“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”.

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.

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!

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.

“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).

I had not seen the Pentagon denial on Camp No – can you provide a link?