Gitmo abuse

POSTED BY: BarnStormer
UPDATED: Friday, June 24, 2005 06:00
VIEWED: 8401
PAGE 2 of 5

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

OPUS

Friday, June 10, 2005 4:55 AM

Newsweek printed a story as fact,that they couldn't confirm, period. They admitted it.

It's hardly just the admin that's trumpeting that the deaths were as a direct result of their story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4608949.stm

Unless you're suggesting the BBC is just another arm of the current admin?

As for the supposed "abuse" of the Koran, it's only relevent to the extent that people who ALREADY hate the US have something new to scream about. When islamofacists show as much concern for other religions and religious texts then I'll be concerned about how the koran is treated.
Here's a suggestion, go to Saudi Arabia and try to hand out some bibles, see what happens?

Finally I would suggest you crawl out of your hole of ignorance.
Try reading up on Islam during the time frames..1700 to 1800 and around 1240 to 1350 and look up Wahabism. Time frames, that even you have to admit were before this admin, and show where the current muslim fanatics and their beliefs come from.
If the media is going to talk about gitmo and koran "abuse" they should be accurate, without misleading headlines, even if it is a non-story.
Quite frankly the gitmo prisoners should be thankful they were given korans to begin with. My history may be a little fuzzy but I don't believe nazi prisoners were all given copies of mein kompf.

Opus

RUE

Friday, June 10, 2005 7:54 PM

Opus,

The Koran is considered a sacred object in a way the Bible is not. This is a belief common to all brands of Islam.

Jalalabad has never been a center of Wahabism or any type of Islamic fundamentalism.

The US presence in Afghanistan is wearing thin and there are many grievances simmering. 'Koran abuse' is emblematic of the entire problem.

If you read my earlier posting, you would see that despite the freightload of grievances, the protests were mostly non-violent. However, after troops shot and killed some protesters, some became violent.

What inaccurate headlines? The only ones I saw were that somehow the Newsweek STORY directly caused deaths. Links would be appreciated.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 10, 2005 8:14 PM

Rue- I have not been following this story, but I guess what you are saying is, it was police shooting ppl that caused the violence, not the story itself (which generated only peaceful demonstrations). Correct?

OPUS

Friday, June 10, 2005 11:20 PM

It's sacred to them, not to us, and they do view the bible, or cross as our holy relics and treat them with disrespect.
Never said Jalalabad was a fanatical center of islam. I was discussing the prisoners and their supporters.
The people in Afghanistan who would cause the most trouble after we left are the ones most anxious for us to leave, although I have no doubt anyone likes having a foreign force in country.
I don't believe I desputed your facts on the shootings.
Regarding headlines, the deaths attributed to the original Newsweek story was, as you put it, like an echo chamber, within the MEDIA. It was reported once with no proof. Then picked up on and spread by the rest of the media. I've no doubt the admin used it as their source, like any other administration, such as watching the gulf war on CNN. This says more about the media than the admin.
This headline was more in line with what I was speaking of regarding missleading headlines.
(REUTERS)
FBI memo reports Guantanamo guards flushing Koran
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050525/ts_nm/security_guantanamo_koran_dc

The headlines state it as fact, the article shows it was only an allegation.

Opus

RUE

Saturday, June 11, 2005 3:01 AM

SignyM - exactly.

Opus - As a matter of fact, the very first sentence in the article says: "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on Wednesday that a detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had accused American jailers there of flushing the Koran down a toilet." I think it was clearly stating the FACTS, don't you?

OTOH there were hundreds of articles that headlined and also featured the Bush administration's claims that Newsweek caused deaths, that its actions bordered on treasonous, etc etc.

Mine's bigger than yours.

OPUS

Saturday, June 11, 2005 4:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
SignyM - exactly.

Opus - As a matter of fact, the very first sentence in the article says: "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on Wednesday that a detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had accused American jailers there of flushing the Koran down a toilet." I think it was clearly stating the FACTS, don't you?

The detainee "accused" the jailer of flushing. That's an important word. The headline stated it as if it had already been determined the guard DID flush it.
There is a difference between an allegation and a determination. That's why you will hear reporters say "Accused child molester Micheal Jackson" and not "Pedophile Micheal Jackson" when they talk about him.

If the Newsweek article can be shown to be responsible for even one US death,(US because the courts only have jurisdiction for them) someone at Newsweek should go to jail.
If the Whitehouse was basing their facts on the MEDIA's reports of deaths, then once again, it's more telling about the media and not the admin.
If articles written by Americans, in this case Newsweek, can be proven to have been deliberatly written to incite,support, help the enemy and hurt the US, then yes, that's treason.
Deliberate in this case, doubt it, just a journalist and editor who were biased to begin with,and went with a story they found believable rather than double checking because of that bias.
I don't fault the Whitehouse's defence one bit.

Opus

RUE

Saturday, June 11, 2005 4:52 AM

What a crock. I've got better things to do.

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, June 11, 2005 11:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Opus:
If articles written by Americans, in this case Newsweek, can be proven to have been deliberatly written to incite,support, help the enemy and hurt the US, then yes, that's treason.

Fer cryin' out loud! "The enemy?" Seriously, Opus, who is the enemy, exactly? "Terrorists?" That term is a little too nebulous to carry legal weight. Some lunatic justifies his violence because of something he read in the paper, and we're holding the paper responsible now? No amount of mere criticism of the administration or reporting of its scandalous behavior incites, supports or helps "the enemy." Man, this kind of thinking is way, way out of line. Treason? You can't be serious! Didn't your daddy ever teach you that if you don't want to be embarrassed, don't do anything embarrassing? It's not the media's fault if we behave like jackasses at Gitmo, and it sure ain't treason to report it. Why aren't you calling the fool who urinated on people and books treasonous? He's the guy that embarrasses our administration and our nation, not the reporter.

Why the hell is American urine getting anywhere near prisoners or books in the first place? Opus, you should not be called upon to defend this bullshit, and what side of the "Pissgate" controversy you are on should not be a measure of your patriotism. It simply shouldn't be happening!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

OPUS

Saturday, June 11, 2005 1:48 PM

If you DELIBERATELY do something to undermine your country,that is treason.
You'll notice I didn't say Newsweek was treasonous. Nor did I say that any bad reporting of the US is treasonous or wrong.
Their reporting was inept,careless, they were negligent. If one US citizen or soldier died because of it the reporter or editor should have to pay for it.
Their story was FALSE, I'll say it again FALSE.
Put another way, if a paper reported you killed someone without checking all the facts, that you were just a suspect. And a relative of the victim attacks you after reading the story. You don't think the paper should be held partially responsible for the attack? That the media can report whatever they want, true or not, without fear of consequences?
As for the supposed "abuse" of a book, pissed on or other wise. It's a non-story , the fact that they're given a koran to begin with is ridiculous. Let alone for our soldiers to have to go out of their way to treat it like a sacred object is obscene.
Finally treason is a DELIBERATE act to hurt the country. DELIBERATE. Some grunt pissing on a book hardly qualifies.

Opus

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 11, 2005 2:14 PM

Quote:
If the Newsweek article can be shown to be responsible for even one US death (US because the courts only have jurisdiction for them) someone at Newsweek should go to jail.

Why? Or, let me rephrase that- What about Bush's famous "Bring 'em on"? That sounded like incitement to me, and to a lot of people in the Armed Forces. Don't we hold the White House to the same standards as the press?

Quote:
If the Whitehouse was basing their facts on the MEDIA's reports of deaths, then once again, it's more telling about the media and not the admin.

Why? Doesn't the White House have a duty, staffers and intelligence agents to do some basic fact-checking? Since the FBI, CIA, NSA, and DIA all work for the Federal government the White House's resources are far superior to the press', and the only reason to echo this particular line is to whip the press for perceived negative reporting.

Quote:
If articles written by Americans, in this case Newsweek, can be proven to have been deliberatly written to incite,support, help the enemy and hurt the US, then yes, that's treason.

And the fact that someone high up in the Administration revealed an undercover CIA agent's name to the press, and that a (right wing) reporter chose to publish it, is.....?

I think we'd better parse this pretty carefully. When you talk about helping the enemy and hurting the US, that's a pretty broad brush. Who is the enemy? Who is the US? Let me give you one example- terrorists want to disrupt our economic activity by reducing confidence in our markets. A newpaper reports that there is a serious trading scam going on that the SEC doesn't seem to be addressing. The article could be construed as deliberately helping the enemy and hurting the US. Would you muzzle the article? If yes- why? If no- why not?

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE