When confronted with an absurd conspiracy theory, a rational personal often precedes through three stages: (1) dismissal (“No one can believe anything that ridiculous.”), incredulity (“I can’t believe people are buying this nonsense.”), and despair (“Will someone please debunk this rubbish already!”)
Most of us stopped at stage one when we heard Andrew Sullivan’s Trig Truther tripe and went no farther than stage two on the 9/11 Truther trash and the Birther bilge. I thought stage two would be the ending point for the Gitmo Truther meme too, but it seems that it is spreading.
For instance, I discovered that the St. Louis Dispatch‘s editorial board decided to trash their reputation by calling for a fourth investigation into the Gitmo suicides. Naturally, they based their call for an “unrelenting career prosecutor” on Scott Horton’s Harper’s Magazine story:
Now comes Harper’s Magazine, with advance online publication of an article that reports evidence from military guards that the victims may have been transported to another location prior to their “discovery,” and that the events leading to their deaths may have occurred at a “black site” — a secret facility used to conduct “enhanced” interrogation.
Although I’ve written about this story before (here and here) it has primarily been in a stage two way. Now it has become apparent that otherwise reasonable people will—because they have not reviewed the actual evidence—consider this story to be potentially credible. So let us put that notion to rest.
The core of the Harper’s article is the following claim:
Army Staff Sergeant Joseph Hickman and men under his supervision have disclosed evidence in interviews with Harper’s Magazine that strongly suggests the three prisoners who died on June 9 had been transported to another location prior to their deaths. The guards’ accounts also reveal the existence of a previously unreported black site at Guantánamo where the deaths, or at least the events that led directly to the deaths, most likely occurred.
If the deaths “most likely” occurred at this location, then there should be strong evidence that the black site actually exists and that the prisoners were at the location at the time of their deaths. As we shall see, however, the evidence for the former is a baseless, wholly unsubstantiated, pulled-out-of-thin-air rumor and the evidence for the latter is not only non-existent, but also completely refuted by the sworn eyewitness testimony of over fifty observers, including military personnel, civilians, and prison detainees.
In the article, three National Guardsmen proffer three key claims:
1. Scott Hickman claims that prior to 8 p.m., all three prisoners were taken from their cells, driven to the black site, and were never returned to their cells in Alpha Block. Instead, the van allegedly carrying the prisoners was driven directly “to the entrance of the medical clinic, as if to unload something.”
2. Christopher Penvose claims that he went to the medical clinic around 12:15 a.m. and was told “three dead prisoners had been delivered to the clinic.”
3. Penvose and David Caroll say that, though they had an unobstructed view of the path between Alpha Block and the medical clinic, they “had seen no prisoners transferred to the clinic that night, dead or alive.”
The allegations of these soldiers would be soundly refuted if it were established beyond a reasonable doubt that:
1. The three prisoners were seen in their cells after 8 p.m.
2. The three prisoners were observed dead within their cells.
3. The three dead prisoners arrived at the medical clinic after 12:15 a.m.
4. Witnesses observed the prisoners being taken directly from Alpha Barracks to the medical facility.
1. Nurse (p. 94) – saw the prisoners being brought to the clinic between 12:45 – 1:00 a.m.
2. Guard (p. 95) – saw guards transporting prisoner to clinic; discovered other dead prisoner in cell
3. Ilyas Beloued (civilian linguist) (p. 128) – claims to have seen the prisoners in their cells at 8:30 p.m.
4. Detainee (p. 137) – overheard the three prisoners talking about “martyrdom operation”; told another detainee that suicide occurred around 11 p.m.
5. Nurse (p. 142) – discovered suicide note on body; witnessed NCIS special agent find suicide note on another prisoner
6. Chief Master Sergeant (p. 180) – responded to emergency at Alpha Block after midnight; saw dead prisoners in cells; saw four guards carry prisoner to medical facility
7. Sergeant of the Guard (p. 183) – responded to emergency at Alpha Block after midnight; saw prisoners being carried to medical facility
8. Block NCO (p. 184) – saw prisoners in cells at 8:30 p.m.; saw prisoners being taken to medical facility; saw other dead prisoners in cells
9. Guard (p. 188) – saw dead prisoner in cell; took prisoner to medical facility
10. Block NOC (p. 190) – discovered dead prisoners in cells; took prisoners to medical facility
11. Block Guard (p. 197) – saw prisoners in cells at 8:30 p.m.; discovered dead prisoner in cell; took prisoner to medical facility; discovered other dead prisoners
12. Guard (p. 203) – saw prisoners in cells at 8:30 p.m.; saw dead prisoner in cell
13. Guard (p. 209) – saw prisoners in cells at 8:30 p.m.; saw dead prisoner in cell; took prisoner to medical facility
14. Guard (p. 217) – saw prisoners in cells at 8:30 p.m.; saw dead prisoner in cell; took prisoner to medical facility
15. Guard (p. 221) – observed dead prisoner being taken out of Alpha Block to medical facility
16. Guard (p. 224) – discovered dead prisoner in cell
17. LPO for Escort Department (p. 230) – helped carry dead prisoner to medical facility
18. Escort Control member #1 (p. 232) – discovered dead prisoner in cell; helped take prisoner to medical facility clinic
19. Escort Control member #2 (p. 234) – discovered dead prisoner in cell; helped take prisoner to medical facility clinic
20. Escort Control member #3 (p. 236) – discovered dead prisoner in cell; helped take prisoner to medical facility clinic
21. Escort Control member #4 (p. 237) – discovered dead prisoner in cell; helped take prisoner to medical facility clinic
22. Gloria Jemison (p. 240) – saw prisoners being taken from Alpha Block to medical facility
23. Master at Arms (p. 241) – saw prisoners being taken from Alpha Block to medical facility
24. Guard (p. 245) – saw prisoners being taken from Alpha Block to medical facility
25. Escort Control (p. 247) – heard radio call about prisoners being taken from Alpha Block to medical facility; rode with prisoner from medical facility to hospital
26. Escort Control (p. 248) – saw prisoners being taken from Alpha Block to medical facility
27. Escort Control (p. 252) – saw prisoners being taken from Alpha Block to medical facility
28. Escort Control (p. 254) – saw dead prisoner in cell; saw prisoners being taken from Alpha Block to medical facility
29. Escort Control (p. 256) – saw dead prisoner in cell; saw prisoners being taken from Alpha Block to medical facility
30. Unidentified (p. 261) – saw dead prisoner in cell
31. Guard (p. 263) – saw dead prisoner in cell
32. Guard (p. 266) – saw dead prisoner in cell
33. Incident Response Force member (p. 269) – saw dead prisoner in cell; saw prisoners being taken from Alpha Block to medical facility
