Ok, so the Koran wasn't flushed, but...

[RedFury]

@John Mace

That’s a very good question. They’re not POWs, and they’re not US citizens, so what governing document covers how such people are treated? I honestly don’t know. I think we do need some type of detailed protocal of how “enemy combatants” are handled. Something more than what Bush has done, which is essentially nothing.

I would agree, though, that would should (should, not must) treat them as POWs rather than just plopping them in limbo as we’ve done now. If not POWs, then treat them as criminals, charge them, and give them a trial.

Appreciate the reply. Not much to add, other than I agree. Shouldn’t comes as news to anyone but the professional Bush Apologists, but all this situation is doing is destroying the last crumbs of credibility – if any – the Bush Government might have had left.

After admitting its soldiers desecrated the Quran, does the United States have any credibility in the Muslim world?

Memo to White House: When in hole, stop digging.

Bit late methinks. It’s already of crater-like proportions.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

John:

• How many of the detainees were uniformed soldiers? It’s not just “Team Bush”. There is no reason to think these guys are POWs.*

Actually, it seems, you are right about that. For once the Bush administrations has stumbled across a justification for their policies that holds water, sort of – even if it does appear rather counter-intuitive at first glance.

The ramifications of the fact that these captives do not meet the requirements of POW status in the Geneva Conventions are not exactly glass-clear, however. A lot of folks – especially on the left – seem to think this status (or lack of status, perhaps) would imply that they are no longer entitled to any rights whatsoever. That was certainly my fear, at first.

Having done some reading on the subject, however, I now suspect that the Bush administration is hoping to sneak past a couple of other entanglements it would otherwise face in dealing with “POWs” from Afghanistan. First off, under the GC, all POWs must be repatriated immediately after the cessation of hostilities. But the Bush administration doesn’t want to have to immediately return all of these “POWs,” at least a few of whom might be high-ranking members of international terrorist organizations, and very many of whom aren’t even from Afghanistan. This conundrum is, in turn – at least to my mind – a reasonable security concern.

In addition, I have been given to understand that POWs may not be tried by military tribunal. Were the detainees at Guantanamo classified as POWs, this would leave the administration with the option of either freeing them, or transporting them to the US for criminal trials. But what US laws have they broken?

On top of all this, there are other international laws and protocols that guarantee the Guantanamo detainees certain human rights, and which they unambiguously fall under. It is possible that they are even protected by the Fourth Geneva Protocol, which was originally designed as guideline for the treatment of civilians during war.

Note bene: I’m still reading up on this stuff, and in addition, the ends and outs of it are pretty baroque, so apologies in advance if I’ve gotten something wrong. Anyway, my point is that I don’t think that the Bush administration seeks to disqualify the detainees as “POWs” so that they can then torture the holy living shit out of them; I think they’re trying to avoid other legalistic entanglements.

• Having said that, I think the real issue is whether or not guards violated protocol and whether or not they were punished for doing so. Expecting any prison to run perfectly is unreasonable. Expecting guards to be held to certain standards, and punished of the fall below those standards is reasonable.*

The emails acquired by Amnesty (linked by FinnAgain above) make interesting reading in this context. Well, horrifying reading, actually. The problem we seem to be missing here is the question of what, exactly, those standards are. It would appear that there exists, or has existed, an Executive Order that allows for some very questionable interrogation practices. According to the documents, the FBI has restricted its agents from employing those techniques, but higher-ups within the bureau have received reports, from field officers, of military interrogators using tactics that appear to be, for all intents and purposes, torture. It’s hard to say how widespread those practices were/are, but judging from the reports they appear to be pretty frickin’ common. One very enlightening email is a request for a definition of “abuse” – because field agents are required to report interrogation abuses, but that isn’t meant to include those techniques that are condoned by Executive Order, does it?

Anyway, this administration has been very reluctant to get to the bottom of all this. They hum and haw, stall, and issue late night communiqués. They’ve given a non-specific directive – “take off the gloves” – and then drag their feet when investigating the results of that directive. And in that sense, at least as far as I can tell, they are complicit in what’s going on at Gitmo and other US “gulags.”

[Liberal]

@ETF

And Lib, I am FUCKING SICK AND TIRED of seeing you whip out your handy-dandy hair-trigger Offense-O-Meter.

You sound like you’re pretty offended yourself, jackass. If you’re sick of me, put me on ignore and leave me the fuck alone.

[Sam_Stone]

@Paul in Saudi

What is really a shame is that we are debating if our soldiers, our brothers, sons, fathers and friends did this. They have really lost our trust.

That assumes they ever had it. There are vast swaths of the left who have been knee-jerkingly critical and hostile to the U.S. military since Vietnam.

In fact, the rule in the U.S. military is to treat the Koran reverently.

Here are the Military’s actual rules for handling the Koran:

JTF-GTMO personnel directly working with detainees will avoid handling or touching the detainee’s Koran whenever possible. When military necessity does require the Koran to be search, the subsequent procedures will be followed.

3. Inspection.
   a. The MP informs the detainee that the Chaplain or a Muslim interpreter will inspect Koran. If the detainee refuses the inspection at any time, the noncompliance is reported to the Detention Operations Center (DOC) and logged appropriately by the block NCO.

b. The Koran will not be touched or handled by the MP.

c. The Chaplain or Muslim interpreter will give instructions to the detainee who will handle the Koran. He may or may not require a language specific interpreter.

d. The inspector is examining so as to notice an unauthorized items, markings, or any indicators that raises suspicion about the contents of the Koran.

e. The inspector will instruct the detainee to first open the one cover with one hand while holding the Koran in the other thus exposing the inside cover completely.

f. The inspector instructs the detainee to open pages in an upright manner (as if reading the Koran). This is a random page search and not every page is to be turned. Pages will be turned slowly enough to clearly see the pages.

g. The inspector has the detainee show the inside of the back cover of the Koran.

h. The detainee is instructed to show both ends of the Koran while the book is closed so that inspector can note the binding while closed paying attention to abnormal contours or protrusions associated with the binding. The intent is to deduce if anything may be in the binding without forcing the detainee to expose the binding, which may be construed as culturally insensitive or offensive given the significance of the Koran.

i. How the detainee reacted, observation by other detainees, and other potentially relevant observations will be annotated appropriately on the block significant activities sheet as well as staff journal.

4. Handling.

a. Clean gloves will be put on in full view of the detainees prior to handling.

b. Two hands will be used at all times when handling the Koran in manner signaling respect and reverence. Care should be used so that the right hand is the primary one used to manipulate any part of the Koran due to the cultural association with the left hand. Handle the Koran as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art.

c. Ensure that the Koran is not placed in offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet, or dirty/wet areas.

5. Removal.

a. Korans should be left in the cell as a general rule (save in MSU), even when a detainee is moved to another cell or block. In principal, every cell (except MSU) will have a Koran “assigned” to it.

b. If a Koran must be removed at the direction the CJDOG, the detainee library personnel or Chaplain will be contacted to retrieve and properly store the Koran in the detainee library. The request for the librarian/Chaplain, as well as the retrieval itself, will be logged appropriately.

c. If the Chaplain, librarian, or Muslim interpreter, within the needs of the situation, cannot remove the Koran, then the MP may remove the Koran after approved by the DOC (who notes this in the MP Blotter) IAW the following procedures:

1. Clean gloves will be put on in full view of the detainees prior to handling
2. Two hands will be used at all times when handling the Koran in manner signaling respect and reverence.
3. Place a clean, dry, detainee towel on the detainee bed and then place the Koran on top of the clean towel in a manner, which allows it to be wrapped without turning the Koran over at any time in a reverent manner. Ensure that the Koran is not placed in offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet, or dirty/wet area when doing this activity.

d. How the detainee reacted, observation by other detainees, and other potentially relevant observations will be annotated appropriately on the block significant activities sheet as well as staff journal. e. The Koran shall be returned to the librarian, Chaplain, or DOC (in that order).

f. Exception: Detainee in MSU may have a Koran if specifically authorized by a 508-1 or the Level 5 Block Entitlement Form. Once detainee leaves MSU, the same handling/removing policies and procedures remain in effect.

6. Korans are the property of the U.S. Government and as such will remain in the cells only to be removed at the JDOG Commander’s decision.

The insensitive bastards.

[elucidator]

Oh, goody, there are rules! Well, then, that certainly settles that!

What, then, are we to believe Sam. Clearly, despite these spendid rules that you have displayed for us, things happened that shouldn’t have, don’t you think? Were the guards not exactingly trained as to these rules? Were they not supervised intently, with an eye to the gravity of the situation? Are we to believe that these are the actions of a few interoggatory entreprenuers, thinking outside the coffin?

I really hope that our leaders realize that the purpose of a war, the real winning of it (as much as such a thing is really possible) is the absence of enemies. A policy and procedure that creates more enemies than it neutralizes is the pure essence of raw stupid.

[Squink]

@Sam Stone

Here are the Military’s actual rules for handling the Koran

Nothing in there covering peeing on the things. Does that make it, technically, OK?

[elucidator]

OK, the word is in

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/guantanamo_detainees

The White House sought on Saturday to minimize damage from new revelations about U.S. personnel mishandling the Koran at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison, accusing a few people of violating policy and the media of blowing “isolated incidents” out of proportion…

Offered without comment.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

• That assumes they ever had it. There are vast swaths of the left who have been knee-jerkingly critical and hostile to the U.S. military since Vietnam.*

Once again Sam demonstrates the deep respect he feels for those who do not share his own political convictions. Why it seems like only yesterday, he was doling out grandfatherly advice, telling a poster to never generalize about folks, but to judge each poster on his own merits.

And all he ever asks for is just a modicum of that respect in return.

We should be ashamed of ourselves for picking on him like we do.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Oh, goody, there are rules! Well, then, that certainly settles that!

I don’t think **Sam **intended that to “settle” anything, other than to demonstrate that it is not US policy to treat the Koran disrespectfully. Are you seriously charging that one should expect rules never to be broken? I just can’t see that the instances of breaced protocal are significantly worse than one would see in any prison anywhere in the world.

And that’s one of the problems with a place like Gitmo. Is it a net benefit or a net liability for US? Even if it were run smoothe as silk, it would still be a net liability, IMO.

So here’s the deal. Assuming that we keep Gitmo as a holding area for “enemy comatants”, can you tell us how to run it in such a way that rules are never broken? I’m afraid that as long as it’s kept running, shit like this is going to happen. And that’s just one more reason to shut it down-- if we even need any more reasons.

[Uzi]

@Giraffe

If you were talking about one or two isolated events, I might buy this. But we are talking about case after case after case, in Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan, and in Guantanamo. These events, in addition to simply being abhorrent to the principles the U.S. should stand for, are creating an image of us as evil, sadistic motherfuckers among the exact people we’d like to not view us this way. This represents a national security threat, and thus can not be dismissed with “well, as long as the guards get punished it’s OK”.

I’ll let you in on a secret: the people who are upset about this already think you are sadistic motherfuckers and other worse things.
Do people think that given the rules Sam posted, even if they were completely followed, that there won’t be other issues that will arise, either by ignorance, or on purpose that won’t cause someone to be offended somewhere for something? The people in question who are objecting to what happened are looking for anything they can to be offended and then use that to their purposes. Are you really hoping to make friends with people who will riot and kill because someone may have flushed their version of the ‘holy’ book?
Instead of trying to make guys in difficult situations like soldiers, prison guards, et al, act like robots that don’t make mistakes maybe teach some perpective to those who make such a big deal out of such things like a book getting water on it. If you can do that successfully then they won’t think you are evil motherfuckers anymore.

[John_Mace]

@Uzi

…maybe teach some perpective to those who make such a big deal out of such things like a book getting water on it. If you can do that successfully then they won’t think you are evil motherfuckers anymore.

While I sympathize somewhat with the point of view in the first part of your post, how exactly does one go about doing that (the section I quoted)?

And keep in mind that bad press can still create more al Qaeda recruits than there already are.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

From the FBI emails on interrogation practices at Guantanamo, and elsewhere (the blank spaces are sections that have been censored):

• “Of concern, DOD interrogators impersonating Supervisory Special Agents of the FBI told a detainee that _______________. These same interrogation teams then __________________________________________________________________________________. The detainee was also told by this interrogation team _______________________________. These tactics have produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature to date and CITF believes that techniques have destroyed any chance of prosecuting this detainee. If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [by] the “FBI” interrogators.
  “BAU personnel witnessed sleep deprivation, _______________ and utilization of loud music/bright lights/growling dogs in the Detainee interview process by DOD representatives.”
  “The following information provides initial details from an individual ________________ who observed serious physical abuses of civilian detainees in ___________________________ Iraq during the period of _________________. . . . ____________________ observed numerous physical abuse incidents of Iraqi civilian detainees conducted in ______________________ Iraq. He described that such abuses included strangulation, beatings, placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees ear openings, and unauthorized interrogations. ___________________________ was providing this information to the FBI based on his knowledge that _____________________________ cover-up of these abuses. He stated these cover-up efforts included ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________. . . .”
  “Here is a brief summary of what I observed at GTMO. On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand a foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18 24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. . . . On another occasion, the A/C had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room probably well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night. . . .”
  “I am responding to your request for feedback on aggressive treatment and improper interview techniques used on detainees at GTMO. I did observe treatment that was not only aggressive, but personally very upsetting, although I can’t say that this treatment was perpetrated by Bureau employees. It seemed that these techniques were being employed by the military, government contract employees and ____________________________.”*

…and, to my mind, the real kicker:

*Since DOSC ________________ and my arrival in Iraq, we have been very careful to instruct our personnel to use only standard interview techniques which we would utilize back home in our regular work. We have also instructed our personnel not to participate in interrogation by military personnel which might include techniques authorize by Executive Order but beyond the bounds of standard FBI practice….

…I wish to make clear our personnel have been present at various facilities when interrogation techniques made lawful by Executive Order, but outside standard FBI practice, were utilized. While our personnel did not participate in these interrogations, they heard/saw that such interrogations were under way.

Our questions relate to the instruction in the EC to report abuse. The EC states that if “an FBI employee knows or suspects non-FBI personnel has abused or is abusing or mistreating a detainee, the FBI employee must report the incident.”

This instruction begs the question of what constitutes “abuse.” WE assume this does not include lawful interrogation techniques authorized by Executive Order. We are aware that prior to a revision in policy last week, an Executive Order signed by President Bush authorized the following techniques among others: sleep “management,” use of MWDs (military working dogs), “stress positions” such as half squats, “environmental manipulation” such as the use of loud music, sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc. We assume that the OGC instruction does not include the reporting of these authorize interrogation techniques, and that the use of these techniques does not constitute “abuse.”

…According to a Task Force 6-26 e-mail stream I have seen, the following techniques can no longer be used absent high-level authorization: stress positions, MWDs, sleep management, hoods, stripping (except for health inspection), and environmental manipulation….

UACB we will still not report the use of these techniques as “abuse” since we will not be in a position to know whether, or not, the authorization for these tactics was received from the aforementioned high-level officials.

We will consider as abuse any physical beatings, sexual humiliation or touching, and any other conduct clearly constituting abuse. Yet, there may be a problem if OGC does not clearly define “abuse” and if OGC does not draw a clear line between conduct that is clearly abusive and conduct that, while seemingly harsh, is permissible under applicable Executive Orders and other laws….*

This last email is dated May 22 2004. That seems to imply that up until the week prior, the interrogation techniques described (including stripping) were sanctioned by Executive Order and did not require “high-level authorization.”

Yes, yes. Very sensitive bastards, indeed.

[Uzi]

@John Mace

While I sympathize somewhat with the point of view in the first part of your post, how exactly does one go about doing that (the section I quoted)?

And keep in mind that bad press can still create more al Qaeda recruits than there already are.

One of the things that can be done is not to over-react when these things occur. Instead of, “OMG!!, The Sky is Falling! We have to find out which monster is responsible for this happening (probably Bush) and have them killed immediately.”, how about, “A number of our people made a mistake that we are looking into and correcting. These things happen and are unfortunate. We don’t expect our people to be perfect, but we do expect them to act professionally”. Then get on with your lives. Why make something so minor a major issue?

Bad press is going to happen no matter what you do. Handling that press correctly can make a world of difference.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Uzi

Bad press is going to happen no matter what you do. Handling that press correctly can make a world of difference.

Karl Rove? Is that you? :dubious:

[Sam_Stone]

@Mr. Svinlesha

Once again Sam demonstrates the deep respect he feels for those who do not share his own political convictions. Why it seems like only yesterday, he was doling out grandfatherly advice, telling a poster to never generalize about folks, but to judge each poster on his own merits.

And all he ever asks for is just a modicum of that respect in return.

We should be ashamed of ourselves for picking on him like we do.

Do you seriously deny what I said? That in the past there hasn’t been a general antipathy towards the military among large segments of the liberal population?

[elucidator]

Well, yes and no, Sam, yes and no.

A lot of us empathize rather directly with the enlisted, as they are so often our fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins…and selves. But our empathy fades the farther up the pay grades you go, until you go right out of the ranks altogether and you reach the suits, the men who make the damfool decisions, men who pervert a soldier’s oath to protect into something repulsive and wrong.

Happily for us, the C in C so often manifests and embodies everything we find detestable, a self righteous certainty the mobilizes vast reserves of ignorance. Saves time.

Here’s something I now, Sam, because of the fact that I’ve hung out so much with the lefties, lo, these many years. The guys I think of as really radical, guys distinctly to the left of yours more-or-less truly… A lot of them are vets.

A lot of them.

[mhendo]

@Sam Stone

Do you seriously deny what I said? That in the past there hasn’t been a general antipathy towards the military among large segments of the liberal population?

Depends what you mean by “the military.”

I have a certain amount of antipathy towards the untold sums of money spent on the military. I have some antipathy towards the extent to which the American military gets involved in places where it has no business, often in direct defiance of world opinion and the UN. And i have an antipathy to Commanders in Chief and other high ranking military people who are willing to send soldiers in to be killed, and who are willing to give orders that result in the death of thousands of civilians, on very slim pretexts.

On the other hand, i have a lot of respect for those who join the military because they believe in serving and defending their people. And i have even more respect for those who do this dangerous job without resorting to the sort of disgraceful tactics that we see in places like Abu Ghraib. And i also have empathy for working class and poor people in America who feel that their only chance to escape their precarious financial situation is to join the military.

I believe that quite a lot of liberals and leftists feel as i do. It’s very rarely a blanket condemnation of or antipathy for the military in general.

I hate to inform you, but we don’t really spit on soldiers.

[mhendo]

And elucidator beat me to it while i was writing.

@elucidator

Here’s something I know, Sam, because of the fact that I’ve hung out so much with the lefties, lo, these many years. The guys I think of as really radical, guys distinctly to the left of yours more-or-less truly… A lot of them are vets.

A lot of them.

Another point i was going to make, but then forgot. Thanks for including it.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Yes, yes, yes, and YES, mhendo and elucidator.

Please, please, please can we move beyond the tired old canard that liberal/left = soldier-hater? It’s as stupid and counterproductive as insisting that conservative/right = warmonging robber baron. The extremes of both wings in American political thought do not define where most of us sit along that spectrum. Trying to cram the entirety of your opposition into such a narrow caricature pretty much guarantees you can’t reach a compromise that respects the intelligence and good will of people you have to work with whether or not you agree with them.

Yes, I do believe that there are some among the right who are as despicable, cynically manipulative, and all-around oogie as the more, ah, passionate among us lefties insist. But so what? There are folks on my side I really wish would drop off the face of the Earth.

[Sevastopol]

@Giraffe

If you were talking about one or two isolated events, I might buy this. But we are talking about case after case after case, in Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan, and in Guantanamo. These events, in addition to simply being abhorrent to the principles the U.S. should stand for, are creating an image of us as evil, sadistic motherfuckers among the exact people we’d like to not view us this way.

Alternatively, these events are fully consistent with the principles the US now stands for, and the image created is precisely the one most welcomed in heartland USA.