| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Afghanistan/South Asia | ||
| Report: Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths | ||
| 2005-05-20 | ||
The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days. Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face. "Come on, drink!" the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. "Drink!" At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling. "Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying. Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.
| ||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #33 Yes it does. All the right wing neo-cons that abound in here. But alas I’ve grown bored of your putrid site. So I’ll leave you all to fester and stink in your filth. One last genuine piece of advice, don’t let that fool Norm near the Whitehouse. Goodbye potato heads. |
| Posted by: Get Real 2005-05-20 22:58 |
| #32 Haha. Stupid man. I'm sure the admin of this site can confirm that my IP has not changed before and after disgusted's post. And I’m sure disgusted has a different one. Are you that shocked people have a differing opinion to your own? |
| Posted by: Get Real 2005-05-20 22:37 |
| #31 Don’t be shocked disgusted as most of the people here have far right extreme views, and this is the only place anyone will listen to them. I only noticed this site a day ago and decided to amuse myself a little. |
| Posted by: Get Real 2005-05-20 22:09 |
| #30 "I am surprised DNA can get that screwed up twice.....bio-weirdness abounds. Two invertebrates with the same grammar!" Frank, love those sweet notes!!! LOL! |
| Posted by: Gregorii Spemblov 2005-05-20 23:03 |
| #29 thks Emily |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-05-20 23:02 |
| #28 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted] |
| Posted by: Get Real TROLL 2005-05-20 22:58 |
| #27 I am surprised DNA can get that screwed up twice.....bio-weirdness abounds. Two invertebrates with the same grammar! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-05-20 22:46 |
| #26 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted] |
| Posted by: Get Real TROLL 2005-05-20 22:37 |
| #25 th eTimes report was old news, and people were punished. To swee sick f*cks like you wallow in the "self"-flagellation while disregarding the nature of your enemy is to see the human detritus that will scatter when Islam comes to call. You'll be begging others to give in. A waste of skin and air. Nite POS |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-05-20 22:30 |
| #24 "both" of you can bite me. Get real - your time here is wasted. so is your alter ego Disgusted |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-05-20 22:27 |
| #23 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted] |
| Posted by: Get Real TROLL 2005-05-20 22:09 |
| #22 I've perused the comments in response to the Times report and I am really shocked. Most people posting here seem to think torture and murder are acceptable and that any reporting that brings this sort of behavior by Americans to light is evil. That mode of thinking is SICK -- and people thinking along those lines are animals, no better than the terrorists they profess to hate. If this country is to have any hope of regaining the respect of the world, we will have to stop being brutal, vile hypocrites or, like many who seem to visit this site, apologizing aggressively for brutal, vile hypocrites. The worst aspect of the story is that the creeps who tortured and murdered other people will get off very lightly for their grotesque behavior. In fact, they would probably be punished more severely if they killed a dog on main street in one of the two bit towns they crawled out of. Support our troops? Give me a fucking break. |
| Posted by: Disgusted 2005-05-20 21:57 |
| #21 Dave D. My guess is a good beating. They have it comming. In spades. I intend to be a mean, nasty and ofensive to all journalists of all stripes until they get the message. Stop stabbing us in the back if you expect to live in the same space as I do or share the same air. Anyone who works for the "times" is a target for a broken limb if they should happen to get in my way and fall down on the curb. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-05-20 16:12 |
| #20 The story ... emerge[s] from a nearly 2,000-page confidential file of the Army's criminal investigation into the case, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.... The Times obtained a copy of the file from a person involved in the investigation who was critical of the methods used at Bagram and the military's response to the deaths. Some q's for the Times: - When did the investigation conclude? - When and how did the Times "obtain" this file? Did they seek it out from their source immediately after the uproar over Newsweek's PissKoran article? Or has it been on the shelf, and if so, for how long? |
| Posted by: thibaud (aka lex) 2005-05-20 16:11 |
| #19 The MSM seem absolutely, utterly determined to keep us-- by whatever means necessary-- from winning this war. Why? What the f*ck do these idiots want, anyway? What the hell do they think they're going to achieve by doing this? |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-05-20 16:03 |
| #18 This is like watching obsessive compulsives. They keep doing the same thing over and over, whether it's appropriate or not, whether it makes sense or not. The objective on a two-year-old story like this can't be to inform or to shed light on current actions. Its only worth is to push an agendam, banking on the probability that the Great Unwashed won't notice the date... |
| Posted by: Fred 2005-05-20 15:11 |
| #17 I was going to give the MSM and in particular the NYT's about a week, not 48 hours for chrissake, to start coming up with long exposes of "real" and "confirmable" military crimes. Not those without attribution and discredited but real meat on the bones stuff. But typically, you can't trust these guys - they have this stuff sitting on shelve ready to go once someone finds a credibility weakness in them. There is also the story of Red Cross reports on Koran handling in the NYT's today - a real CYA twofer. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2005-05-20 14:54 |
| #16 Scoop Fellatio in the W.H. Cover-up denied |
| Posted by: SwissTex 2005-05-20 12:21 |
| #15 To spike would make me complicit in a new wrong--a coverup. Bullshit, "OregonGuy". A cover-up would mean no one is punished, no one is held responsible. People have been tried, convicted, and punished for their role in the abuses involved in this story. Hell, I suspect that just like Abu Ghraib, the existence and progress of this investigation were covered in daily briefings. It just wasn't considered newsworthy, because reporting it at the time would have emphasized that the military was dealing with the issue. But now, the press can conveniently gloss over that fact, and treat it as something "new" and "important". If you're really in the news business, your concept of a "cover-up" and your sense of what's "news" is emblematic of what's wrong with the modern press. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-05-20 11:47 |
| #14 GIVING NEWSWEEK COVER [John Podhoretz] The New York Times continues the bizarre act of carrying Newsweek's water in the wake of the false Koran-desecration story (which I write about this morning here). The paper's lead story is a lurid account of the vicious treatment of two Afghan prisoners by U.S. soldiers -- events that occurred in December 2002 and for which seven servicemen have been properly punished. Let me repeat that: December 2002. That's two and a half years ago. Every detail published by the Times comes from a report done by the U.S. military, which did the investigating and the punishing. The publication of this piece this week is an effort not to get at the truth, not to praise the military establishment for rooting out the evil being done, but to make the point that the United States is engaged in despicable conduct as it fights the war on terror. In the name of covering the behinds of media colleagues, all is fair in hate and war. that's not spiking OG, that's regurgitating so the bile can be tasted again |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-05-20 10:55 |
| #13 More of the "old news because we have nothing new to smear with today". I've seen a bunch of these old "news" stories lately. They're good, cheap propaganda that allow the NYT and other MSM to minimize expenditures on foreign correspondents and real news. When's the last time you saw a real story on what the Afghan government is doing in 2005? You'll get quotes from the president or foreign minister because they're easy to obtain, but you don't get reporters doing reporting at the grass roots level. The tip-off is that they don't give you the 2002 date until paragraph 8. By then the horror story is already told and the victim is already dead. No unbiased newspaper journalist is going to give you the "who, what, where, and why" but save the "when" to paragraph 8. Those "five W's" are supposed to be right up at the top. But, of course, the NYT is biased against W's. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-05-20 10:42 |
| #12 As much as the Newsweek article wasn't news, this one is news. I hurt to know this. Following on the heels of the Newsweek stupid, I believe the NYT piece to be brutal and true. I would not spike this story. My readers expect me o find information out for them. After confirmations had been double-checked and a talk with the attorneys, after submission to the review board, I am sure that I would run this story. You can't make truth go away be not reporting it. I believe in the mission and the military. To spike would make me complicit in a new wrong--a coverup. |
| Posted by: OregonGuy 2005-05-20 10:30 |
| #11 This is just the NYT covering for Newsweek. More of the "fake but true" mindset coming through. |
| Posted by: MW 2005-05-20 10:22 |
| #10 Ah. Here's the scoop on this "story": o These events occured in 2002. o The military investigated, prosecuted, and punished those responsible. o All of the details in the "story" come from the military's investigation. In other words, this is a non-story. It's not news. It's muck-raking. It's back-stabbing. It's par for the course for the New York Slimes. Anyone remember how every new revelation about Clinton's corruption was met with yawns and cries of "that's an old story"? It seems the press has different standards when the story hurts the war effort, damages the US, and puts us all at risk. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-05-20 09:35 |
| #9 Note that the NYT specifically names someone involved. Either: o They got this from official military records. o Their source is iron-clad. o Or, they're going to be in court explaining why they defamed Specialist Claus. At what point can we start to prosecute the press for treason? We don't have to worry about them admitting to it; they're actions are out in public. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-05-20 08:26 |
| #8 Why not, JM? I would! |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-05-20 08:12 |
| #7 It bolsters claims that the whole of the military is out of control. Absofrigginlutely badanov, that is exactly what that birdcage liner and its cast leftyf*ckwits is shooting for. Reading the Times is easiest when you know their mindset is evil Chimpy Bushitler unleashed the knuckle dragging American mititary on poor misunderstood "insurgents". I wouldn't wipe my dogs ass with that rag. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2005-05-20 08:04 |
| #6 It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time. agreed - this sentence says many things, depending on your bias. It tells me the interrogators were not American. It also tells me they are still not sure about the mook's guilt or not...how many sources? How much hard evidence? The NYT would like to smear all of the military. Their bias makes anything they print suspect |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-05-20 08:00 |
| #5 This is not torture. This is routine humiliation with rough handling. The NYT article is (deliberately) vague on the nationality of the guards, but I'm willing to bet most or all are Afghans, who were doubtless baffled by how well the Americans treated the prisoners and were well aware what the Taliban had done to their relatives. I'm sick of this handwringing everything must be perfect shit. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-05-20 02:23 |
| #4 It speaks well of us that we worry about these things. But the brutal reality is that innocents will keep on getting caught in the net. If the interrogators were overly forceful, then new guidelines need to be set. Prosecuting people for actions that occurred before guidelines were set seems unfair. It's not like our people are setting these suspects alight and then mutilating their bodies. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-05-20 01:56 |
| #3 While I agree with Steve this cannot stand, I get this queasy feeling when I read anything from the New York Times, an underlying glee with which these writers try to smear the whole of the military with leaked raw material. The thrust of this "story" is clear. The same people who committed the alleged abuses at Abu Ghraid were the same ones described in this story. It bolsters claims that the whole of the military is out of control. I no more believe that than I do the NY Times is an unbiased source for news, but the Times sure does. What is interesting is that the times described the leaker as a "person involved in the investigation who was critical of the methods used at Bagram and the military's response to the deaths." rather than imputing any other reason that could conceivably cause the military to investigate how this leak occurred. Very slick and very sleazy, NY Times. Not only do you get to make matters worse for us on the battlefield, your little weasel who stole this information is still in, still giving information to you to further help your jihadi friends in the field. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-05-20 01:29 |
| #2 my spelling is less than average. |
| Posted by: Peepers 2005-05-20 01:05 |
| #1 No big surprise here, Once again the old grey whore regurgitates this old news to denigrate our soldiers and our commanders. Their articles about our military avarage about 99.9% negative. (agit/prop) OTOH I don't support sadism....If it's true that the Afghani was innocent, Court Marshal, DD,Leavenworth Penitentiary. ..break big rocks into little rocks. |
| Posted by: Mr. Peepers 2005-05-20 01:02 |