34. Guard (p. 272) – saw dead prisoner in cell
35. Guard (p. 273) – saw dead prisoner in cell; helped take prisoner to medical facility
36. Escort Control (p. 275) – saw prisoners being taken from Alpha Block to medical facility
37. Medical facility assistant (p. 293) – saw prisoners being brought in by guards at 12:40 a.m.
38. Nurse (p. 295) – saw prisoners being brought in by guards at 12:40 a.m.
39. Nurse (p. 298) – saw prisoners being brought in by guards at 12:40 a.m.
40. Corpsman (p. 300) – saw prisoners being brought in by guards at around 12:30
41. Nurse (p. 302) – was called from the chowhall to assist at 12:40 a.m.
42. Nurse (p. 306) – saw prisoners being brought in by guards at 12:40 a.m.
43. Corpsman (p. 310) – saw prisoners being taken to medical facility by guards
44. Medical facility Assistant (p. 313) – was called from the chowhall to assist at 12:40 a.m.
45. Nurse (p. 315) – saw prisoners being brought in by guards at 12:40 a.m.
46. Medical facility Assistant (p. 318) – saw prisoners being brought in by guards at 12:40 a.m.
47. Unidentified Medical facility (p. 322) – saw prisoners being brought in by guards at 12:40 a.m.
48. Escort (p. 324) – saw dead prisoner in cell; saw prisoners being taken to medical facility
49. Detainee (p. 344) – saw dead prisoner in cell
50. Detainee (p. 347) – saw dead prisoner in cell
Unless we believe that all fifty of these guards, nurses, civilians, and prisoners are lying, we can completely dismiss the fabrications provided by the soldiers in the Harper’s story.
Although this is a sufficient reproof, let’s examine the other claim about the location where the deaths of these men, as Horton claims, “most likely occurred.”
The evidence for the “previously unreported black site” is similarly non-existent. Hickman and his cohorts discovered an area of the base and could not determine its use or purpose. Because they do not know what it is, they automatically assume it must be used as a place of torture. As the article states, “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.” For Horton, this mere rumor is convincing evidence. His leap of logic extends from “one theory was . . . ” to conclusively stating the “existence of a previously unreported black site.”
Horton is either astoundingly gullible or willfully ignorant. Despite there being over 10,000 military personnel on the base, he questions no one other than these four about the site. He also appears to accept, without question or reservation, claims that strain credulity. For example,
[Hickman] and Davila made a point of stopping by [the black site] whenever they had the chance; once, Hickman said, he heard a “series of screams” from within the compound.
If you look at the map provided in the article, you’ll notice that the building is set off from the main road by at least a quarter of a mile and is well outside of the area that Hickman and Davila guard. If this is indeed a “black site,” why would the CIA be so careless as to let soldiers randomly drive up and get close enough to hear a “series of screams?” What kind of black site operation are they running?
But let’s assume it is true and anyone can get close to the site whenever they choose. Surely there must be other soldiers, sailors, and Marines who have heard the screams from “Camp No.” Why does Horton not interview them and get their statements on the record? Could it be because he himself knows that the stories are complete fabrications?
No reasonable unbiased truth seeker can honestly read the NCIS report and come away believing the claims of Hickman and his cronies are in any way believable. Still, the Gitmo Truthers will not be swayed simply because the Harper’s story has been eviscerated. They will say that the 1,500 page report that has redactions on 83 percent of its pages does not provide all of the answers to every question they have about what occurred (the fact that they can read that last sentence without recognizing their fallacious argument from incredulity speaks volumes).
I have stopped trying to convince these people. Some conspiracy minded folk are so convinced that a cover-up must have occurred that they will interpret all rumors and speculation as justification for their certainty that the prisoners must have been murdered—possibly by Dick Cheney himself with a dirty sock.
I cannot persuade everyone to honestly evaluate the evidence and I’ll likely have to return to the other questions about the investigation later to quell later eruptions of absurdity. But for now I think it will be enough if thoughtful people are convinced enough to read the Harper’s article and to be skeptical of their own skepticism.
January 26th, 2010 | 4:19 pm
Bless you Joe for continuing to stick up for the truth. The conspiracy folks remind me of this passage from Isaiah:
“None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity. (Isaiah 59:4)”
January 26th, 2010 | 7:08 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Paranormal Guru and DNC DUDES, andrew. andrew said: On the Shameful “Murders at Gitmo” Conspiracy (Part III): When confronted with an absurd conspiracy theory, a rati… http://bit.ly/67uLkE [...]
January 29th, 2010 | 7:21 am
How do you explain the missing throats in the autopsies? Does the NCIS report (or whatever part of it hasn’t been redacted) have anything to say on the matter? The improbability of three simultaneous and physically unlikely suicides (tied hands, etc.) has not been satisfactorily explained, however faulty you may find Horton’s conjecture-based conclusions. I put that on the scale with those fifty witnesses and I honestly can’t say what’s less likely, the suicides or collusion in a cover-up. Like it or not, we have not gotten to the bottom of this.
January 29th, 2010 | 11:23 am
Look, I’m an Army Judge Advocate. Most of the redactions on the report were REQUIRED by the Privacy Act.
Horton’s piece was total garbage btw.
January 29th, 2010 | 12:04 pm
[...] most damning evidence that Carter provides comes directly from the official investigation; in part three of his writing, Carter lists fifty individuals who provided sworn testimony supporting the official account of the [...]
January 29th, 2010 | 4:34 pm
Mr. Carter, I appreciate your critical coverage of this conspiracy. However, I must take issue with your characterization of the 50 instances of sworn testimony.
Because is struck me as a bold claim, I checked the NCIS report, because I do believe that eyewitness sworn testimony would — especially from detainees — would be sufficient to debunk the story in its entirety.
A quick perusal of select witness accounts, however, belies the strength of your assertion that they disprove any part of Horton’s story. For example:
2. The guard does not claim to have seen prisoners being transported. The report states that the guard responded while other personnel “were in the process of transporting.” There is no claim of seeing that happening.
3. I am not sure where you got the phrase “seen the prisoners.” The witness heard chanting, but does not report seeing any prisoners, much less “the” prisoners.
4. First, this was not a sworn statement, it was a report from a guard who overheard the detainee making conversation with another detainee. Second, and most importantly, the detainee did not hear “the three prisoners” discussing the operation. The conversation was reported as happening on June 21, after “the three prisoners” were already dead.
49. Again, this is not “sworn testimony” but a summary report of an interview.
50. Another one that is not “sworn testimony.” And the detainee does not claim to have seen anything — he reports things that happened, but does not indicate that he saw them first hand.
I realize I am cherry picking and nit picking, but the fact that I could easily find mischaracterizations in your list of witnesses makes me skeptical about the others. I don’t have enough information to say your conclusion is wrong, but I do have enough to say that you were careless in making the claim that you did. And your carelessness makes me less likely to take you at your word on your other claims.
January 29th, 2010 | 5:24 pm
2. The guard does not claim to have seen prisoners being transported. The report states that the guard responded while other personnel “were in the process of transporting.” There is no claim of seeing that happening.
How would he know that the prisoner was being transported if he did not see it?
4. First, this was not a sworn statement, it was a report from a guard who overheard the detainee making conversation with another detainee.
True, it wasn’t a sworn statement by the detainee, but a sworn statement by the guard about what the detainee said.
Second, and most importantly, the detainee did not hear “the three prisoners” discussing the operation. The conversation was reported as happening on June 21, after “the three prisoners” were already dead.
The detainee was caught talking about the “martyrdom operation.” Now it could be that he was just making that up and didn’t get it from the original prisoners. But why would he make up such a claim and why we he expect the other detainees not to challenge it?
49. Again, this is not “sworn testimony” but a summary report of an interview.
Fair enough. I should have clarified that the detainees statements were not “sworn testimony” but merely “testimony.” I suspected most people would recognize that prisoners of war do not provide “sworn testimony” (why would they care if they were charged with perjury?) but I probably should have pointed that out just in case.
50. Another one that is not “sworn testimony.” And the detainee does not claim to have seen anything — he reports things that happened, but does not indicate that he saw them first hand.
He says the guards removed the prisoners from the cells, implying that he had seen it first hand. Why would he not have seen it if he was in the cellblock?
I realize I am cherry picking and nit picking, but the fact that I could easily find mischaracterizations in your list of witnesses makes me skeptical about the others.
You truly did have to nit-pick the claims in order to justify claiming them as “mischaracterization.” Still, despite the attempt it doesn’t change any of the claims I made or even challenge their veracity.
I don’t have enough information to say your conclusion is wrong, but I do have enough to say that you were careless in making the claim that you did. And your carelessness makes me less likely to take you at your word on your other claims.
For you to pick those five statements shows that you had to read quite a few, if not all testimonies, in order to produce your cherry-picked results. Also, the fact that nothing you pointed out helps the Harpers’ article shows that even you realize that no defense could be made to defend that shoddy piece of journalism. I’m sorry that you are not personally convinced, but I suspect most reasonable people will find the weight of the evidence compelling.
But the fact is that I’m not asking people to “take my word” on the claims. I encourage everyone that is interested to read the NCIS report and then read the Harper’s article again. They can see for themselves that Horton’s article provides nothing but rumor and speculation.
January 30th, 2010 | 6:44 am
Continuing Alex’s theme: You wrote: “1. Nurse (p. 94) – saw the prisoners being brought to the clinic between 12:45 – 1:00 a.m.”
The testimony on page says that the nurse was told of the suicides at 12:45-1:00 am, and then went to the clinic. Upon his arrival, the nurse saw the ambulance with the first detainee leaving, not arriving. He then went to help treat another detainee, who was already being treated.
January 30th, 2010 | 10:08 am
I checked your list more closely, and I count 11 entries that either don’t really contradict Horton’s theory or are duplicates, i.e. the same person’s testimony represented in different forms, or in one case just copied twice (exhibit 35 = #s 19 and 28). #s 3, 5 and 50 don’t contradict Horton’s theory, as far as I can tell. #4 seems too indirect to me. I believe #s 7 and 8 are the same person; also 9 and 10 are the same; 15 and 16 the same; and 19, 28, 29 and 30 are all the same person. #2 is a report of a re-interview of a guard who gave a sworn statement on 14 June, but I’m not sure which one. I’m pretty sure it’s one counted from that date, though.
That leaves 39, which is still more than plenty, even if maybe a couple more could possibly be duplicates. Of those, 32 are sworn statements. (#18 appears to have given sworn testimony, but the first page of it is missing–not redacted, just missing, so I didn’t count it.) One is a detainee.
It’s notable that #s 6 and 10 say the time of discovery of the bodies was an hour earlier.
1. Nurse (p. 94) – learned of three suicide attempts approximately 0045-0100, one was being intubated when she arrived (implying she got there shortly after the detainee did) // 20 Jun sworn statement
2. Chief Master Sergeant (p. 180) – responded to emergency at Alpha Block after midnight; saw dead prisoners in cells; saw four guards carry prisoner to medical facility // 14 Jun sworn statement, signed 15 Jun ?
3. Block SOG (p. 184) – notified of hanging around 0025-30, saw detainee brought out of cell and get taken to clinic, saw guards taking two other detainees from cells, was told at time one had hung himself, recognized other one personally // 14 Jun sworn statement
4. Block NCO (p. 190) – helped discover one detainee hanging, helped transport to clinic. saw other detainee on backboard and third being taken from cell, and both taken to clinic // 15 Jun sworn statement
5. Block Guard, says he was appointed as Block NCO that night by the regular Block NCO (p. 197) – saw the three detainees alive in cells at about 2030, after deaths helped discover and transport one, saw another in cell, helped discover third // 15 June sworn statement
6. Guard (p. 203) – positive all three were alive shortly before 2130, was notified something was wrong a couple minutes after 23:40, helped discover first one, helped take him to clinic, helped discover the other two // 15 June sworn statement
7. Guard (p. 209) – saw one detainee in cell around 2030, helped discover detainee, helped transport to clinic, saw another at cell // 14 Jun sworn statement
8. Guard (p. 217) – saw detainee outside cell, helped transport to clinic, helped discover another and helped transport to clinic // 14 Jun sworn statement
9. Guard (p. 224) – heard call of attempted suicide at around midnight, saw detainee body removed from Alpha Block, was present at discovery of other two, helped take one to clinic // 14 Jun sworn statement
10. LPO for Escort Department (p. 230) – got call for injured detainee at around 2330 or 2400, heard suicide call from Alpha Block while at clinic, saw one detainee outside cell, saw guards get other detainee out of cell, carried one to clinic // 17 Jun sworn statement
11. Escort Control (p. 232) – helped take detainee from Alpha Block to clinic // undated NCIS report of interview
12. Escort Control (p. 236) – saw detainee hanging in cell and accompanied him to clinic // 10 Jun NCIS report of interview
13. Escort Control (p. 237) – got call for detainee injury about 5-10 minutes before midnight, saw detainee outside cell on block, saw detainee hanging in cell, helped remove detainee from noose, helped take him to clinic // 14 Jun sworn statement
14. Gloria Jemison (p. 240) – saw one detainee taken from Camp 1, helped take a detainee from Alpha Block to clinic // 10 Jun NCIS report of interview
15. Master at Arms (p. 241) – took post as Sally 4 at 2400, was at Sally 4 when call of attempted suicide came, but doesn’t recall time, saw detainee carried to clinic, helped remove detainee from cell and helped carry him to clinic // 14 June sworn statement
16. Guard (p. 245) – after midnight heard alarm call on radio, saw guards transporting detainee through sally to clinic, saw detainee in cell A5, saw detainee from A12 taken to clinic // 15 Jun sworn statement
17. Escort Control (p. 247) – accompanied detainee from Alpha Block to clinic // undated NCIS report of interview
18. Escort Control (p. 248) – learned of Code Yellow around midnight, was at clinic before the last two detainees arrived, saw one in transport to clinic // 15 Jun sworn statement
19. Escort Control (p. 252) – got call about Code Yellow at about 0045, saw detainee outside cell, helped put detainee on stretcher and take to clinic // 15 Jun sworn statement
20. Escort Control (p. 256) – Code Yellow sometime after midnight. saw detainee hanging in A5 and helped take him down, helped carry him to clinic // 14 Jun sworn statement
21. Guard (p. 263) – was at Alpha Block around 0030, saw guard trying to arouse detainee, found him hanging, took him to clinic, saw another on floor in cell, helped remove third from noose, helped carry second to clinic // 14 Jun sworn statement
22. Guard (p. 266) – saw discovery of detainee in cell, saw second detainee carried out of Alpha Block // 14 Jun sworn statement
23. Incident Response Force member (p. 269) – saw detainee carried out of Alpha Block, helped discover another, saw third carried by on board // 14 Jun sworn statement
24. Guard (p. 272) – heard call about detainee hanging between 0030 and 0045, saw detainee hanging in cell, helped cut him down // 10 Jun NCIS report of interview
25. Guard (p. 273) – after 0030 saw two detainees hanging in cells, helped carry one to clinic // 15 Jun sworn statement
26. Escort Control (p. 275) – received Code Yellow at 0015, saw detainee body outside cell, helped carry him to clinic // 19 Jun sworn statement
27. Medical facility assistant (p. 293) – got call at clinic at 0040 that unresponsive detainee was being brought in, he arrived a few minutes later, etc. // 16 Jun sworn statement
28. Nurse (p. 295) – received call at clinic at about 0043 that detainee with no pulse was on way, arrived about a minute later, etc. // 15 Jun sworn statement
29. Nurse (p. 298) – got call around 0030-0035 that a detainee without a pulse was in the clinic and they needed help, second detainee arrived at 0045, etc. // 15 Jun sworn statement
30. Corpsman (p. 300) – first detainee arrived at clinic after 0030, etc. // 16 Jun sworn statement
31. Nurse (p. 302) – left clinic to eat at about 0030, received radio call about 0040-0045 to return, etc. // 16 Jun sworn statement
32. Nurse (p. 306) – told around 0045 that someone was bringing a detainee in, he arrived unresponsive, etc. // 16 Jun sworn statement
33. Corpsman (p. 309) – phone rang at clinic after midnight, probably around 0030, and nurse said detainee was being brought in, arrived within three minutes, etc. // 16 Jun sworn statement
34. Medical facility Assistant (p. 313) – was eating after 0030 when got call to return to clinic, the staff was still trying resuscitate detainees, etc. // 16 Jun sworn statement
35. Hospital Corpsman (p. 315) – at about 0045 was told there was a detainee with no pulse coming in to clinic, arrived at about 0047, etc. // 16 Jun sworn statement
36. Medical facility Assistant (p. 318) – was eating, was told at about 0043 that a detainee was being brought to clinic without a pulse, saw detainee arrive about 0045, etc. // 16 Jun sworn statement
37. Unidentified Medical facility (p. 322) – first detainee arrived at about 0040, etc. // 16 Jun sworn statement
38. Escort (p. 324) – saw detainee body in Alpha Block, helped take him to clinic // 19 Jun NCIS result of interview report
39. Detainee (p. 344) – saw detainee hanging in cell and cut down by guards // 10 Jun NCIS report of interview
January 30th, 2010 | 5:49 pm
Having served in Bagram, I can tell you first-hand that even military officers are intimidated by and strongly encouraged not to speculate about what they may or may not have seen at facilities that may or may not be run by OGA (“Other Government Agencies” … umbrella term sufficiently vague so that we don’t have to actually lie about who they are). Military personnel might let their curiosity get the better of them and try to find out what’s really going on someplace on a base, but the OGA folks are likely to just assume that their intimidation in enough to keep the uniformed members silent. It’s really not about what the soldiers may or may not have seen — it’s what they decided to talk about.
January 31st, 2010 | 12:17 pm
Congratulations! You’ve proven that there’s strong support in the government’s official investigation for the government’s official version of events.
Now could you please tackle the absurd conspiracy theory that there was a massacre at My Lai? Two official investigations — one conducted by Colin Powell, no less — have established that there were 128 VC killed there with just 22 civilians as collateral damage. Case closed!
All kidding aside, I really don’t think just totaling up the number of witnesses supporting the official version necessarily makes it, or the report, more convincing. Subordinate staff in a military prison can be expected to know that the path of least resistance for them is to follow the official version of events, and a guard whose job it is to do rounds and observe a prisoner in his cell at a particular time, is likely to say he saw that prisoner in his cell at that time if that makes his account consistent with the account that his superiors have given to the press.
You don’t deny that Horton’s witnesses, if their accounts are to be believed, refute the official version, you just are satisfied with the official version. You don’t see any reason ti doubt it, or to call for a more thorough and complete investigation. That’s fine.
January 31st, 2010 | 6:45 pm
While it is quite possible that the official version is correct (although I think it unlikely), if so then why was no guard prosecuted for negligence? Why when one detainee was found was a mustering not immediately conducted? Why were no outside investigators invited to review the material and interview the witnesses? Why has it never happened again that prisoners have hung themselves?
January 31st, 2010 | 7:50 pm
The guards’ statements are pure cya — in essence they say, we did absolutely everything we were supposed to do that night, but because the brass let the detainees hang up their blankets and had us turn out the lights on one side every night at 2200 and told us not to use flashlights to “see skin” on our rounds and not to wake them up for the count, etc., we just weren’t able to notice three dead prisoners hanging, possibly for hours, on the block that night.’ The fact that they’ve got their cya story together doesn’t mean there’s no truth at all to it, of course. And clearly, if they did cut dead detainees down in their cells and take them to the clinic from the Block on backboards around 0045, it would contradict Hickman’s claim that he saw no detainees taken from A block to the clinic that night — although according to him he did see the mysterious white van from Camp No come back and unload at the clinic.
I find it very interesting that the one guard who says he was so in “shock” that he puked in the trashcan, also reports that he had the presence of mind to advise the others to expect an NCIS investigation and not to talk to anyone about what happened. I think this clearly means that the Alpha Block guards knew very well in the wee hours of June 10 that they could easily become the next set of “bad apples” to take the fall, a la Abu Ghraib, if they weren’t careful.
It’s also very clear from the report that the NCIS investigators were especially puzzled by the 2330 headcount notation — the one that NOBODY admits to making in the “DIMMS.”
Also, there’s something pretty odd about how some, but not all, of the people in A Block heard the detainees in A Block chanting all evening “Yahoo Day” (or was it the “old Taliban Death song” or “Zarkowi”?) but for some reason they all, even the Arabic translator, thought nothing of it. Again, cya, yes. And it certainly feeds the official asymetric warfare explanation. Is it credible?
Finally, did the three swallow rags or not? A8 definitely had a rag down his throat, that’s clear. They say they tried to pull it out when they found him in his cell but they couldn’t get it out. The others aren’t so clear — they reportedly had masks on their faces, but did they have rags down their throats? As I recall, Horton’s witnesses say that the whole camp was told by the CO in the morning that “you all know” that three detainees died last night from choking on rags, . . but that’s not what you’re going to hear from the press. Did that happen? And is it really possible to swallow a rag . . . and then hang yourself??
February 1st, 2010 | 1:01 am
Pasco, I don’t think we know whether anyone was disciplined, though the camp commander is now teaching ROTC. Can’t see much basis for prosecution, given the evidence that the guards weren’t allowed to use flashlights, that the lighting was poor, that there were blankets hung up to hide the bodies, and that the detainees made dummies to appear to be sleeping. The NCIS recreated the lighting of the scene and must have determined that it was unrealistic to expect the guards to do any better.
Those conditions and others that allowed the hangings to occur no longer exist, which would explain why there have been no more hangings.
The guards who discovered the first body initially focused on that one, of course, but other guards who were called to the scene were reportedly assigned to check the other cells. It probably took a few minutes to find the other two after the check was started because of some of the factors mentioned above.
The investigation wasn’t only military at first. The FBI was also involved for a time. As I recall, the NCIS asked to be allowed to do the investigation without interference from other agencies. That they were apparently allowed to do that suggests either that there was a big cover-up, or that the higher-ups were already satisfied that it was open and shut.
February 1st, 2010 | 1:05 am
“The fact that they’ve got their cya story together doesn’t mean there’s no truth at all to it, of course. And clearly, if they did cut dead detainees down in their cells and take them to the clinic from the Block on backboards around 0045, it would contradict Hickman’s claim”
Right. I think the Alpha Block guards were probably telling the truth with the possible exception of a few details about log entries or the like, but if they had any cause to cover themselves, that implies the detainees really were discovered in their cells, not as Hickman says. There’s also a lot of eyewitness testimony from escorts and guards from other blocks that backs them up.
There’s a lot of testimony about the chanting. I don’t recall for sure, but I think the ones who didn’t recall it were mainly not near the cell block until later. The chanting had ended well before the bodies were found.
According to the Pentagon (see link below), only one detainee had cloth down his throat, which was explained as the result of inhaling it while hanging and choking. According to testimony in the NCIS files, the other two detainees had cloth in their mouths but apparently not down their throats. The material around the faces was presumably to prevent the rags from coming out.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35
Whether the camp was told the men had committed suicide from swallowing rags (which sounds impossible) and so on is hard to say except that such a means of suicide would contradict a lot of sworn testimony. Horton doesn’t identify any sources for that by name, and the way he phrases it make me wonder if there was some misunderstanding, that the rag story was understood by Bumgarner to be no more than a rumor that the camp *thought* they knew. He may well have instructed them not to spread such rumors or say anything that would conflict with the real story.
February 1st, 2010 | 11:21 am
No sophistry needed, Joe — just the facts. Marc Thiessen last January pointed out it is not the first time you have failed to meaningfully address and justify your scurrilous claims with Occkam Razor like precision. Intent on lining up your straw men augments you neglected to honestly evaluate any issues of evidence other than your own -which of course were based on Christian principles. From you own article comment section:
“You don’t deny that Horton’s witnesses, if their accounts are to be believed, refute the official version, you just are satisfied with the official version; Congratulations! You’ve proven that there’s strong support in the government’s official investigation for the government’s official version of events. I really don’t think just totaling up the number of witnesses supporting the official version necessarily makes it, or the report, more convincing.”
But as you say “ No reasonable unbiased truth seeker can honestly read the NCIS report and come away believing the claims of Hickman and his cronies are in any way believable”…..Riiiiiiiiightttttt!
This is not Scott Hortons story it is about after two years the commander at Guantánamo, Rear Admiral Harry Harris, had declared the deaths “suicides was finally ‘claimed’ as credible but not publicized. You omitted the fact that the NCIS documents such as they were, were then carefully cross-referenced and deciphered by students and faculty at the law school of Seton Hall University in New Jersey, and their findings, released in November 2009, made clear why the Pentagon had been unwilling to make its conclusions public. The official story of the prisoners’ deaths was full of unacknowledged contradictions and the centerpiece of the report—a reconstruction of the events—was simply unbelievable!
So Joe Carter followers while he cannot persuade everyone to honestly evaluate the evidence I think it will be enough if thoughtful people are convinced enough to read the Harper’s article and to be skeptical of their own skepticism.
But as Scott Horton and Chris Floyd among so many others admonish please by all means read the whole piece — and keep it constantly in mind when wading through all the earnest, endless disquisitions about the weighty affairs and political fortunes of our great and good, all of them written as if these people, our leaders, our bipartisan elites, are somehow normal, as if they are not brutally depraved and indifferent to the point of moral insanity.
As Joe predicts though “I’ll likely have to return to the other questions about the investigation later to quell later eruptions of absurdity.” A bit of wisdom and humility no doubt from the Gospels.I for one can’t wait to see the parting of the waters.
February 1st, 2010 | 2:52 pm
We know that prisoners died as a result of CIA interrogation in other cases. (I recall one Iraqi scientist who died from suffocation; also a prisoner who died of hypothermia at Bagram.)
We also know that the government was quite capable of attempting – but failing – to cover up the truth of Pat Tilmann’s death. (Note the media blitz to try to sell the official Tilmann story – this seems similar to the O’Reilly appearance of the Guantanamo officials after the three ‘suicides’ story. Note the attempt to destroy evidence, by burning his uniform.
McChrystal was also involved in the Tilmann cover up.)
The supposed method of suicide in this case sounds extremely implausible. At least two of the prisoners had been cleared for release – all this makes it seem very unlikely that there would be a co-ordinated suicide.
Neither a triple suicide, nor three bungled interrogations has a high probability a priori. However, if three prisoners died in a controversial prison camp, using controversial interrogation techniques, the probability that the government would then attempt to cover it up is very large. For this reason the NCIS report cannot be taken at face value.
February 1st, 2010 | 3:16 pm
“The supposed method of suicide in this case sounds extremely implausible. At least two of the prisoners had been cleared for release – all this makes it seem very unlikely that there would be a co-ordinated suicide.”
To avoid repetition of responses to these points (and others), please see the FAQ I posted here:
http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/3634029.aspx?ArticleID=2242942
February 3rd, 2010 | 2:42 pm
Can I suggest a simple solution?
For those who are so willing to lend so much credence to the eyewitness testimony of Sgt Hickman (even when he observed nothing that actually proves a cover-up directly),and are so willing to reject the testimony of so many others just because it is in a government report, there is a simple solution. Find some of those people and interview them.
It’s good journalism and it was lazy of Harpers not to practice it. Joe is correct — both the Hickman account and the 39 accounts cannot be true at once. One is either lying, or at least, mistaken. My brief time on this planet and amateur study of human nature inclines me to believe 39 over 1, especially when what the one claims is so consistent with over-reaching assumptions and guesswork. But, if you have doubts — resolve them, by all means.
Knock off the “the government should investigate” shibboleth — you won’t believe any conclusions that don’t agree with yours anyway. So, go interview come of these 39-50 folks and figure out if you think they are all lying.
February 3rd, 2010 | 4:55 pm
Sanpete-
Your Slate post says:
“Since 2008, according to an unnamed source said to be authoritative, the families haven’t requested the return of the missing organs.”
Horton’s most recent post makes clear that this request was made (in the case of the Yemeni) in 2006. Thus the statement that no request has been made since 2008 appears misleading, since this request was pending, and DoD never responded to the request.
February 3rd, 2010 | 5:07 pm
P B2-
My willingness to question (not reject outright) the testimony of the several witnesses in the NCIS report is not simply that this is in a government report, but that we don’t know who these people are, we don’t know the conditions under which they made their statements, they have not been willing to come forward publicly and reiterate their statements under oath, and they would face significant pressure to not undemine the official DoD story.
Why, two weeks later, has no one been willing to come forward to reiterate publicly key facts attested in the NCIS report?
Why has no one publicly provided a benign explanation for Camp No?
I don’t assert that the story suggested by Hickman’s statements necessarily occurred, but I do question the official account. In contrast, you seem to reject the former based on the testimony in the NCIS report. It seems to me that the onus is on you to find and interview those individuals.
February 3rd, 2010 | 6:48 pm
Steve, I was just adding a post in response to Horton’s new piece, attached to an updated version of the FAQ:
http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/3644875.aspx?ArticleID=2243294
I should explain that the statement from the unnamed source Scarborough relies on doesn’t include the reference to 2008. I interpreted the remark that way because it was in the context of the end of the investigation, which was in 2008, on the assumption that requests from before 2008 might not be counted, which now appears to be the case.
The US pathologist to whom the request was addressed did eventually respond in July 2006 that he couldn’t cooperate. We don’t know if he passed the request along to those who now have custody of the organs, if it’s not his own agency. In any case, I doubt the request to send the missing organs to a Swiss pathologist was understood as still pending two years later. It will be interesting to see what happens if the request is renewed, though.
I don’t entirely follow your response to P B2. None of Horton’s witnesses has given sworn testimony, so if that’s what you require, they’ve failed your test. While the NCIS witnesses haven’t come forward, it can’t be inferred they aren’t willing to talk. It’s quite possible that they’re still bound by secrecy laws, but some would probably be willing to speak anonymously. Since this hasn’t been covered in the mainstream press they may not even know about Horton’s insinuations. Horton is the one who should have spoken to these witnesses, before going off half-cocked as he did. It’s not incumbent on anyone else to come forward to counter what he has given no good evidence for.
As for Camp No, the government is unlikely to say what it is. That’s how secrets are.
February 4th, 2010 | 8:35 am
Thanks for your considered response, Sanpete.
According to the agent for the family who made the request for body parts, DoD never communicated that the body parts were being held pending the end of the investigation, only (via informal communication, and after multiple contact attempts) that cooperation had not been authorized. To say that this request is not understood as pending strikes me as the height of deliberate bureaucratic obtuseness and difficult to take seriously.
In any case, I trust you accept that the notion that the families have not requested the missing body parts is false, and the anonymous “authoritative” source had it wrong.
My point to P B2 is that, while a large number of witnesses would generally be considered more reliable than a smaller number, there are other considerations in judging credibility. That is why our system of justice relies on direct confrontation of witnesses.
Hickman’s evident willingness to speak publicly under oath, and the lack of any apparent motive for telling a false story, mitigate in favor of the credibility of his account relative to anonymous individuals who have not voluntarily repeated their accounts and would have faced obvious pressure to support the official DoD account.
It is true that many of the individuals who are cited in the NCIS report may be unaware of the Harpers piece. Would these individuals be bound by secrecy not to repeat publicly under oath what they have already signed their names to in a publicly available NCIS investigation report? This seems highly unlikely to me.
Regarding Camp No – of course the government is unlikely to speak of secret things. But why should there be secret here at all? Detention appears to be the only thing of significance that occurs on this part of the base, and the other detention facilities are not secret. I would go so far as to say that Camp No should be presumptively regarded as a black site, i.e. a facility not acknowledged publicly or to the ICRC, which suggests that this facility was to hide treatment at odds with Geneva responsibilities.
February 4th, 2010 | 1:32 pm
I agree that at least one family, and possibly all three, requested the withheld body parts in 2006. I’m not sure what Scarborough’s source had in mind (I had assumed the source referred to after the investigation) and hope for some clarification. It’s quite possible the source didn’t speak clearly or was misunderstood, wasn’t really authoritative, or was purposely being misleading or false.
I don’t recall Hickman saying he was willing to give sworn testimony, but I suppose he might be. That doesn’t matter much to me right now. I don’t think Hickman and Horton’s other witnesses are lying, only that they might be misremembering some details and that their recollections don’t add up to much.
I do give some credence to the sworn testimony that I’ve read, which does seem to be authentic. It would seem overkill to me to recruit so many witnesses, who by Horton’s scenario would have seen nothing, to perjure themselves when a cover-up would require only a few. Why spread the risk of a witness turning so much more widely than needed?
I don’t know what the secrecy laws require in regard to stuff made public; that’s an interesting point. I suspect that witnesses are given blanket instructions not to talk and that no one has given them new instructions. I don’t expect anyone in authority to ask them to speak up in response to Horton, because he hasn’t given enough reason for that.
While I agree there’s no apparent reason for so much of military secrecy, it’s part of the culture, and I don’t think the secrecy around Camp No should be interpreted as implying it’s actually something of any great significance. I don’t think Horton has given enough evidence to presume it’s an interrogation site. The Pentagon has denied that it’s a detention facility, for what that’s worth.
February 4th, 2010 | 10:51 pm
[...] the strength of the official investigation’s claims, including the well-publicized list of 50 people who provided sworn testimony that contradicts Horton’s [...]
February 5th, 2010 | 11:26 am
Sanpete-
I had not seen the Pentagon denial on Camp No – can you provide a link?
February 5th, 2010 | 1:59 pm
Steve, that’s in Scarborough’s article:
“As for “Camp No,” all military bases have special access buildings. I am told authoritatively the building in Harper’s satellite photo is not a detention facility.”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35388
Of course, one must interpret such denials with caution, and this one is from an unnamed source (I assume from the military but not necessarily the Pentagon as I said above).
February 5th, 2010 | 6:56 pm
[...] 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 by [...]
February 5th, 2010 | 7:32 pm
Thanks Sanpete.
I would say not that this assertion must be treated with caution, but rather that is would appear to be virtually worthless.
The weight of evidence already indicates that another of Scarboroughs anonymous authorities was wrong, on the body-parts request.
It is entirely possible that the building in question does not now have anything to do with detention, but that is not the question. The question is whether detainees were ever brought there. And yes, even official government sources play those kind of games with semantics and tense, and certainly an unnamed unofficial source can be expected to do so.
February 5th, 2010 | 11:19 pm
Exactly. I don’t take it at face value.
There are a lot of less-than-sterling sources connected with this controversy. Horton is hyping the latest Seton Hall report in his latest. Sadly, it’s pretty bad.
http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/permalink/3654547/3654547/ShowThread.aspx#3654547
Of course, I’m not always reliable either, so I hope I got all that right!
February 8th, 2010 | 10:53 pm
Small note:Gloria Jemison(# 22) and Ilyas Beloued (civilian linguist)(# 3) are the only persons on Carter’s NCIS list for whom we have the name of a real person. Why, I wonder do we get to see the names in these two cases, and why did the privacy act fail to protect their identities?
Just something to consider. An opportunity for verification/confirmation perhaps?
***************
While Carter gives instant unquestioned acceptance and “truthiness” to his NCIS list of fifty, he immediately dismisses and defames Hickman et al. In Carter’s view, Hickman is a “fabricator” — ie a liar — and so deficient in his military performance — at a character level — that he “abandons his post”.
Carter is quick to make this assessment. The source of Carter’s asymmetric view is of course Carter’s right wing ideology. In his world there is no question which narratives will be right and good : Jihadi suicides is clearly right and good , whereas murders by US military or intelligence personnel is clearly lies and evil.
A person of fair and independent mind however, might set the two accounts side by side and wonder how to resolve a factual conflict between two groups with equal claim to a presumption of honorable character — honorable men and women with no evident reason to lie.
Hickman, as Horton points out, joined the Marines in 1983, and was so proficient in his performance that he was assigned to President Reagan’s Marine guard. From his record, Hickman appears to be an outstanding top rank soldier, not what Carter would make of him. Carter’s snap defamation of Hickman deserves only condemnation.
Hickman returned to military service after 9-11, joining the Maryland National Guard. Is that the act of a dishonorable man? Of course not.
So, turning the tables in regard to wacko conspiracy mongering, if you accept the “jihadi suicides” version, then you must provide a credible explanation — ie a conspiracy theory — for why these particular presumptively honorable US Military personnel (ie Hickman et a) would have concocted their putatively ‘fabricated’ version of events.
February 9th, 2010 | 1:15 pm
I don’t think Hickman and Horton’s other witnesses are lying. I don’t think their recollections, even if accurate, which they may not be, show any wrongdoing.
February 10th, 2010 | 1:30 pm
On February 9th, 2010 at 1:15 pm,
Sanpete wrote:
“I don’t think Hickman and Horton’s other witnesses are lying. I don’t think their recollections, even if accurate, which they may not be, show any wrongdoing.”
I agree, but others — Joe Carter in particular — apparently do not. So let me reprise the various pieces of Hickman’s narrative as a series of questions.
Was there a “paddy wagon”, or is that a fabrication? A prison facility needs a means of prisoner transport, so a “paddy wagon” seems likely. Verify using facility operations protocol and motor pool records.
Was the paddy wagon typically operated by navy guards in teams of two, or is that a fabrication? Verify by navy prisoner transport procedures.
Was the paddy wagon at the facility that evening, or is that a fabrication? Verify with transport and sally port logs.
Did two navy guards, using the paddy wagon, transport three prisoners, one at a time, at approximately twenty minute intervals, from alpha block that evening, to an unknown destination, or is that a fabrication? Verify with motor pool logs, sally port logs, prisoner transfer logs, and facility video surveillance tapes.
Did the paddy wagon return to the facility around midnight, or is that a fabrication? Verify with sally port logs and exterior video surveillance tapes if available.
And finally, on the one point where the NCIS report and Hickman’s version conflict, were any prisoners carried from alpha block to the med clinic that night between midnight and one AM?
Verify with Alpha block hallway video surveillance tapes, and any available exterior video surveillance tapes.
Note regarding this last point: Joe Carter offers his NCIS list of fifty as the counter to the statements of Hickman et al. Carter insists that these fifty statements trump Hickman. But look more closely. The conflict is not between Hickman and the fifty, but between Hickman and the NCIS chief investigator. If the report is a fraud — if the report is a cover up — then “the fifty” work quite nicely as a way to give the report credibility. Puffed up quite nicely, “the fifty” is actually 48 multiply redundant nameless “phantoms”.
So when we come to accusations of fabrication, and the inevitable question of motive — ie “Why would they lie?” — we see that Hickman has no such reason, whereas the NCIS investigator is highly motivated to make the whole nasty incident “go away” as quickly and quietly as possible. And he/she would have succeeded save for Denbeaux and Hickman.
I expect the surveillance tapes and log books will remain deeply locked away, defended against foia requests by court-affirmed refusals based on “issues of national security”. Should the courts ever go the other way, expect the evidence to “go missing”.
February 16th, 2010 | 10:57 am
In none of your three articles do you actually counter Horton’s premise or do your own investigation. You just cite the government documents that are in question as valid. Essentially what you are doing over and over again is playing an anonymous numbers game. It’s not a very convincing argument, you’re just preaching to your choir on this one.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact