horton’s bizarre conspiracy.
In a post today, Sullivan writes:
Actually, I read thoroughly the Seton Hall report a month ago. I have followed this case very closely. And in my original post on the subject, I wrote: “And the only reason we do not know more about this is because of the criminal cover-up under the Bush administration and the enraging refusal of the Obama administration to do the right thing and open all of it to sunlight.”
In his original post he also wrote, “There are now credible accounts that, far from being suicides, these deaths were either the result of serious negligence in treatment of prisoners under “enhanced interrogation” or that, quite simply, they were tortured so badly in what appears to be a secret Gitmo black site that they died.”
Since Sullivan is basing the “credible accounts” on Scott Horton’s story in Harper’s, let’s examine what evidence for these claims is presented.
. . .these deaths were either the result of serious negligence in treatment of prisoners under “enhanced interrogation . . . — There does appear to be some evidence of negligence in the treatment of the prisoners. Contrary to what Sullivan is implying, though, the report by Seton Hall shows that the prisoners were treated in a manner that was unduly lax. This is unlikely to have prevented them from committing suicide, though it possibly made it easier for the prisoners to carry out.
The contention that they died because of enhanced interrogation techniques it totally without warrant. Like Sullivan, I am as opposed to the use of torture and would be the first to denounce it if there were any evidence that these prisoners had been tortured. But there is not. There is also no evidence that they had been interrogated at all in the months—possibly even years—before their deaths.
As any advocate of enhanced interrogation techniques will admit, they are useful only in the initial phase of the interrogation process. There is no reason to use them on prisoners who have been in custody and interrogated for long periods of time. This is why it would have been useless to torture these prisoners, each of which had been in the prison for four to five years (one prisoner was even scheduled for release to Saudi Arabia, though he did not know it).
. . . or that, quite simply, they were tortured so badly in what appears to be a secret Gitmo black site that they died. — The source for the claim that Gitmo had a “black site” where prisoners were tortured is so eye-rollingly ridiculous that Horton doesn’t even make the dire claim. Here is the support for their being a black site torture center on Gitmo:
When they arrived at Camp Delta, Davila told me, soldiers from the California National Guard unit they were relieving introduced him to some of the curiosities of the base. The most noteworthy of these was an unnamed and officially unacknowledged compound nestled out of sight between two plateaus about a mile north of Camp Delta, just outside Camp America’s perimeter. One day, while on patrol, Hickman and Davila came across the compound. It looked like other camps within Camp America, Davila said, only it had no guard towers and it was surrounded by concertina wire. They saw no activity, but Hickman guessed the place could house as many as eighty prisoners. One part of the compound, he said, had the same appearance as the interrogation centers at other prison camps.
The compound was not visible from the main road, and the access road was chained off. The Guardsman who told Davila about the compound had said, “This place does not exist,” and Hickman, who was frequently put in charge of security for all of Camp America, was not briefed about the site. Nevertheless, Davila said, other soldiers—many of whom were required to patrol the outside perimeter of Camp America—had seen the compound, and many speculated about its purpose. One theory was that it was being used by some of the non-uniformed government personnel who frequently showed up in the camps and were widely thought to be CIA agents.
So a National Guardsman sees an area of the base, doesn’t know what it is, and automatically assumes it’s a torture site for the CIA? What is even more striking than this silly rumor is that Horton doesn’t try to verify this claim or get any other corroborating witnesses. There are over 10,000 military personnel on Gitmo—many who have been there for years and are quite familiar with the base—yet Horton doesn’t talk to any of them. This is, of course, understandable: When you’re building a conspiracy theory you don’t want to get information that might dispute your belief.
Sullivan adds:
I have subsequently complained that then Holder DOJ is refusing to investigate. Carter should not presume that we are all as blindly partisan as he is.
If you can read that last sentence—by a man who has apologized and excused almost every action that Obama has made as President—without giggling like a schoolgirl than you have more composure than I do.
By the fact is that the Holder DOJ did investigate and found—as any reasonable person would do—that the claim that the prisoners were murdered is absurd. What more does Sullivan expect Justice to do? I suspect he won’t be satisfied until Sarah Palin releases her gynecological records showing that she was busy preparing for an unexpected pregnancy and did not have time to fly to Gitmo to torture and kill prisoners.
What is amusing is that Sullivan is quick to dismiss the rather simple Birther conspiracy theory (as he should) but is fully onboard with idea that the U.S. military and federal government agencies pulled off the most complex, massive cover-up in the history of our nation. To be a Birther you only have to believe that someone went back in time and planted a birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper to cover for Obama. But to believe in the Gitmo murder theory you have to believe in a level of collusion and corruption among so many people and so many levels of government that it would make a 9/11 Truther snicker in disbelief.
Carter also argues that Horton’s entire story rests on one soldier. It doesn’t. It rests on the testimony of “four members of the Military Intelligence unit assigned to guard Camp Delta, including a decorated non-commissioned Army officer who was on duty as sergeant of the guard the night of June 9.”
The core contention of Horton’s story rests on one soldier: Joe Hickman. (To call him a “decorated non-commissioned Army officer” because he once won a commendation medal and an NCO of the Quarter award will sure make veterans chuckle.) The only other soldier mentioned was Army Specialist Christopher Penvose. His sole addition to this story is that he was “instructed Penvose to go immediately to the Camp Delta chow hall, identify a female senior petty officer who would be dining there, and relay to her a specific code word.” Whether this is related to the deaths, no one knows. The other two members—if they exist—are not mentioned in the story.
Hickman’s testimony is that he allegedly saw prisoners—that may or may not have been the ones who died—loaded into a paddy wagon and driven in the direction of an area that he and his buddies speculated might be a building that belonged to the CIA. He claims that some hours later the van returned and drove to the to the entrance of the medical clinic “as if to unload something.”
In February 2009, Hickman met with three people from Obama’s Justice Department: “Rita Glavin, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; John Morton, who was soon to become an assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security; and Steven Fagell, counselor to the head of the Criminal Division.” He tells them that he saw 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.” According to Horton, “For more than an hour, the two lawyers described what Hickman had seen: the existence of Camp No, the transportation of the three prisoners, the van’s arrival at the medical clinic, the lack of evidence that any bodies had ever been removed from Alpha Block, and so on.”
Let’s recap what Hickman told the Justice Department:
1. He told them about his belief that a secret area of Gitmo was a CIA black site.
2. He told them about the transportation of three prisoners
3. He told them a van drove to the medical clinic
4. He told them that there was no evidence any bodies had ever been removed from Alpha Block.
The Justice Department investigated the claims and, as they told Horton, “conducted a thorough inquiry into this matter, carefully examined the allegations, found no evidence of wrongdoing and subsequently closed the matter.”
Of course, Horton is like Sullivan and claiming that the matter has been investigated and found warrantless is ipso facto evidence of a massive cover-up. As Horton says in a follow-up to his article: “Of course, this adamant insistence on official anonymity does nothing to dispel the accusation of cover-up. Just the opposite: it suggests that the lawyers and FBI agents involved quite urgently wish not to have their names associated with it. And who could blame them?”
Let’s review: At Gitmo, three prisoners were murdered and at least two-dozen military personnel (ranging from guards to doctors) were involved in the cover-up of the crimes. NCIS was brought in to investigate—they also aided in the cover-up. The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology was called in to autopsy the bodies—they also aided in the cover-up. The FBI was brought in to investigate the matter—they also aided in the cover-up. The Justice Department was brought in to review the allegations of a cover-up—they also aided in the cover-up.
Do you start to see the pattern here? Horton and Sullivan have created a narrative in which the prisoners were tortured to death and nothing that is contrary to that idea can be submitted as evidence. The absence of any evidence to support this claim is evidence of a cover-up. The absence of any evidence of a cover-up is evidence that higher-level authorities are intervening to ensure the cover-up is not exposed. Once you take the first step on the fetid path of believing in a massive governmental conspiracy, it becomes an infinite regress. It’s a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma!
But let’s return to Sullivan’s post. He writes:
It also rests on the extraordinary lacunae and non-explanations and inconsistencies in the previous Pentagon reports, as analyzed by Seton Hall University.
Let’s look at a passage from the Seton Hall report:
The way in which the investigative files are presented makes it difficult to understand how the investigation was conducted. It produced more than 1,700 pages of interviews and information regarding the events of June 9 and 10, but the evidence obtained as presented is virtually impenetrable. Pages are missing, paragraphs are redacted, and documents with information are disorganized, making it difficult to review any of the evidence obtained through the investigations.
In other words, they are attempting to draw conclusions about the inconsistencies in a report of which they have not seen in full. Even so, there is nothing in the Seton Hall analysis—nothing at all—to suggest that the prisoners were murdered. In fact, the report contradicts some of the claims made by Hickman, specifically that there “was no evidence any bodies had ever been removed from Alpha Block.” This is odd considering that Hickman’s lawyer—Josh Denbeaux—is the head of the Seton Hall project. You would think he would be able to keep the story straight.
Sullivan continues:
[Carter] does not inquire into or rebut the full pattern of evidence we see before us, he simply smears the sources
Let’s be clear: the full pattern of evidence shows that the prisoners committed suicide. The only “evidence” to the contrary is the confused claims of Hickman, who has no firsthand knowledge of anything that about the case.
As in the case of Palin’s bizarre pregnancy stories, the obvious recourse – to simply get the readily available proof and settle the matter for good and all – is dismissed. Why? If you’re so sure that something is true, why would you oppose any serious attempt to test it? And why is a journalist advocating less information rather than more?
As in the case of Sullivan’s bizarre fascination with Palin’s pregnancy, any evidence that doesn’t support his narrative is either dismissed or deemed as inconsequential. Contrary evidence is evidence of a cover-up. The NCIS produced a thorough investigation that proves to any reasonable observer that the deaths were suicides. The FBI and Justice Department reviewed the NCIS investigation and came to the same conclusion. Even the muckraking Seton Hall report doesn’t go so far as to make the bizarre claim that the prisoners were murdered.
I don’t “oppose any serious attempt to test it.” I’ve looked at the evidence and drawn the conclusion that any sane and responsible person would draw. It is not a lack of information that is missing, but a lack of common sense on those who refuse to examine the data.
Carter has made his name as a Christian. It seems to me that very credible evidence that three prisoners may have been tortured to death by the US government would be worth any Christian’s concern. It seems to me that a Christian would want to ensure that this potential horror is investigated by independent sources to ensure that it didn’t take place.
A thorough (1700 page!) investigation took place. The Justice Department reviewed the investigation and did not find anything out of the ordinary. Am I supposed to disregard all of this because an Army sergeant who had no firsthand knowledge of the event came forward three years after the incident with a ridiculous story?
Sullivan also claims to be a Christian. It seems to me that a Christian would want to avoid slandering the good names of many men and women by accusing them of the cover-up of a three murders.
In a war governed by rules that led to widespread torture and murder of prisoners in US custody – again, factually indisputable – it seems to me that a Christian would seek to discover the full truth without relying on ad hominems, avoidance of the majority of the evidence, ignorance of the sourcing, and denigration of a human rights lawyer.
As usual, Sullivan makes making hyperbolic claims that undercut his point. To say that there has been “widespread torture and murder of prisoners in US custody” is to risk being dismissed entirely. What is his evidence for this claim? Yes, torture has been used on prisoners and should be forcefully condemned. But when people find out that there has been not widespread torture and murder they are likely to think that the entire issue is overblown.
Once again Sullivan has hurt the anti-torture cause by making outrageously unsupportable claims. Perhaps if he would temper his boundless passion with a little more reason he would be a more effective advocate for freedom and decency.
See also: Part III, which includes an extended explanation for all the ways in which the Harper piece fails.
January 22nd, 2010 | 3:20 pm
Some comments/questions:
As Sully points out in his first response, Carter has already misrepresented certain facts and Sully’s views on the matter (and must necessarily engage in some backpedaling on these things if he wants credibility). What puzzles me a bit about Carter’s denial stance is that this government is already on record for having tortured people, having skirted the law, having shipped off innocents to be tortured in Syria, having lied, etc. etc. That’s precisely what makes the Gitmo homocide-narrative believable. And there never was any implication that hundreds or thousands of people were involved in a cover-up. But the implication is that some number of people were. The implication isn’t even that the DOJ is involved in a cover-up strictly speaking, but that the DOJ has failed in its duty to pursue justice thoroughly. Should this implication come as any surprise, given the personnel and activities the DOJ has been known to be involved in, under both Cheney/Bush and Obama?
Obama is on record for not being too concerned about pursuing the wrong-doers of the past, saying we need to “move forward.” That’s just not acceptable on Obama’s part, sorry. It might be understandable that he fears that pursuing the previous wrong-doers might have some unpleasant implications for the powerful, and that the findings may be too horrifying for the American people to digest, but we already have a trail of evidence starting with places like Abu Graibh that suggests that this government is indeed capable of these things that Carter deems “bizarre.”
Also, if the NCIS report is to be believed, we have the bizarre “suicide” narrative where these three men, all scheduled for release within a month, bound their own hands, etc., and that they went unnoticed in their cells for an extended period of time. He accuses Sullivan of excessive credulity in some bizarre homicide-and-cover-up, but believes this official narrative? Is there something flawed in the Seton Hall team’s reconstruction?
January 22nd, 2010 | 3:43 pm
[...] today, Joe Carter of First Things responded to some of the concern expressed by Andrew Sullivan, among others. To Sullivan’s comment that [...]
January 22nd, 2010 | 3:59 pm
Chris Cathcart As Sully points out in his first response, Carter has already misrepresented certain facts and Sully’s views on the matter (and must necessarily engage in some backpedaling on these things if he wants credibility).
What have I misrepresented?
And there never was any implication that hundreds or thousands of people were involved in a cover-up.
Let’s look at the minimum number of people who would have been involved in the cover-up, according to the Seton Hall report and Horton’s story:
—52 guards and medical personnel
—1 Admiral
—1 Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
—1 Commanding Officer
—2 (at least) NCIS investigators
—2 (at least) Criminal Investigation Task Force investigators
—1 (at least) Staff Judge Advocate investigator
—1 (at least) DOD investigator
—1 (at least) US Southern Command investigator
—2 Forensic pathologists
— 4 Justice Department officials
—2 FBI agents
So you are correct. We only have to believe that a minimum of 80 people were involved in the cover-up.
Also, if the NCIS report is to be believed, we have the bizarre “suicide” narrative where these three men, all scheduled for release within a month, bound their own hands, etc., and that they went unnoticed in their cells for an extended period of time. He accuses Sullivan of excessive credulity in some bizarre homicide-and-cover-up, but believes this official narrative? Is there something flawed in the Seton Hall team’s reconstruction?
One minor point: only one of the three men was scheduled for release (and he didn’t even know about it).
So the alternative to the suicide narrative is that we believe:
—Prisoners were removed from their cells and murdered at another location
—The three dead bodies were transported back to the cells without attracting the notice of any of the other prisoners.
—The murderers bound the hands and feet of the dead prisoners in order to . . . ? (raise suspicions and make it look like a murder rather than a suicide?)
—The murderers lifted the bodies, already undergoing rigor mortis, and managed to get them in a position that looked like they hung themselves all without attracting attention of the army guards outside who are able to see into the cells.
—The murderers then spread urine on the floor to match the stains on the prisoners who soiled themselves when they died.
—The murderers have an Arabic translator write out two suicide notes each, placing one in each dead man’s pocket and the other in their cell. The translator takes care to make sure his handwriting matches the handwriting of the dead prisoner so as not to arouse suspicion.
—The murderers inform the guards that they can now be the initial phase of the cover-up.
Does that really sound more plausible to you?
January 22nd, 2010 | 4:22 pm
Joe, who says that the narrative suggested by Hickman and Horton EVER INVOLVED THE DEAD PRISONERS BEING BROUGHT BACK TO THEIR CELLS? The narrative is that there wasn’t any activity occurring the whole night on the path between the cell area and the medical area. The narrative is that they brought the dead bodies directly to the medical area, then made up a story that the 3 men were in their cells. This is such a simple point to grasp for anyone who read Horton’s piece carefully.
January 22nd, 2010 | 4:38 pm
Joe, let’s just posit this scenario: The three men die at the black site subsequent to having rags stuffed down their throats. *Then, the three dead bodies are hanged.* They are hanged between that point in time at the black site and the time that the 3 dead bodies are delivered to the medical area. This is consistent with the autopsy determining that they had been hanged (not equivalent to saying that they *hanged themselves*).
January 22nd, 2010 | 4:46 pm
Or: why not that the torturers bound the men by hand first, then stuffed rags stuffed in their throats, and then immediately hanged them? Very consistent with the autopsy now, is it not.
And why did the families receive their sons’ bodies with the throats removed?
January 22nd, 2010 | 4:54 pm
Chris Joe, who says that the narrative suggested by Hickman and Horton EVER INVOLVED THE DEAD PRISONERS BEING BROUGHT BACK TO THEIR CELLS?
So we should just dismiss the sworn testimony of 52 guards and medical personnel taken within days of the incident to believe 1 guard who claims three years after that something different occurred? Why? What possible reason would we have for thinking that the 52 were lying and that Hickman is telling the truth?
Joe, let’s just posit this scenario: The three men die at the black site subsequent to having rags stuffed down their throats.
Sorry, that won’t work. For starters, we can’t begin by making the irrational leap from “some soldier see a building and doesn’t know what it is” to “the CIA has a black site right outside of the prison camp.” We have to start with actual facts, not random supposition by some stray solider.
*Then, the three dead bodies are hanged.*
Okay, so three unimportant prisoners are taken out of their cells and hung. What’s the motive?
They are hanged between that point in time at the black site and the time that the 3 dead bodies are delivered to the medical area.
What evidence do we have that the bodies were delivered from the 3rd party site to the medical area? Even Hickman doesn’t make that claim. Why do we disregard the 50+ people who saw them being brought into the clinic from the prison? Are all these people in on the cover-up?
January 22nd, 2010 | 4:56 pm
I don’t really know whose version is more credible here, but a small point:
Sullivan isn’t necessarily claiming a massive conspiracy – as Cathcart says, he’s saying that everybody up to the President is in on the conspiracy, he’s saying that they’re not willing to investigate further and make waves. That’s not the same as being in on an explicit and intentional cover-up.
January 22nd, 2010 | 5:00 pm
Okay, let’s try to think of a motive here for why someone in the government would do this and cover it up. That may be one of the most puzzling things about the case: why would the government do this, and why would agencies charged with investigating the matter not get to the bottom of it?
You will recall the massively redacted nature of the release of the NCIS report, forced at last by a FOIA request. It would take a long time for anyone looking into the matter would figure out that the official narrative doesn’t make any sense. Now, who was behind ensuring that this report was so heavily redacted, seeing as, once unraveled by the public, the official narrative will be discredited?
Let’s now also consider this scenario: the public-relations department of the War on Terror is getting concerned about flagging public support. So how about this: how ’bout we stage suicides by 3 men whom we know we can’t get any intel from anyway. Then we can have a gruesome example broadcast to the American People of the kind of Evil we are up against.
Doesn’t this remind you of the Pelican brief? ;-)
January 22nd, 2010 | 5:03 pm
Extraordinary claims, as Carl Sagan used to say, require extraordinary evidence.
Indeed. In this case, it’s the much more extraordinary claim to suggest that three men, at least one of whom was looking forward to release because he had no discernable ties to terrorism whatsoever, all committed simultaneous suicide at the behest of terror organizations they had never in their lives communicated with, as opposed to the much more prosaic claim that these men were being interrogated (as we know they did at Gitmo) under circumstances of “enhanced interrogation” (torture, which we know they were doing at Gitmo) at a CIA black site (which we know exists at Gitmo) and then died (which we know has happened during these investigations in more than one hundred other cases.)
For your own extraordinary claim of “suicide” you’ve offered absolutely no evidence except that the government invested itself and cleared itself of wrongdoing. Wow, compelling.
January 22nd, 2010 | 5:07 pm
The Justice Department investigated the claims and, as they told Horton, “conducted a thorough inquiry into this matter, carefully examined the allegations, found no evidence of wrongdoing and subsequently closed the matter.”
Right, and I’m sure they took it “very seriously” as well. Your argument seems to consist of nothing more than taking the claims of anonymous government bureaucrats with everything to lose by full disclosure at face value, over eyewitness testimony by specific individuals. That’s a level of naive credulity that doesn’t speak well of your ability to be anything but a Republican cheerleader.
January 22nd, 2010 | 5:15 pm
We only have to believe that a minimum of 80 people were involved in the cover-up.
Well, your list adds up to 70, not 80. But “52 guards”? Hardly that many.
But 70 people isn’t that many, especially in a military command structure where their silence and obedience can simply be compelled. As a point of comparison, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment resulted in the deaths of hundreds of men, women, and children, involved the direct participation of more than 200 researchers and the cooperation of the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control, and the American Medical Association, yet remained a perfect secret for over 50 years.
25 or so people, each either individually implicated in felony murder (and therefore with a considerable personal interest to cooperate) or someone whose cooperation could simply be ordered? That’s hardly the conspiracy of the century. Especially with useful idiots like yourself to run cover for them.
January 22nd, 2010 | 5:24 pm
So we should just dismiss the sworn testimony of 52 guards and medical personnel taken within days of the incident to believe 1 guard who claims three years after that something different occurred?
What evidence is there that this testimony was ever made or taken, and isn’t simply an invention of the investigation? “Oh, sure, I totally talked to like 52 people, they all swore that they saw the guys hanging there.” That’s one person to invent the testimony, not 52.
For starters, we can’t begin by making the irrational leap from “some soldier see a building and doesn’t know what it is” to “the CIA has a black site right outside of the prison camp.”
Uh-huh. Do buildings just pop up by themselves near the country’s most secure and controversial military bases, in your experience? The idea that there would just accidentally be a building at Gitmo that nobody knew the purpose of is a ludicrous embarrassment.
It’s hardly just a building that “some soldier” didn’t know what it was for. It was a building that even the chief of security could not find any official record of. These two claims are not the same thing.
January 22nd, 2010 | 5:47 pm
JoeZ . . . he’s saying that they’re not willing to investigate further and make waves. That’s not the same as being in on an explicit and intentional cover-up.
I can see that, though I’m not sure it helps Sullivan. First, they did investigate and since the results were not to Sullivan’s liking, he dismisses it. Second, if the President fails to investigate because he suspects their might be a cover-up, then he is in on the cover-up, isnt’ he?
Chris You will recall the massively redacted nature of the release of the NCIS report, forced at last by a FOIA request. It would take a long time for anyone looking into the matter would figure out that the official narrative doesn’t make any sense. Now, who was behind ensuring that this report was so heavily redacted, seeing as, once unraveled by the public, the official narrative will be discredited?
If you look at the actual report, though, the redacted portions don’t change the narrative at all. The redactions may be hide or clear up some questions about inconsistencies between individiual statements, but there are so many people involved that that narrative itself is unchanged by what is left out.
Let’s now also consider this scenario: the public-relations department of the War on Terror is getting concerned about flagging public support. So how about this: how ’bout we stage suicides by 3 men whom we know we can’t get any intel from anyway. Then we can have a gruesome example broadcast to the American People of the kind of Evil we are up against.
Hmm. . . that would be the most incompetent public-relations deparment in history. ; )
For starters, why would they think that would work? When it was reported it didn’t even make the front page of the New York Times. How many people really paid attention to the story at all, much less let it influence how they felt about the GWOT. And wouldn’t there be a potential backlash? Wouldn’t people use that as an excuse to close GITMO?
A smarter PR department would claim that the use of “enhanced torture techniques” had resulted in intelligence which was used to foil a terrorist plot. That’s easy to pull off, difficult to disprove, and would have a more positive impact on people’s attitudes.
Doesn’t this remind you of the Pelican brief? ;-)
I don’t remember that one. I’ll have to look it up.
Chet In this case, it’s the much more extraordinary claim to suggest that three men, at least one of whom was looking forward to release . . .
He didn’t know he was being released.
all committed simultaneous suicide at the behest of terror organizations they had never in their lives communicated with
How do you know that?
at a CIA black site (which we know exists at Gitmo)
How do we know this?
(which we know has happened during these investigations in more than one hundred other cases.)
What’s your evidence for this claim?
But “52 guards”? Hardly that many.
That’s taken directly from the Seton Hall report. I was under the impression that you had actually read that document.
But 70 people isn’t that many, especially in a military command structure where their silence and obedience can simply be compelled.
Obviously, you know nothing about the military. Ask any veteran if you can get 70 military people to go along with a murder coverup and they’ll explain just how ridiculous a claim that is. (But this is revealing. Since you have such a naïve and uninformed view the military, its starting to be clear how you could fall for this conspiracy theory.)
Especially with useful idiots like yourself to run cover for them.
Don’t you have a 9/11 Truther meeting to go to? Your too gullible for this to be your first conspiracy theory.
January 22nd, 2010 | 5:54 pm
With respect, Mr. Carter, I don’t get how you read certain things.
You said:
“The core contention of Horton’s story rests on one soldier: Joe Hickman. . . . The only other soldier mentioned was Army Specialist Christopher Penvose. His sole addition to this story is that he was ‘instructed Penvose to go immediately to the Camp Delta chow hall, identify a female senior petty officer who would be dining there, and relay to her a specific code word.’”
The Harper’s story also specifically mentions Hickman’s buddy Specialist Tony Davila who is sourced for the existence of a black site and for the story that the prisoners died from rags being stuffed down their throats.
In addition, Penvose and specialist David Caroll are both sourced by name as the men who told Hickman and then confirmed to Horton that no prisoners, either alive or dead, had been transferred from the cell block to the clinic that night. As they were both posted in guard towers that had a clear view of the path between the two buildings, that’s not an insignificant piece of information as far as the “core contention of Horton’s story” is concerned.
It’s difficult for me to trust your reading of the Seton Hall report and the other documents involved (which I’ve only just started to read), when your reading of the one document I have read completely is so obviously careless.
And I think you ought to amend your first post to remove the assertion that Hickman abandoned his post. It’s a slanderous falsehood.
January 22nd, 2010 | 6:23 pm
Joe, I’m guessing that people like Scott Horton and Glenn Greenwald are also gullible for bizarre and loony conspiracy theories? You like to keep making your digs at Sullivan, but how about these other two men?
By the way, Sully was quite specific in what he was saying about Trig Palin, namely: Sarah’s narrative of her birth to Trig isn’t believable, for reasons he spelled out many times. It doesn’t mean he thinks she forged birth documents or anything like that. It just means that he thinks she has no credibility. She said right in her book that as the audience at her address laughed, she had more contractions. Does that not raise any kind of red flag for you?
January 22nd, 2010 | 6:33 pm
Joe, the time and effort you have put into this is certainly admirable, but I’m not sure there is much to be gained with egaging with Sullivan and his ilk. Charles Sanders Peirce diagnosed this, lets call it an “approach” in his classic essay “The Fixation of Belief”:
“If the settlement of opinion is the sole object of inquiry, and if belief is of the nature of a habit, why should we not attain the desired end, by taking as answer to a question any we may fancy, and constantly reiterating it to ourselves, dwelling on all which may conduce to that belief, and learning to turn with contempt and hatred from anything that might disturb it? This simple and direct method is really pursued by many men…Still oftener, the instinctive dislike of an undecided state of mind, exaggerated into a vague dread of doubt, makes men cling spasmodically to the views they already take. The man feels that, if he only holds to his belief without wavering, it will be entirely satisfactory. Nor can it be denied that a steady and immovable faith yields great peace of mind. It may, indeed, give rise to inconveniences, as if a man should resolutely continue to believe that fire would not burn him, or that he would be eternally damned if he received his ingesta otherwise than through a stomach-pump. But then the man who adopts this method will not allow that its inconveniences are greater than its advantages. He will say, “I hold steadfastly to the truth, and the truth is always wholesome.” And in many cases it may very well be that the pleasure he derives from his calm faith overbalances any inconveniences resulting from its deceptive character…When an ostrich buries its head in the sand as danger approaches, it very likely takes the happiest course. It hides the danger, and then calmly says there is no danger; and, if it feels perfectly sure there is none, why should it raise its head to see? A man may go through life, systematically keeping out of view all that might cause a change in his opinions, and if he only succeeds — basing his method, as he does, on two fundamental psychological laws — I do not see what can be said against his doing so. It would be an egotistical impertinence to object that his procedure is irrational, for that only amounts to saying that his method of settling belief is not ours. He does not propose to himself to be rational, and, indeed, will often talk with scorn of man’s weak and illusive reason. So let him think as he pleases.”
Does this require us to be quiet when people like Sullivan attempt to foist their idiosyncratic fancies on unsuspecting people who mistakenly believe they are reading the work of an actual journalist? Of course not. But when you know you are dealing with someone who is uninterested in listening to real evidence because it threatens whatever psychological need their odd belief fulfills…well it quickly becomes pointless.
In a very real way it is difficult to follow Peirce’s advice and not just condemn such folks as irrational, but I found its better to approach it that way.
January 22nd, 2010 | 6:54 pm
If I am not mistaken, this is the same ‘Chet’ who informed me with great self-assurance that Trig Palin must be the son of Todd Palin’s mistress.
Sullivan, Mark Shea, Scott Horton, and miscellaneous others have a considerable investment in this narrative. It ain’t about what happened. Ultimately, it is about them.
January 22nd, 2010 | 6:55 pm
Joe, let it go. Cathcard and Chet have proven themselves to be impervious to evidence and logic. Therefore, rational arguments tied to, well, evidence and logic, are by definition futile. As Heinlein said,“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”
January 22nd, 2010 | 6:59 pm
Mr. Carter, I just wanted to say I appreciate your skepticism, which motivated me to go and read the Seton Hall report in its entirety. It does not mesh very well with Horton’s piece unless we assume an extremely elaborate and somewhat ridiculous cover-up. If such a cover-up were possible, why would the guards’ “testimony” have included such clear evidence of rigor mortis? The rigor mortis clearly indicated that the detainees had been dead for a long time before being discovered, which strikes me as a bad story for a cover-up. Wouldn’t you want the cover story to be nice and smooth? To indicate that the guards did their best? As it stands, the obvious conclusion I come to is that the guards failed to perform their checks. I’m an Army veteran and find it quite easy to believe that the guards simply got lazy and complacent.
Nevertheless, this story should still cause some serious outrage. Even assuming negligence as the root cause of these deaths, why has no one been held publicly accountable? Why weren’t the guards brought up on charges? How on earth did Admiral Harris conclude that the SOP violations did not warrant disciplinary action and did not directly contribute to the detainees’ deaths? Do you share my outrage on these points?
January 22nd, 2010 | 7:52 pm
Also, you raise the issue of all these 52 witnesses and whatnot. The Seton Hall team pieced together an official narrative that requires there to have been a *lack* of witnesses to the men going about hanging themselves in their cells when their cells where supposed to be checked often. Why is there no one on record having testified seeing the men dead in their cells until some time considerably after the presumed time of death? We’re considering an appeal to witnesses to be reliable, right?
January 22nd, 2010 | 8:05 pm
Also, the official narrative (apparently) is that these three men stuffed rags in their own throats, bound their own hands, got up into their own nooses, and hung themselves. And they all managed to get all the materials for this action, unnoticed.
The narrative that I’m proposing is that they had the rags stuffed in their throats, they had their hands bound, and their heads put through the noose and were hung — by someone else. And it involved materials that the inmates never brought to their cells to begin with.
Which of these two narratives do you find *more* plausible?
January 22nd, 2010 | 8:14 pm
Joe,
Your arguments aren’t convincing when your sentences are riddled with errors in elementary English, e.g., “he suspects their might” and “Your too gullible for this.” Come on, man.
I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian family, and your tone reminds me of the fundy reaction to the theory of evolution. It has the same whiff of desperation about it. What, the U.S. military would cover up homicide? It’s crazy talk! Ludicrous! Sullivan is out of his mind! Harper’s is a joke! Because to ponder the probable truth of the matter would be devastating to your worldview. It’s this shared, willful blindness that makes Christianity and conservatism perfect partners; and it’s why I eventually left them both behind, with no regrets.
January 22nd, 2010 | 9:09 pm
How is the suicide scenario more implausible than the murder one? The apparent explanation for how they were murdered is that tortuous interrogation went too far and then the mess had to be cleaned up. But how likely is this with *three* deaths? Is the idea that three separate interrogation teams accidentally tortured three detainees to death on the same night? That one interrogation team went too far with one, then another, and then another? Then realized they should call it a night? The only way three deaths makes sense is if they were intentionally murdered, and what possible motivation is there for that? If we’re talking one death, then the “interrogation goes bad followed by cover up” scenario would at least have some surface plausibility. Three has none, even apart from the fantasy of the NCIS and FBI each getting roped into the coverup. The FBI in particular hasn’t been shy about protesting what it does like at Gitmo.
January 22nd, 2010 | 10:13 pm
My proposed narrative doesn’t even need involve military personnel doing the killing or knowingly being involved in a cover-up. The military folks there seem to be as confused about what really happened as anyone. See Scott Horton’s response to Col. Bumgarner, who insisted that he was there that night even though, as Horton points out, Bumgarner didn’t arrive until shortly before 1 am. So even Bumgarner seems to be well unaware of what really happened.
Here’s what I propose: this wasn’t military personnel at the proposed black site at all; it was hired paramilitary mercenaries who would murder with impunity and get away with it. Sound familiar?
January 22nd, 2010 | 10:30 pm
Theo, I’m responding to your post because it reminds me of a Theo I know from another site, and if you are the same, that post is below you. Grammar and lose associations you make to fundamentalists (“fundy” is not a respectful term), along with an unfair summary of Carter’s argument, do neither of you justice.
May as well add my two bits about the substance. I agree with you to the extent that Carter’s confidence appears to me to outstrip his evidence, and some of his points don’t seem correct to me, but some of the arguments he gives have more weight than you allow. The size of the conspiracy alleged (sometimes merely insinuated) by Horton is a problem, as is the Obama Administration’s alleged participation in it in what Horton makes out to possibly be an illegal and at least credibility-crushing way–why? The incredible elements of the suicide story are almost as incredible when considered as the story of choice for a cover-up. Why make the story so wild and implausible? The fact that (if this is true) the Seton Hall report found no evidence of murder is also significant. The new testimony is fairly indirect as to any murder. And the fact (if true as Carter says) that the Seton Hall report is at odds with Horton’s theory is also a problem.
The silence of the mainstream press about this is also remarkable. You can bet that reporters from every major news source have been in touch with their contacts at Justice and the Pentagon, as well as trying to reach the witnesses, but as yet none has seen fit to publish based on Horton’s story. That suggests a lack of confidence in the story by those who should have have the best ways to verify it.
I don’t know who’s right here, and I’m a lot more troubled by the evidence in Horton’s article than Carter seems to be, but I do appreciate that someone (the only one I’ve come across) has been willing to question what is being swallowed pretty unskeptically at many liberal sources. There is good reason to do so.
January 22nd, 2010 | 10:36 pm
RD, it’s been suggested elsewhere that the first death was accidental, and that the others were killed because they were witnesses (and possibly witnesses on their way out of Guantanamo). The related question asked earlier, though, why they would torture these particular prisoners at all, is a good one. The idea that it was part of a PR campaign is weak, and not only because it wasn’t good PR.
January 22nd, 2010 | 10:50 pm
corrected version of last post:
RD, you’re precisely onto the right track, but you naturally default in favor of the suicide scenario instead of the murder one because the murder one seems too monstrous to consider. You are exactly, exactly correct: how would the killers (be it miliary, paramilitary, whatever) manage to screw up 3 interrogations all in a row, all in the same night? And if they had no useful intelligence to give up, why are all three picked out to be tortured for intelligence? (We also have strong reasons to believe that those in charge of the torture programs *don’t really believe* that torture results in reliable intelligence.) So, the “they tortured 3 men to death accidentally” defies plausibility.
So what does that leave us? It leaves us the official narrative, which is bizarre and doesn’t make sense, and then you have my narrative, for which I have yet to see a flaw but welcome any and all challenges to it to see whether all the bases can really be covered. My narrative leaves us with the scenario that their murder was pre-planned as I have posited, and for the reasons I posited (as a PR stunt for the “War on Terror”). I just wish that our government or leaders weren’t this evil. But what’s wrong with this explanation? They have done plenty of other things to suggest that they *are* capable of such evil, and had gotten away with those things. So, if my narrative proposal is correct, they probably figured they could get away with this as well.
January 22nd, 2010 | 11:38 pm
Uhm, nothing personal but Andrew Sullivan is insane.
January 23rd, 2010 | 12:51 am
So, then, the mystery can be solved by looking at the birth documents, since, for some unknown reason, Sullivan believes they were miraculously exempt from tampering amidst the non-believable funny business.
No, unless I already believed that there was funny business going on. If I believe, for example, that my door man is a murderer, I will interpret his tired eyes as sinister. But if I don’t have this belief to begin with, I interpret his tired eyes as tired eyes.
The “evidence” cited by Sully is no evidence at all. They are isolated dots he connects by his imagination.
What is doing the work for Sully is irrational hatred of Sarah Palin, a person far more successful than him though embodying everything he loathes and associates with moral failure: strong femininity, fertility, orthodox Christian commitment, and non-elitist education.
January 23rd, 2010 | 2:43 am
Having now looked at the Seton Hall report, it’s hard to see what the basis is for calling the official investigation “thorough.” A main point of the report is that the investigation was anything but thorough, that the minimum standards for such an investigation weren’t met, that the most obvious points weren’t investigated, the key personnel not questioned, etc.
The authors of the report don’t seem to feel the redacted portions of the investigative materials could have included all the things they found lacking, and I don’t see how that would be possible either, at least not in keeping with the laws about classification. But even if that were incorrect, it’s still hard to see why Carter believes the investigation was thorough, apart from the fact that it generated 1700 pages of material and the government claims it was thorough.
January 23rd, 2010 | 4:07 am
Sanpete Having now looked at the Seton Hall report, it’s hard to see what the basis is for calling the official investigation “thorough.
What is odd about the Seton Hall report is that they are claiming the investigation was inadequate simply because they are not privy to the entire report. They admit that “only 13.3 percent of the pages have not been redacted at all”, yet they still make unsupportable claims about what is and is not in the report and how that would affect the investigation.
In other words, the Seton Hall report doesn’t have enough data to justify the claims it makes. This is the primary reason why the mainstream media has not taken the report all that seriously.
But even if that were incorrect, it’s still hard to see why Carter believes the investigation was thorough, apart from the fact that it generated 1700 pages of material and the government claims it was thorough.
I not only consider it thorough, I consider it overkill—at least as far as concluding that the deaths were suicides. A simple investigation would entail looking at the videotapes from the cell block (as NCIS) did and saying, “Yep, that’s them hanging themselves.” The fact that the government possess tapes of the cellblock at the time of the suicides should be enough to give the Gitmo Truthers pause (though it won’t, of course).
Keep in mind that the reason for the investigations (there were three) was not to determine how the prisoners died. That was obvious and no one disputed it. What was in question was whether any policies had been violated that would have prevented the prisoners from harming themselves.
January 23rd, 2010 | 7:45 am
We have completely lost–intentionally, perhaps–any sense of journalism. I can see why–journalists can be fatally embarrassing to the arrogant behavior of government (Democrat and Republican). It’s inconvenient for the precious narratives of self-preservation. A battalion of important writers and legislators in this nation have abetted the immorality of our torture policies; despite his protestations, Carter is among them.
Only hope–impeach the story. So far no success, because the writer uses the legitimate processes of journalism to present a sequence of evidence. No ad-homs or nasty little digs at credentials or at Harper’s matter; it’s the evidence he conveys that matters.
Horton’s point is that guards (three, on the record: Penvose, Hickman, Davila) said the things they said. Horton does not propose a convoluted conspiracy theory; he reports what the guards told him, cross referenced with other information, and published with any denial, refutation, or confirmation he could find.
You propose the convoluted conspiracy theory.
Then you rage on it.
You assert that this conspiracy is like the birthers and truthers.
You make the comparison to Sullivan’s questions about Trig.
Straw man. And a classic example of “methinks the wingnut doth protest too much.” Plus you’re way out there on the flank, unsuppported, because nobody else is touching this one.
Here’s the first unattributed claim Horton makes in his piece, five sentences in:
“Furthermore, new evidence now emerging may entangle Obama’s young administration with crimes that occurred during the George W. Bush presidency, evidence that suggests the current administration failed to investigate seriously—and may even have continued—a cover-up of the possible homicides of three prisoners at Guantánamo in 2006.”
Bold claim, that–”evidence may entangle.” A tad understated for hysterical conspiratorial insanity. The story is about evidence, not conspiracies. The second unattributed statement, nine sentences later:
“an unusual move, he also used the announcement to attack the dead men.”
What a leap–that it’s unusual for a military commander to attack men who have committed suicide on their watch.
That pattern continues throughout. Horton makes journalistically reasonable conclusions based on long sequences of attributed statements. That means the sources are on the record; their claims can be verified. Real men who were there, saying stuff.
Sure, it’s not compelling evidence that “nobody’s talking about it.” It’s also not compelling evidence that it’s not denied. If Hickman is a liar or insane, let us see and hear evidence of his insanity. Otherwise his testimony stands. Carter properly observes that Hickman didn’t see or feel or touch the murders. But there’s no evidence Hickman’s claims are false, either; he is (despite your unseemly efforts) credible, as far as his accounts can go. Those accounts conflict with the official version of events. That conflict is news, carefully reported. You may formulate attacks on it, but you haven’t refuted it. More troubling, I admit–you may ignore it (to your credit, you have not, but virtually all of the other torture apologists have, along with the main stream.) There’s the outrage, right there. We know we torture; we admit it. How does that affect the nation, the moral culture this blog is so concerned about? Silence. If the men actually did their circus suicide act, even that is a grotesque slur on us. Cavils and quibbles here and there, mostly silence.
Who has denied that Hickman and Davila knew of a black site on Gitmo? They say they found a compound, off the charts, where they once heard screams. They report rumors about this place. Horton reports their accounts. Denials? none. We–our nation, the USA–operates black sites for the hidden torture of kidnapped people. Admitted. Is there one on Gitmo? (aside from the fact that Gitmo is one big one?) Deny it, please; or refute the statements in the story. Please. I don’t want it to be true. So far no joy.
Has Carter dropped his untenable assertion that there were no rags in the throats of the dead men? Because it’s corroborated in multiple places in official released NCIS documents. Why attempt to refute something like that at all? Where does the impulse come from to attack such a claim? True or false, it’s appalling that we have come to this point–where a respected and thoughtful person would dismiss out of hand, with careful sophomore logic, such a disturbing allegation. This needs to be publicly and decisively resolved, not nitpicked.
Fallacious and fervid counterattacks…smells like defense of torture and murder, and amateur complicity in their coverup. Shame.
ice9
January 23rd, 2010 | 8:38 am
“But 70 people isn’t that many, especially in a military command structure where their silence and obedience can simply be compelled.”
Chet,
You have now lost all credibility with me. You clearly know nothing of the military. We were not, are not, and never will be robots.
January 23rd, 2010 | 11:16 am
I would guess that part of the reason Sullivan so readily believes conspiracy theories is because he is–or at least was trained as–an academic; we non-scientific academes have a tendency to make broad claims on minimal evidence (or evidence which can easily be interpreted in another way).
January 23rd, 2010 | 12:57 pm
ice9 That pattern continues throughout. Horton makes journalistically reasonable conclusions based on long sequences of attributed statements.
Lets simply this so that we can all save time. Do accept the story of Hickman, et al., or the Seton Hall report. You can choose only one.
If Hickman’s tale is true then none of the other claims made (e.g., that the prisoners were found gagged) is true since it is made by some people (guards) who were not present or who were present but are obviously lying (e.g., the medical staff who claim the bodies were brought in by the guards from the prison late in the night).
Which one do you choose to believe?
January 23rd, 2010 | 2:09 pm
I don’t think the Seton Hall report’s claims are unsupportable, though some aren’t directly supported in the report. What legal ground could there conceivably be to redact all the portions of the investigative materials that would have covered the rather basic points the report says are completely missing, including all mentions of such materials? I can’t think of any legal ground for such redactions about *those* particulars. Look at the list of omissions and failures and see if you can. The government isn’t allowed to to just hold back whatever they please. They have to have some valid reason under the law.
Why do you say the purpose of the investigations wasn’t to determine, among other things, cause of death? The rags in the throats, bound limbs, and other peculiar circumstances were pretty strong reasons to include that in the investigation, as would be done in any similar domestic case. And according to the report, the medics and others involved after the deaths, along with their findings, were questioned and included in the investigations, which do find the cause of death to be suicide.
In any case, if finding cause of death wasn’t a purpose of the investigations, then that by itself is more than sufficient reason to stop calling them thorough, which implies to reasonable readers that they did investigate the chief matter at issue in Horton’s article, the cause of death.
Your view that the cause of death was obvious is hard to follow, given the peculiar circumstances and well known instances of prison guards attempting to cover up murders with hangings.
January 23rd, 2010 | 2:40 pm
“A simple investigation would entail looking at the videotapes from the cell block (as NCIS) did and saying, “Yep, that’s them hanging themselves.””
Sorry, forgot to mention that’s an excellent point, if they did review such tapes and see the suicides. The Seton Hall report seems to imply there was no review of the tapes, mentioning them among the materials not reviewed. The report implies the cause of death was determined from the medical examinations.
I can imagine that the existence of such tapes may be classified, though the possible reasons for that at this point seem highly questionable. But the existence of the logs and other materials on the list of items not reviewed could hardly be worthy of similar secrecy.
January 23rd, 2010 | 3:08 pm
On the possibility of videos, this is from the Seton Hall report, page 50:
“NCIS was provided all videotapes on or about June 13, 2006, but there is no mention that NCIS reviewed them.421 It is clear from a statement by Rear Admiral Mark H. Buzby that hallway and common area video monitoring at Guantánamo is standard practice.422 A memorandum dated June 15, 2006, confirms that SOUTHCOM delivered “a videotape of the events of 10 Jun 06.…The video is the only tape the command holds relating to the events under investigation.”423 Aside from the two memoranda in the SOUTHCOM file that mention delivery of the videotapes to NCIS, the government never refers to any videos in the investigative documents.”
That there were tapes of the men inside their cells is a distinct possibility, but we have no evidence for it.
January 23rd, 2010 | 6:44 pm
How do you know that?
I don’t know it, because it didn’t happen. How are you getting so confused?
What’s your evidence for this claim?
It’s an official finding by the Department of Justice that over 100 detainees have died during “enhanced” interrogations under circumstances that classify them as homicides.
That’s taken directly from the Seton Hall report.
No, it’s not.
Ask any veteran if you can get 70 military people to go along with a murder coverup and they’ll explain just how ridiculous a claim that is.
Not all 70 have to know that it’s a murder cover-up. Why would they? If you told a military secretary “hey, some nosy journalist is snooping around, looking for dirt to smear us with in the press, so make sure you give him the brush-off”, don’t you think he or she would do exactly that?
I can’t tell if you’re arguing in good faith or simply trying to misrepresent the position of your opponents to the greatest extent possible. It really looks like the latter.
Your too gullible for this to be your first conspiracy theory.
That makes no sense. (If I’d been burned by conspiracy “theories” not panning out, wouldn’t I be less gullible by the experience?)
Do you have an argument, Joe, that isn’t just a personal attack?
You have now lost all credibility with me. You clearly know nothing of the military. We were not, are not, and never will be robots.
I don’t think that you are, Mike, and I never said that you were. But I’m not ignorant of military culture, either, and I don’t believe that it’s unreasonable to suggest that military culture being what it is, a military man is not likely to disobey a direct order to, say, translate a few lines into Arabic, or give a reporter the brush-off, or take out some medical trash.
Not literally every single person involved in the cover-up has to know what is being covered up. Why on Earth would they? It’s like you people have never for a second thought about how to hide something, or the way chains of command and a culture of bureaucratic secrecy make it easy to rope people into assisting in the cover-up of events they don’t even know about. Joe acts like the entire Anatomical Institute has to be involved neck-deep, with literally every single member possessing full knowledge of the murders, for them to be a part of the cover-up. I just think a boss has to tell a receptionist “hey, when Scott Horton calls, hang the phone up on that muckraking asshole.”
January 23rd, 2010 | 6:48 pm
You have now lost all credibility with me. You clearly know nothing of the military. We were not, are not, and never will be robots.
I don’t think you are, Mike, and I never said that you were. But are you seriously trying to tell me that military personnel have never and would never follow completely prosaic orders – like an Arabic translator being told to translate a few lines into Arabic – without demanding a complete and total understanding of every piece of information, including the classified stuff, that might have led to that order being given?
Because I don’t believe that for a minute. I know military culture, too, and a military where literally every soldier stopped and refused to obey an order without being told in great detail exactly what was going on would not be a military that could function.
January 23rd, 2010 | 7:06 pm
I wrote:
“It just means that he thinks she has no credibility. She said right in her book that as the audience at her address laughed, she had more contractions. Does that not raise any kind of red flag for you?”
Francis Beckwith responds:
“No, unless I already believed that there was funny business going on.”
Now me:
No, you’ve missed the point. He is saying *she has no credibility,* and is citing this as an example. It strains credibility when she says that she was having contractions while giving a speech. If she was having contractions while giving a speech, and not going to a hospital, what does that say about her judgment?
Sully probably draws a natural conclusion from this: she’s better as a mother than as a public truth-teller. IOW, like so many other things Palin says, she probably just made up that she was having contractions while giving a speech.
This is not that hard to figure out, for anyone who has read Sully on this matter closely.
Francis Beckwith continues:
“What is doing the work for Sully is irrational hatred of Sarah Palin, a person far more successful than him though embodying everything he loathes and associates with moral failure: strong femininity, fertility, orthodox Christian commitment, and non-elitist education.”
This ridiculously unfair interpretation says a lot more about you than it does about Sully.
January 23rd, 2010 | 7:11 pm
Joe, you write:
“The fact that the government possess tapes of the cellblock at the time of the suicides should be enough to give the Gitmo Truthers pause (though it won’t, of course).”
Tapes of the cellblock, free from any doctoring (how that is determined I don’t claim to know), would be pretty definitive in determining who was where and when. I’d have no problem accepting the tapes as definitive evidence.
I’ve also indicated at least one reason why this isn’t comparable to 9/11 – namely, the public and visible character of 9/11 vs. the very non-public, non-visible character of what might happen at Gitmo.
Also, please understand that the pre-planned murder narrative is not a “conspiracy theory” – it is a proposed narrative. If facts arise to call the narrative significantly into question, then it’s not a worthy one. So far, I don’t know what facts would call it into question unless you take the official NCIS report to be definitively correct, which is precisely what’s at issue. There are intelligent people on the other side – Scott Horton for one – who doubt the credibility of the NCIS report.
January 23rd, 2010 | 7:17 pm
Let’s say that the pre-planned-murder narrative were true. Wouldn’t the so very extremely sinister nature of such a murder plot be the chief reason that the plotters would count on, for people being inclined to disbelieve it?
Also, the 9/11 events *were* the result of a conspiracy – between 19 hijackers and some others. That’s at least 19 people right there that kept it under wraps right up till that fateful day. The intelligence agencies had pieces of information and signs pointing in that direction – and failed to put them together. So conspiracies can and do work when the plotters are tight-knit enough and others aren’t observant enough.
Before 9/11, most people would have thought it highly unlikely that you could find 19 people willing to take their own lives in a terror attack, and all of them make it through airport security. Well, most people would consider my murder narrative to be highly unlikely. But that doesn’t mean it can’t or didn’t happen. I of course urge caution in entertaining such narratives. 9/11 Truther types probably don’t exercise it.
January 23rd, 2010 | 9:12 pm
I’d just like everyone to imagine yourself in the position of the President when confronted with this conspiracy theory.
You are either 1. Convinced by the investigations that the conspiracy theory is false, 2. In on the conspiracy, or 3. Unconvinced, but insufficiently motivated to investigate further and/or potentially bring murderers to justice and/or politically exploit the excesses which occurred under the demonized prior administration to persuade the populace and build public support for positive but controversial changes in law and policy.
If 1 – Then a conspiracy theorist with limited information disagrees with the judgment of a brilliant man they love and respect and who has (or can easily get) complete information.
If 2 – Then a conspiracy theorist has to think Obama is ok with covering up murder.
If 3 – Then a conspiracy theorist has to think that Obama is either ok with at least the possibility of allowing a murder cover-up, or that he and his crack political team is intentionally squandering his absolute best opportunity to both dramatically change public opinion and easily achieve the civilian-trial / moral-restraint approach to fighting terrorism. Is that even possible? If it is, it is at all sensible or explicable?
Like Mr. Carter says – if people are serious about this, then have them ask the press secretary and make a big issue about it. The eventual answer is going to come back “We’re absolutely satisfied it didn’t happen.”
January 24th, 2010 | 2:00 am
Chris So far, I don’t know what facts would call it into question unless you take the official NCIS report to be definitively correct, which is precisely what’s at issue. There are intelligent people on the other side – Scott Horton for one – who doubt the credibility of the NCIS report.
I would like to encourage everyone in this discussion to read the NCIS report: http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/death_investigation/NCIS_DeathInvestigativeFiles.pdf.
The document is over 500 pages long, but even reading a sampling of the detailed testimony of the guards and medical staff will shed light on some of the more questionable claims made.
For example, despite the Seton Hall report’s claims that rags were “shoved down the prisoner’s throats,” the report says that they had merely gagged themselves (possibly from preventing them from biting off their tongues when they hung themselves). Also, the bound hands were only loosely tied, not tightly as some people presume. The entire event suddenly becomes much less nefarious once we become aware of what actually occurred.
I challenge anyone to read these and tell me that Hickman, et al., are telling the truth and these people are lying.
January 24th, 2010 | 10:27 am
Which one do you choose to believe?, asks the blogger.
This dichotomy is false on four levels.
First, the Seton Hall and Harper’s accounts are only in conflict if you grossly generalize them into some sort of explanation for what happened on that night. I know you disagree with this point, but neither of them offer explanations. They offer evidence. An alert reader might find conflict between parts of the evidence, but an alert reader might–and should–find conflict within each of them. They are not coherent unified theories of the sort demanded by Glenn Beck’s audiences. Therefore neither of them should be considered as anything other than a question. You attempt to eliminate them as incorrect answers.
2. The two pieces of writing are fundamentally different in that the Harper’s piece is an encapsulation of interviews with people, and the Seton Hall reports are critical reactions to an explanation of events. Again, I do not deny that there may be conflicts between them, and that one or the other may offer evidence that a careful reader would conclude is fatal to one or another imagined scenario. But the differences in purpose do not require a choice in belief.
3. Phrasing the challenge here as one of ‘belief’ disqualifies (and is a good example of the sophomore logic you are using.) In fact, I believe nothing, proudly, and I’m criticizing those who do. I’m concerned that the evidence is inconclusive over such an important point. There is a pattern of understanding behind this question that acts like belief, but is in fact the opposite. Suicide and murder look alike to the untutored, or to the observer at a distance. It does not require belief to differentiate them, though; it requires evidence interpreted by an expert. So the detainees killed themselves, but Vince Foster was murdered? I don’t want to believe; I want to know. Being told to believe one thing or another at this juncture is highly suspicious. Since this is a matter of national importance, I feel I deserve to know. Forcing me to believe (and forcing me to negotiate the question on belief alone, among people who clearly are biased to believe otherwise regardless of the evidence or lack of evidence), isn’t acceptable. In this situation, your belief is bs–not because it is wrong, but because it is complacently satisfied in an inherently incomplete situation. Belief does not outrank my questions; it dodges them.
4. I would like to learn that Hickman is lying, or is honestly mistaken about the events of that night. I would be relieved to learn that the suicides were suicides. I do not want more bad news about my country’s use of torture. But I can’t so far. Your parsing of the Seton Hall report is badly slanted. For example, you challenge me on the tied hands and the rags in the throat points. It took me very little time to review the NCIS report and find your “loosely”; but I also found several other references to bound hands with no adverbs, and the medical references describe ligature marks on the wrists–inconsistent perhaps with ‘loosely.’ As for loose masks, not rags in the throat–see Alpha platoon leaders statement, page 3 (marked 938) and the statement “0093 was lying on the deck in his cell and his eyes were rolled back. He had what appeared to be (redacted lengthy clause). I told them (the other guards) to remove it and I was told they tried to take it out but they couldn’t take it out.” Is it unfair to assume that redacted clause describes a rag in his throat? Why would it be redacted if it did? or didn’t?
Upshot–I can’t know from what I’m given; I certainly am not willing to shift modes and start believing. The dichotomy you offer therefore is a cheap rhetorical trick designed to impeach the journalism on an important issue.
I find no salvation for the “everything’s all right yes everything’s fine” perspective in the NCIS documents. I certainly don’t find it in Horton’s or Seton Hall’s work. Instead I find much missing evidence where there should be concrete evidence.
ice9
January 24th, 2010 | 12:38 pm
Joe, I appreciate your being responsive on this. You do currently have an advantage in this discussion: you have gone through all 500 pages of the NCIS report, whereas probably very few others have. One thing that this suggests is that Horton is somewhat gullible to be relying on the Seton Hall analysis. Not knowing Horton’s track record, I can’t speak to that. However, we also have Greenwald being gullible, and knowing Greenwald’s track record a lot better than I know Horton’s, I find that implausible.
But anyway, not having had the benefit of schlepping through the NCIS report, I am relying chiefly on the Horton article, which in turn relies on the Seton Hall team. So I’m left in the position of posing some questions/issues to which you may have answers:
(1) If the autopsy reports are on the up-and-up, and the NCIS report overall is on the up-and-up, why do the families receive the bodies of their sons with the throats removed? That makes their own independent autopsies (with regard to the throats) impossible to conduct.
(2) Motive. One of the detainees, as you say, knows he’s to be released soon. So, he’d be killing himself in light of that knowledge. Also, the families of these men deny that they would have motives resembling “asymmetrical warfare.” So we have two points here relying at least in part on what the families are saying; so for the NCIS report to hold up, we have to start impugning the credibility of the families.
(3) The Seton Hall analysis says that these men went unnoticed in their cells for an unacceptably long period of time. Does the NCIS report properly account for this? Is Seton Hall just wrong about this?
(4) The NCIS report implies – and this doesn’t seem up for interpretation by Seton Hall or anyone else – that these men smuggled bedsheets and perhaps other implements into their cells and went unnoticed in doing so. Is that plausible? Perhaps it’s plausible if we assume some level of incompetence amongst government personnel, or some holes in the government system . . . not unreasonable on its face, for sure. (Incompetence and holes allowed for a successful conspiracy amongst 19 hijackers, after all.)
(5) The four whistleblowers Horton cites are lying or confused, if the NCIS report is accurate. As someone else has pointed out, you have provided no reason to impugn the credibility of these whistleblowers.
(6) Col. Bumgarner sounds confused in his own right already: for one thing, he says he’s never heard of Hickman (suggesting he just signs off on commendations more as a matter of bureaucratic procedure than as a matter of knowing the men he’s commending), and he also says that he “was there that night” even though he didn’t get there until well after all the important stuff transpired. This is not germane to the credibility of the NCIS report per se, but it does point to the lack of clear understanding of the people in charge at Gitmo about what actually happened that night. Bumgarner is not clear on his whereabouts and when but asserts mightily that he has the relevant first-hand knowledge of things.
(7) The last administration lied about things, so its own credibility is already impugned. The administration asserted that it didn’t torture, but waterboarding is widely regarded as torture, and was so regarded by the U.S. in the past. Also, there is evidence of abuse at places like Abu Graibh that the administration scrambled to downplay and find scapegoats for. Also, the government conveniently outsourced torture to places like Syria, as poor Maher Arar discovered. And probably many, many other things that the likes of Greenwald have documented amply.
(8) You’ll notice that Greenwald is not at all surprised by the Seton Hall findings. And while lots of folks like to kick Sully this way and that, I don’t know of anyone who has even mounted so much as a credible-sounding effort to impugn Greenwald’s credibility. As far as I can tell, Greenwald pretty well nails his targets pretty consistently. Blog-wise, he’s been as compelling and hard-hitting as it gets in my experience. He rather successfully managed to allay my concerns about the very recent SCOTUS decision on campaign finance by corporations, to name the latest example. He beats up consistently on both the left and the right, on Bush and Obama, so some kind of partisan-agenda tag is very hard to pin on him. If it turns out he relied too easily on the Seton Hall analysis, he can be counted on to own up to that.
I’m almost positive there are other points to bring up, but this is what comes to mind now and is plenty to deal with for the moment.
January 24th, 2010 | 1:58 pm
ice9 First, the Seton Hall and Harper’s accounts are only in conflict if you grossly generalize them into some sort of explanation for what happened on that night.
First, skip the Seton Hall report and read the primary documents. The Seton Hall report conveniently glosses over important facts that are relevanto to the discussion. Second, the Horton himself claims that the claims of Hickman and the Seton Hall report (which are based on the investigations) are in conflict about what happened that night. That was the purpose of his article.
I know you disagree with this point, but neither of them offer explanations. They offer evidence. An alert reader might find conflict between parts of the evidence, but an alert reader might–and should–find conflict within each of them.
Yes, actually, the NCIS report does offer explanations. And the testimony of Hickman, et al., directly conflicts the testimony of the 52 other witnesses. They are incompatible. We can believe one group or the other but not both.
2. The two pieces of writing are fundamentally different in that the Harper’s piece is an encapsulation of interviews with people, and the Seton Hall reports are critical reactions to an explanation of events.
Again, skip the Seton Hall summary and read the primary documents for yourself. From now on, I’m only going to make rebuttals based on the actual NICS report, not the interpretation of it by Seton Hall.
Again, I do not deny that there may be conflicts between them, and that one or the other may offer evidence that a careful reader would conclude is fatal to one or another imagined scenario. But the differences in purpose do not require a choice in belief.
Yes, actually they do-Horton himself claims so. For example, he says that Colonel Baumgarter could not be familiar with the event that occurred because when he arrived on base conflicts with Hickman’s version of events. The two narratives are wholly incompatible since, according to Hickman, no bodies were transferred to the medical facility and everything occurred before midnight while the NCIS says that bodies were transferred and it happened after midnight.
3. Phrasing the challenge here as one of ‘belief’ disqualifies (and is a good example of the sophomore logic you are using.) In fact, I believe nothing, proudly, and I’m criticizing those who do.
Since you don’t appear to have carefully read any of the documents involved, I’m not sure why you are criticizing anyone. Your opinion on this matter is less than informed.
ChrisOne thing that this suggests is that Horton is somewhat gullible to be relying on the Seton Hall analysis.
Not necessarily. My problem with Horton is not that he is not an accredited investigative reporter, but that he is an activist. An investigative reporter may have biases, but generally, their primary concern is getting to the truth. If they violate generally accepted journalistic ethics and protocols they know that it will damage their credibility. An activist—like Horton—is concerned more with advancing a particular agenda than with exposing the unvarnished truth. Even if his work is shoddy journalism, it will be forgiven by those who subscribe to his agenda. His article could end up being completely debunked and he will still have a job at Harper’s.
However, we also have Greenwald being gullible, and knowing Greenwald’s track record a lot better than I know Horton’s, I find that implausible.
Is there any evidence that Greenwald has read the primary documents himself rather than just relying on the Horton article?
(1) If the autopsy reports are on the up-and-up, and the NCIS report overall is on the up-and-up, why do the families receive the bodies of their sons with the throats removed? That makes their own independent autopsies (with regard to the throats) impossible to conduct.
Because the throat items are key to the investigation. If those were turned over to a third-party, any further investigations—like the one being called for by Horton—would be comprimised.
(2) Motive. One of the detainees, as you say, knows he’s to be released soon. So, he’d be killing himself in light of that knowledge.
Actually, as I’ve pointed out numerous times, the prisoner did not know that he was being released. His lawyer had not had the opportunity to inform him of that. So he killed himself no knowing that he was to be released.
Also, the families of these men deny that they would have motives resembling “asymmetrical warfare.” So we have two points here relying at least in part on what the families are saying; so for the NCIS report to hold up, we have to start impugning the credibility of the families.
At least two of the prisoners were tied to terrorists groups. I think most people will discount the claims of their families when they say that they are perfectly innocent and would never do such a thing. Besides, what family would say, “Oh yeah, my son’s a terrorist.”
(3) The Seton Hall analysis says that these men went unnoticed in their cells for an unacceptably long period of time. Does the NCIS report properly account for this? Is Seton Hall just wrong about this?
Yes, actually, the NCIS does address that point. The problem is that it goes against Seton Hall’s narrative that Gitmo is a hellhole so the report ignores the explanation. Several of the guards complain that despite an order to “see skin” when checking on the prisoners, they are not allowed to use flashlights or wake up them up to verify that they are in their cells. The guards were even formally reprimanded for disturbing the prisoner’s sleep!
If you look at the photos of the cells it becomes clear that is difficult to see inside them. Add darkness and obstruction by blankets and it becomes rather easy to see how they could have gone unnoticed.
(4) The NCIS report implies – and this doesn’t seem up for interpretation by Seton Hall or anyone else – that these men smuggled bedsheets and perhaps other implements into their cells and went unnoticed in doing so. Is that plausible?
Again, the Seton Hall report ignores statements that directly explain this point. Several of the guards not that compliant prisoners were given “comfort items” as a reward. Such items included extra towels, blankets, bedsheets, etc. So the prisoners did not have to smuggle in anything—they were able to earn these items based on good behavior.
The day after the suicides, though, this policy was revised to exclude any items that could allow the prisoners to commit suicide.
(5) The four whistleblowers Horton cites are lying or confused, if the NCIS report is accurate. As someone else has pointed out, you have provided no reason to impugn the credibility of these whistleblowers.
Read the sworn testimoney of the guards and medical personnel. Unlike the claims of Horton, et al., it is detailed and provides a coherent narrative of the events of that night.
The only reason that anyone is treating this seriously at all is because of what I would call the “Whistleblower fallacy.” We are conditioned to give more credibility to a single whistleblower—whose name we know—that steps forward with claims of wrongdoing and cover-up than we do the accused whose identities are unknown to us.
