McClatchey Report: U.S. Abused Afghan Detainees

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:54:51 AM EST
Tags: Guantanamo, detainees, torture (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

McClatchey newspapers has a new series of investigative reports based on its 8 month investigation into treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

An eight-month McClatchy investigation of the detention system created after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has found that the U.S. imprisoned innocent men, subjected them to abuse, stripped them of their legal rights and allowed Islamic militants to turn the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba into a school for jihad.

The report is in 8 parts. Today's segment is U.S. abuse of detainees was routine at Afghanistan bases. As to the investigation, [More...]

For eight months, reporters Tom Lasseter and Matthew Schofield traveled to 11 countries — from England to Pakistan — and interviewed 66 former detainees. They also interviewed political and military officials in those countries to try to establish the detainees' backgrounds and check their stories.

Lasseter and Schofield also combed through unclassified transcripts of the men's tribunal hearings at Guantanamo, when available, and Lasseter interviewed former White House and Department of Defense officials, former guards and lawyers for prisoners who had them.

< Safavian Conviction in Abramoff Scandal Overturned | DNCC Reschedules Convention Media WalkThrough >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

McClatchey Report: U.S. Abused Afghan Detainees | 14 comments (14 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

McClatchey. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Marco21 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:08:02 PM EST

The last news source that understands what journalism means.

This administration has disgraced our country beyond comprehension, all in our name and their heir McCain is considering adding Mr. "Double Guantanamo" to his ticket. At the very least, he'll be a bigwig in his administration.

Remember that in the fall.

Can someone explain to me (none / 0) (#2)
by litigatormom on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:23:15 PM EST

why, according to the WaPo poll discussed a couple of stories down, McCain retains an advantage over Obama on national security and terrorism, when he is Bush on Steroids when it comes to those issues? With the now vast majority of Americans opposed to another 100 years in Iraq and a new war in Iran, how can McCain have an advantage in this area?

It's not even like McCain has the old "I'm against torture" aura anymore. He caved on that when he voted against a bill that would have applied the prohibitions against torture that apply to the military to the CIA.

And let's not forget his inability to distinguish Sunni from Shi'a.


This will change. (none / 0) (#3)
by MissBrainerd on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:37:47 PM EST

Most people don't pay as close attention to news and politics as people who post on blogs do. WE know the facts, but the media pushes old stories like McCain the Maverick, Gore the Earth-toner, GOP-better on national security....though the facts show that more miltary people are donating to Obama than McCain.

It takes the media a loooong time to catch-up, if they ever do. But as Obama is heard by more people, this will begin to change.

Seems clear that violence doesn't accomplish much anymore.


do not change the subject (none / 0) (#8)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:52:29 PM EST

this post is not about Obama or McCain.


: Sorry but I don't see it. (none / 0) (#15)
by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:31:41 AM EST

the commenter asked why McCain is still seen as stronger on national security. I gave my opinion as to why I thought that was.
I guess the person I answered went off topic, but I was ON the topic of the person whose comment I answered!!

General Wesley Clark (none / 0) (#5)
by squeaky on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:58:49 PM EST

Has the answer via digby


Torture should have been the tipping point (none / 0) (#4)
by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:45:29 PM EST

... for Dems even before the 2004 election, even before the failure to stop the conservative abuse of the judicial arm through illicitly placed croney appointments.

It's not something decent people and lawmakers who claim to support freedom and human rights allow or disallow based on partisanship or media friendliness.

This should have been fought at the outset by both parties.

As a longtime activist for global human rights, I'm embarrassed that mine didn't, claiming they needed to "keep the powder dry" for some other important (???) fight around the corner.

Yes, the dry powder theme intrigues me. (none / 0) (#7)
by wurman on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:37:15 PM EST

Pelosi, Reid, & the rag-tag Democrats have kept so much dry powder since 2001 that I'm metaphorically concerned that there may be an event similar to the British Gunpowder Plot of 1605 (Wiki link).

I think the Democratic Party leadership should detonate all that dry powder between now & November for maximum effect against Bu$hInc. That way it won't be around to blow up in their faces on election day. If Pelosi began impeachment procedures now, with only torture as the sole charge, Sen. McCain would be on the defensive until election day arguing a complete & total non-sequitur to the US voters. He would be forced to either defend Bu$h or recant on the extreme interrogation methods.

Sen. Obama could sail above the whole thing with a simple statement that he would never approve such a thing as president--Geneva quaintness all the way.

Silly Democrats.


: Opposing torture: THE battle to define all others (none / 0) (#10)
by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:26:21 PM EST

Coming out strong and unified against that would have been a pivot point to go from perpetual defense to having a solid base from which to fight all other dismal abuses of power we saw in the Bush/Cheney era.
They shamelessly used Bush's War on Whatever to endorse every gratuitous measure to marshall partisan power and shred hard earned progressive advancement.
For me it's not merely a political issue since I've worked for NGOs and volunteered for them otherwise. It's being on the right side of an issue and it can't be parsed even when the news cycles attempt to do so.
It would have strengthened the Dems into a party worth respecting and given them a more solid forum even in media that's been habitually slanted against them.
They chose to run "D", so to speak, and even now the Obama camp's "Unity" platform promises a continuation of that, albeit in a younger costume.
It's not a total loss to clean house. Congress needs a wakeup call. They forget that as unpopular as Bush is and McCain might be, Congress fared even worse.
Should Obama be elected, he'll be running headlong into that beached whale of a carcass and much of his coterie's energy expended towards getting it in line.
I'll be curious to see whether (true to Dem form) the compliance they gave Bush will be less than their newfound willingness to run their own, factional agendas against the Executive Branch.
My issues haven't changed, but my automatic support and work for the Dem "brand" has. It was at their invitation and, under Obama, with their triumphal message of good riddance.

UGH (none / 0) (#9)
by JustJennifer on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:08:42 PM EST

Digusting. Horrific. We are on a total shame downward spiral and no one seems to want to step in and stop it.

Waiting for the outrage (none / 0) (#11)
by pluege on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:12:57 PM EST

I used to keep waiting for those who knew what it meant to be an American to get as outraged as I am. I expected a bunch of democrats, some media players, and even a bunch of republicans to raise a cacophony of noise against the outrage of torture. But other than a few Americans screaming in the lefty blogosphere, true Americans never stood up.

And still we discuss torture in the most banal and aloof ways, and there are many, many Americans across the spectrum that are loose on the streets that think it is a grand idea that a President classify anyone of their choosing (without trial or defense) as worthy of torture, and proceed to torture them.

American Values??? (none / 0) (#12)
by pluege on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:24:46 PM EST

the whole torture, indefinite detention, cooked trials, rendition, openly illegal wiretapping and acceptance of illegal activity by government officials is so disorienting its indescribable. All notions of American righteousness, humanity, and the rule of law formerly taken as given no longer seem applicable, or at least not inviolable. Its a very dirty feeling.


: A neglected "American value": (none / 0) (#13)
by jondee on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:48:47 PM EST

benign neglect, or, pretend it isnt happening until the plague starts seeping under the front gates.
This sounds like Attica. Abuse/dehumanization of prisoners and allowing them to turn the place into a
school for gangbangers. Gives 'em something to do.

Double Standard? (none / 0) (#14)
by ThgirRegniw on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:01:39 AM EST

I was into my early adult years before I was much interested in politics or the political landscape. As a former UAW member, Union Steward, and Committeeman I was exposed to the wacky world of liberalism. What I saw and experienced was, quite literally, jaw-dropping. I soon became aware that liberals (regardless of party affiliation) preach, teach, and practice a double standard.

I'm not in here to proclaim the innocence of those who did or do what this medical panel says was done. I don't wish to give the impression that I believe conservatives can do no wrong. Like everyone, I and they are human, too, and can really mess things up.

But where this starts to unravel for me is that the doctors/medical professionals have nothing against which to compare the prisoners' present condition. The information the detainees gave is, we should realize, is likely to be somewhat tainted against our country and, especially, their jailors. This makes the examinations speculative. Were the detainees tortured? We don't actually know, but it is likely some were. To what degree, we don't know for certain.

However, the blanket condemnation of the Bush Administration over this issue is troubling at best and outright disengenuous otherwise.

Saying the Bush Administration (or as some have put it, the Bu$h Admini$tration) is responsible for this is akin to saying that those on the Clinton White House staff were likewise involved in the Clinton-Lewinsky business.

It seems odd to me that the world heard rarely a liberal voice when those American military women were raped and beaten and psychologically tortured by their Iraqi captors; that the liberal protests were hardly anywhere to be heard when Daniel Pearl was viciously beheaded and the whole act videotaped and posted on the Internet for the world to see; that liberals were, for the most part, silent when those engineers/contractors were tortured, beaten, cut apart and their bodies tied to a main thoroughfare bridge some years back; that unspeakable atrocities have occurred in the name of a "religion of peace"; that no liberal politician has spoken out against Muslim leader as-Sadr's "gracious" extension of a cease fire order (since when is it right for a religious person, regardless of sect, to call for, approve, and promote the death of anyone they perceive as an infidel/unbeliever?).

I think it's fair to say that I don't agree with how some of Guantanamo's detainees are treated. I also think it's fair to say that throwing feces, semen, and other body fluids on their captors exhibits the utter hatred they have for Americans and particularly the American military.

Much of the liberal viewpoint and their methods have been copied from the communist party line. Is communism dead? Hardly. It's alive and being practiced in the USA. It's new name: liberalism.

Incidentally, I'm not trolling here. I'm genuinely concerned for our country and the divisiveness I see on every hand.