The reason that people like anyone is able to dismiss out-of-hand the testimony of dozens of eyewitness and accept the speculation of four people who have no firsthand knowledge is because we are conditioned to believe we are constantly being lied to and that solitary individuals who we can put a face to are more credible than collections of individuals whose identities are unknown to us.
But one of the groups is lying or mistaken: Either the 52 guards and medical personell or Hickman and his three pals. I challenge anyone to read all of the testimony in the NCIS report and tell me that all those people are lying and that Hickman is more credible.
(6) Col. Bumgarner sounds confused in his own right already: for one thing, he says he’s never heard of Hickman (suggesting he just signs off on commendations more as a matter of bureaucratic procedure than as a matter of knowing the men he’s commending),
Yes, that would be normal. Most commanding officers of large units do not know the names of all the men and women they are in charge of, particularly when they are in a unit that rotates often.
. . .and he also says that he “was there that night” even though he didn’t get there until well after all the important stuff transpired.
That’s only if you take Hickman’s version at face value. Colonel Bumgarner arrived at 12:48 AM. That is just 20 minutes after the first body was discovered, and almost exactly the time the prisoners were being rushed to the medical facility.
This is not germane to the credibility of the NCIS report per se, but it does point to the lack of clear understanding of the people in charge at Gitmo about what actually happened that night.
No, it actually just adds one more name to the list of people we have to assume are lying in order to believe Hickman’s version.
(7) The last administration lied about things, so its own credibility is already impugned. . . .Also, the government conveniently outsourced torture to places like Syria, as poor Maher Arar discovered.
Again, we have to point out that there is no evidence—at all—that these prisoners were removed from their cells, much less tortured. Just because torture has taken place does not mean that it occurred on this night.
Also, government officials and military personnel have been convicted of negligence or murder in the death of prisoners over the past decade. Why would the government go to such extensive measures to cover this one up but not the others?
(8) You’ll notice that Greenwald is not at all surprised by the Seton Hall findings. And while lots of folks like to kick Sully this way and that, I don’t know of anyone who has even mounted so much as a credible-sounding effort to impugn Greenwald’s credibility.
Unless it can be established that Greenwald has knowledge about the event that differs from what we can find ourselves in the primary documents, his opinion and credibility are irrelevant. Instead of relying on Greenwald’s opinion, I recommend reading the documents for yourself and forming your own opinion.
January 24th, 2010 | 3:30 pm
I don’t think any of the men knew he was going to be released. One of the fathers said his son believed he would be released, but no basis for that belief was given. It’s still mystifying that these three would chose to commit suicide, particularly in the manner they did.
As for Greenwald, I don’t follow him, so I’m no expert, but each time I do read his stuff I’m impressed that he appears to be driven by such a strong bias that he can’t contain his claims to what the evidence supports. (He may pick on both Bush and Obama, but in both cases from the left.) This case is no exception. He pretends to know why the mainstream media haven’t touched this story, “because it shatters the central myth that torture was used only in the most extreme cases.” He not only has no way to know such a thing, but his theory is quite implausible. He also pretends to know why the Obama Administration hasn’t lined up with his own views, referring to the “the grotesque immorality of the “Look Forward, Not Backwards” consensus which our political class — led by the President — has embraced.” Again something he has no way to know, and which is highly questionable.
January 24th, 2010 | 3:58 pm
You’re just repeating the same thing over and over again like a brain-washed cult member.
Since you already believe that this scenario can’t be true, you say she has no credibility. But you have to first prove that it’s not true rather than just believe it. For this reason, you have no credibility.
Here’s a tip: when you seek to defend a view as true, it’s a good idea to provide external reasons to your conclusion rather than just repeating the conclusion by using different words. A self-referential argument–or, as I like to call it, homologicity–is logically sterile, incapable of resulting in the good for which reason was gifted to us by our Creator.
January 24th, 2010 | 4:13 pm
[...] Carter responds [...]
January 24th, 2010 | 5:52 pm
“For example, despite the Seton Hall report’s claims that rags were “shoved down the prisoner’s throats,” the report says that they had merely gagged themselves (possibly from preventing them from biting off their tongues when they hung themselves).”
The Seton Hall report says the detainees must have “Shoved rags in their mouths and down their throats” (4) and “rags were lodged in each of their mouths and down their throats” (19).
From the NCIS material, pages 1073-4:
“He attempted to intubate this detainee and found what appeared to be either gauze or white fabric lodged in the back of the detainees throat, which he removed.”
Page 959:
“When we removed the stuff off his face we could see a bunch of white sheets crammed inside of his mouth.”
Page 1079:
“Once the mouth was open we saw that there was a big piece of cloth lodged in the back of the detainee’s mouth. REDACTED extracted it with the forceps and it appeared to take a good amount of force to get it out. Once it was out I saw that it was folded repeatedly on itself and nearly as big as a wash cloth that was folded once in half.”
One detainee had a white athletic sock in the back of his mouth (1073, 1091).
These seem roughly consistent with the Seton Hall report, without having checked to see if each detainee had something in the back of his mouth or throat (some of those descriptions overlap). The material in the back of the mouth and the throat is in addition to material tied around the mean’s heads and mouths. While it’s possible these were intended to prevent biting the tongue, it’s not clear why that would be a priority for the detainees, the back of the mouth isn’t a natural place to accomplish that, and the amount of material seems to be excessive for that purpose.
It’s possible that the detainees attempted to make it appear they had been murdered, I suppose, but the investigations don’t seem to go there, even though the deaths were presented as acts of aggression.
January 24th, 2010 | 6:01 pm
Joe – Great job of deconstructing Scott Horton’s conspiracy theory. Scott has a history of writing what on the surface seem to be very damning critiques of Bush Administration misconduct. The problems begin when one looks more closely at his pieces to discover that there is typically no there there. Witnesses turn out not to have actually witnessed the conduct he is writing about and are only speculating about events. People are unwilling to go on record or under oath with statements he has made in his articles – his Gov. Seligman sources were great on that.
It’s best to examine Horton’s writing with a skeptical eye and look for the actual factually supported claims being made. Typically there are few if any. He is a conspiracy mongering fabulist of the lowest order.
January 24th, 2010 | 7:54 pm
Francis Beckwith,
[Re: Palin, "More laughs, more contractions"]
“Since you already believe that this scenario can’t be true, you say she has no credibility. But you have to first prove that it’s not true rather than just believe it. For this reason, you have no credibility.”
I’ve made no claims as to the truth of the scenario. I have said that either she’s making it up (or otherwise has a flimsy grasp of the truth), or that it’s true. And if it’s true, what does that say about her judgment as a mother?
I think if it’s true, it puts her in an even more negative light than the alternative – that she’s lying, embellishing, making up, or some other truth-deficient activity which she is already quite-well-known for. If it is true, it means she is more than willing to endanger her baby. I am not willing to believe the worst about her — that she would endanger her baby — but rather that she just lacks credibility. And there are many, amply-documented instances that call her credibility into question.
Like, remember that time that she said that being close to Russia gave her foreign policy credibility? She said it right on television, plain as day, in her second interview after being nominated last year. Her explanation was absolutely ridiculous. Her fans were unfazed.
Or that time that she said that the Alaska ethics report cleared her of any wrongdoing, even though the report found precisely the opposite. Once again, her fans were unfazed by the disconnect between her statements and reality.
And you have the nerve to liken *me* to a brain-washed cult member?
January 24th, 2010 | 7:55 pm
Joe, thank you for your on-point responses. I will go regroup now. :-)
January 24th, 2010 | 8:04 pm
Sanpete, you’ll please note that I referred to Greenwald’s very recent pieces on the SCOTUS decision regarding corporations and campaign finance. His take on the decision is decidedly neither “right” nor “left,” and actually takes a very strong stand against mostly-leftish people who dislike the decision because they perceive it will empower corporations even more. I see no leftward bias in Greenwald that would call his integrity into question.
January 24th, 2010 | 10:49 pm
Chris, I can’t claim everything Greenwald does is biased, only what I’ve happened upon. I gave the examples relevant to this topic. If you think there’s no bias in them, I’d be happy to see how. If I get a chance, I’ll look at his bits on the Supreme Court ruling.
January 25th, 2010 | 12:11 am
Chris, I agree that Greenwald’s comments on the Supreme Court ruling seem unbiased and even contrary to what a liberal bias would most naturally lead to. Very useful comments.
January 25th, 2010 | 12:57 pm
Obviously, the three murdered prisoners were failed (or perhaps successful) attempts to create alien/human hybrids. They were hanged because they couldn’t be shot; their blood becomes a toxic gas when it hits the terrestrial atmosphere. The “black site” was no doubt where the government was using alien technology to create the hybrids. Where are Mulder and Scully when we need them?
January 25th, 2010 | 3:48 pm
Joe, I agree with many of your points, but in the interest of sorting this out better, here are some comments about points where you may not be entirely on target.
“and [according to Hickman] everything occurred before midnight while the NCIS says that bodies were transferred and it happened after midnight”
This quote from the Seton Hall report is of interest:
“According to AG2‘s report, she returned to the guard shack around 23:40 (according to NCIS) or 00:40 (according to CITF).230 Two minutes later AG1 ran in shouting that he thought Al Zahrani was attempting self-harm.231″
So it appears that conflict is there within the accounts in the investigative material as well. I haven’t gone through the NCIS material to see how they explain this, if they do, but this is one point about which the logs the Seton Hall report says weren’t examined would seem to be of use.
“Yes, actually, the NCIS does address that point [about why the bodies weren't discovered for so long]. The problem is that it goes against Seton Hall’s narrative that Gitmo is a hellhole so the report ignores the explanation.”
It does seem that way, but I think you may be misreading the intent of the report’s comments (which could be more clear) on why the bodies went undiscovered for so long and similar points. The report seems to recognize that there is material relevant to that question and other questionable points in the investigative materials, but the complaint is that no investigative findings were made based on them:
“Many interviews and other evidence in the investigative files support these four pieces of information [including the long time the detainees were dead undiscovered]. However, each was inexplicably omitted from the conclusions of the investigation.” (41)
From you about why the detainees had extra blankets and such:
“Again, the Seton Hall report ignores statements that directly explain this point.”
The report does actually address your point. It notes the existence of such comfort items several times and when it introduces the issue notes the following:
“Blankets and sheets are comfort items. It is unclear why two of the detainees (693 and 588) would have these comfort items for good behavior after they just were taken off force feeding procedures for refusing to eat. (NCIS at 1062).” (page 18, note 114)
A sidenote on the last part: the fact that two of the detainees had apparently been on hunger strike (possibly near death not long before, as was reported of two unnamed detainees in a letter from a third detainee shortly before) is significant both in regard to motivation for suicide *and* possible reason to be selected for special interrogation. One of the suicide notes seems to portray hanging as the alternative to being force fed by feeding tube (1239).
Back to the point about the comfort items, at least two of the detainees were also accused of being noncompliant at the time of their court-order administrative reviews, of spitting on guards, etc. (Saw that in the Wikipedia articles about Mani al Utaybi and Salah Al-Salami.)
“Read the sworn testimoney of the guards and medical personnel. Unlike the claims of Horton, et al., it is detailed and provides a coherent narrative of the events of that night.”
I don’t know why you think the claims of Horton et al aren’t detailed and coherent.
I’ve already noted the time discrepancy between different accounts within the investigative material. I haven’t checked for others, but some would be expected.
An important point raised by the Seton Hall report is that no immediate reports of the events were taken, as required by SOP, or they were discarded or not included in the investigation (34). Those involved were apparently told they didn’t need to do that because they would later prepare statements for the NCIS (944). Those reports were done several days later, after everyone had plenty of time to talk with each other. Terrible investigative procedure, contrary to the rules for very good reason.
“The only reason that anyone is treating this seriously at all is because of what I would call the “Whistleblower fallacy.””
I agree that’s a factor, but I don’t think it’s the only reason people are taking Horton’s article seriously. There are real problems with the investigations, and the Hickman testimony increases those problems.
“Either the 52 guards and medical personell or Hickman and his three pals. I challenge anyone to read all of the testimony in the NCIS report and tell me that all those people are lying and that Hickman is more credible.”
Excellent point. One difference between Hickman et al and the others is that we know who he is by name, so he can be questioned now. The others we don’t know by name, so it’s hard to follow up.
To add to your point, though, the investigative materials also include statements from other detainees who should have noticed if the three detainees were removed for questioning earlier in the evening, and whose lawyers would presumably find out they had noticed.
That said, there are still a lot of serious problems with the investigations, as pointed out in the Seton Hall report.
January 26th, 2010 | 1:41 pm
[...] Haiti: A desperate need for infrastructure, yes, and sound, committed long-term leadership. Also, don’t miss this thoughtful post. A “Murders at Gitmo Conspiracy? Joe Carter takes a look and decides Sullivan is being sloppy and reckless. [...]
January 26th, 2010 | 2:59 pm
Rarely do you see a professional so completely taken apart by commenters as on this thread.
Mr. Carter, you are embarrassing yourself. Stop digging already.
January 26th, 2010 | 3:15 pm
Joe said this of me:
Since you don’t appear to have carefully read any of the documents involved, I’m not sure why you are criticizing anyone. Your opinion on this matter is less than informed.
I read the NCIS report. That’s what I cited repeatedly in former posts. I don’t need the Seton Hall report because, like you, I went to the primaries. If I am uninformed, you are as well, since we claim precisely the same level of information.
Joe seems to claim some kind of advantage from reading the primary source, and dismissing arguments left and right on that basis. I can understand why he is busy and perhaps not attentive to the details of the postings he is attempting to refute, but I’m pretty sure I was clear before. In fact, despite the differences of opinion and occasionally tart remarks, I appreciate the engagement from the primary blogger on this case; as I’ve said many times, I disagree with him but hope he’s right.
None of my points or issues involve accepting Horton or Seton Hall as gospel or as complete, as I’ve said repeatedly. Nor do they gloss over the conflicts among those accounts; unlike Joe, I do not think that we have to “believe one or the other”; I reject that dichotomy as false. Horton of course introduces new evidence unmentioned in the NCIS report; at issue partly here is whether we consider those accounts alongside the other information or (for some reason) choose between them. At this stage of the investigation it seems wildly premature to make that choice.
Joe: do you at least admit that more investigation is warranted? I haven’t noticed an answer to that question.
Whatever moral advantage accrues from poring over the NCIS pdf’s and their redactions, I claim that. And I stand on my points from before: the evidence is incomplete; the conflicts are troubling; there are numerous unanswered questions and direct conflicts in statements among the witnesses (which number far less than Joe says–thanks to Chet for that and much else. For that Chet rightly gets a nod from Andew, who is significant and not insane.)
Ice9
January 26th, 2010 | 5:08 pm
Ice9 clearly has the best of this exchange. We should all be thankful for people who come along and inject some knowledge and clarity into these sorts of discussions. Its a shame Carter simply dismisses him rather than take the time to reason through this matter.
January 26th, 2010 | 5:31 pm
ice9 . . . unlike Joe, I do not think that we have to “believe one or the other”; I reject that dichotomy as false.
It is not a false dichotomy if the two positions are incompatible and contradictory. If you say the fruit is an orange and I say it is an apple, it is not a “false dichotomy” to say that one of us is wrong (though, we both may be wrong).
As I pointed out in Part III, the account of the four soldiers is in direct opposition to the claims of the 50 witnesses cited in the NCIS report. When you have the two Guardsmen saying that no prisoners were taken to the medical facility from Alpha Block and 30 other military people saying that they were, then someone is in error.
Since you’ve read the NCIS report you know that there is no way that this event could be unclear. You have about 30 people running back and forth with the camp in full alert. For the soliders in the Harper’s story to deny that it occurred is more unexplainable than anything I’ve read. Either they are lying and/or blind and deaf or the other witnesses made up an extravagantly detailed story for no reason at all.
at issue partly here is whether we consider those accounts alongside the other information or (for some reason) choose between them
The accounts are completely contradicted by each other. We can accept one account or reject them both but we cannot logically accept them both. The law of non-contradiction is harsh that way. ; )
Joe: do you at least admit that more investigation is warranted?
I’m not oppossed to another investigation. I just don’t see the point. What is a fourth investigation going to uncover that the other three did not? And since the same documents and testimony will be presented, even to an independent investigator, why will the skeptics be convinced?
The main concern of the investigation—whether the deaths were suicides or murder is clear: they were suicides. The evidence for that is all but irrefutable and the evidence for murder is completely non-existent.
which number far less than Joe says–thanks to Chet for that and much else.
Look at Part III and you’ll see that Chet was wrong.
For that Chet rightly gets a nod from Andew, who is significant and not insane.
Andrew ceased to be “significant” a long, long time ago. He has become a parody of the inconsistent mind that follows neither reason nor logic but pure emotion.
Haldmen <emIce9 clearly has the best of this exchange. We should all be thankful for people who come along and inject some knowledge and clarity into these sorts of discussions.
I know it’s a popular tactic of the Sullivan fanboys to swoop in and take potshots, but instead of keep the scorecard for us why don’t you take the time to inform yourself about this case. There are going to be a lot of Sullivan fans who are going to be embarressed that they followed him down this road (especially now that he is already backtracking).
Its a shame Carter simply dismisses him rather than take the time to reason through this matter.
Please read this post and see if it doesn’t address what you are referring to:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/01/26/on-the-shameful-“murders-at-gitmo”-conspiracy-part-iii/
January 26th, 2010 | 5:47 pm
Oh, I’m no Sully fanboy, just someone who appreciated good and interesting arguments when they come along, regardless of where they’re from (here’s I’m referring to Ice9, not Sully, btw).
I’ll watch the comments your next post with rapt interest.
January 26th, 2010 | 7:46 pm
Joe: You wrote, in your dismissive way, “Besides, what family would say, ‘Oh yeah, my son’s a terrorist’?”
I seem to recall a certain Christmas bomber’s father saying something along those lines….My point is, for all your rhetorical questions and confident dismissals of counterarguments, you’ve got some soft spots in your analysis.
January 27th, 2010 | 12:41 am
Regarding video tapes – if there are videotapes of the hallways around the cells NCIS should have viewed them else it looks fishy. Like losing JFK’s brain, not testing the found piece of timer for explosive residue in the Lockerbie crash, putting McVeigh’s clothing in a bag known to be contaminated, not testing the WTC steel for explosive residue. This is an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal that Ivins could not have been the anthrax culprit as the amount of silicone in the anthrax powder was very high, hence it was weaponized and Ivins did not have ability to do that none of anthrax at Ft. Detrick had silicone component.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575011421223515284.html
The Anthrax Attacks Remain Unsolved
January 27th, 2010 | 7:18 am
You say this, “So a National Guardsman sees a an area of the base, doesn’t know what it is, and automatically assumes it’s a torture site for the CIA? What is even more striking than this silly rumor is that Horton doesn’t try to verify this claim or get any other corroborating witnesses. There are over 10,000 military personnel on Gitmo—many who have been there for years and are quite familiar with the base”
Camp No is “offbase” outside the perimeter, only a few people would ever be allowed to drive the perimeter and fewer still would see it hidden behind trees. Check out the google aerial view, the buildings were meant to be hidden.
January 27th, 2010 | 11:14 am
I’ve read through your article, Joe, and through all these comments. I think it’s a credit to you that you have such an engaging, well-informed readership.
I have a question for you. I have not poured over the many reports on this issue, but it is readily apparent from your posts that you have. Perhaps I missed it in the above-comments, but I’d like to hear your opinion on the reports that the prisoners’ hearts, kidneys and throats were missing. Is that a false report? If so, how do you know it is false? If not, why would the military remove the organs of suicide victims? Wouldn’t it be apparent that they died from hanging themselves?
January 27th, 2010 | 11:36 am
Mcw Perhaps I missed it in the above-comments, but I’d like to hear your opinion on the reports that the prisoners’ hearts, kidneys and throats were missing. Is that a false report? If so, how do you know it is false? If not, why would the military remove the organs of suicide victims? Wouldn’t it be apparent that they died from hanging themselves?
The throat organs were indeed removed during the autopsy (I haven’t seen anything about heart or kidneys, since they are not mentioned in either the Harper’s article or the reports). Examination of these organs is necessary to determine not only the cause of death (asphyxia, broken neck) but also the type of strangulation that occurred (brute force choking, ligature, etc.).
Such an examination is needed even if the cause of death appears obvious. Over thirty witnesses saw at least one of the three prisoners either hanging in the cell or observed ligature marks on their necks. The natural assumption (which was backed up by the autopsy) was that the prisoners died of hanging. But there is always a chance that the prisoners could have died another way (e.g, poisoning) and the hangings used as staging to mask the real cause of death.
(This is essentially what the conspiracy theorists are claiming: that the deaths were caused by rags being shoved down the prisoner’s throats.)
Because the throat organs are a key piece of physical evidence, they were not put back into the bodies but sent to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology for safekeeping. What is odd is that many of the people who are calling for another investigation think these organs should have been turned over to the prisoner’s families. That seems rather counterproductive since giving away evidence would impede any future investigations.
January 27th, 2010 | 11:46 am
I will not be embarrassed if Joe is right and I am wrong. This is partly because I’ve hedged my bet by asking questions rather than staking everything on a decision now. But it’s also because I am capable, even trained, to hold two contrary ideas in my head at the same time: I am deeply suspicious of the government’s behavior regarding torture, both because they’ve lied a lot and because torture is bad. But I also respect and love my government for its virtues and traditions and because it is the assurance of stability and protection for my future and my children’s future. I want to be wrong. I want to be totally, absolutely wrong. But if I am I won’t be humiliated. I’m not backing a horse, as Joe seems to be. I’m demanding that we adhere to our moral and political commitments at all times and in all things. That is my “first thing” and I’m sticking to it. Until the concerns and fears about torture are answered, I’ll happily risk embarrassment by demanding clarity. To further establish this point, I hereby pledge that if clear evidence of suicide is presented, I’ll appear here and eat my hat, internet-style, in my own real name. It will be easy because I’ll be relieved. And I’m no birther or truther who will move the goalposts; I mean it. I’ll be glad.
ice9
January 29th, 2010 | 12:08 pm
[...] might weaken Horton’s claims. (Again, as noted above, I find that evidence is pursuasive.) In his second post, he argues, The contention that they died because of enhanced interrogation techniques it totally [...]
February 5th, 2010 | 6:10 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 point [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact