The Gitmo Three, Cont'd
Over at First Things, Joe Carter has published a strongly worded rebuke to my most recent Daily Beast column. Due to the admirable writing he has published against torture and his experience as a Marine, I’m inclined to take his thoughts on this subject quite seriously, and I encourage everyone to read his criticism in full, but I am unpersuaded by his arguments.
Our disagreement concerns this Harper’s Magazine article on the deaths of three Gitmo detainees. It is worth noting that even if Mr. Carter is correct, and all three deaths were suicides, the United States did a bad thing — after all, our own government concluded that one of the detainees didn’t have any connection to Al Qaeda or the Taliban, and posed no threat to the United States when he was scooped up at age 17, so in the best case, we arrested an innocent teenager and held him in Cuba absent any evidence of wrongdoing so long that he decided to kill himself. That alone is an injustice that ought to trouble anyone who believes that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the God given rights of all humans, and were an American teenager held by a foreign government with a similar dearth of evidence I am sure you can imagine how insistent everyone would be about the injustice, even if he didn’t wind up dead.
At the core of my disagreement with Mr. Carter, however, is whether it’s more likely that these detainees committed suicide or were killed by someone working for our government, whether Gitmo guards, CIA agents, military interrogators, or someone else. In arguing that the detainees committed suicide, and mocking the notion that they might have been killed, Mr. Carter disparages Harper’s Magazine, comparing it unfavorably to the National Inquirer, and notes that its writer, Scoot Horton, is a human writes lawyer, not a journalist. I’ve been critical about pieces that appear in Harper’s, but I’ve never known the magazine to publish fabrications, and I actually think that a human rights lawyer has a professional skill set that is particularly useful preparation for writing about misconduct at a military prison. So Mr. Carter’s arguments fail on their own terms.
Even more importantly, Mr. Carter apparently fails to realize is that a study released by Seton Hall Law School itself casts devastating doubts on the official narrative of the detainee deaths. All by itself, that study raises enough questions to warrant a new investigation. I’ll quote from the executive summary:
— The original military press releases did not report that the detainees had been dead for more than two hours when they were discovered, nor that rigor mortis had set in by the time of discovery.
— There is no explanation of how three bodies could have hung in cells for at least two hours while the cells were under constant supervision, both by video camera and by guards continually walking the corridors guarding only 28 detainees.
— There is no explanation of how each of the detainees, much less all three, could have done the following: braided a noose by tearing up his sheets and/or clothing, made a mannequin of himself so it would appear to the guards he was asleep in his cell, hung sheets to block vision into the cell—a violation of Standard Operating Procedures, tied his feet together, tied his hands together, hung the noose from the metal mesh of the cell wall and/or ceiling, climbed up on to the sink, put the noose around his neck and released his weight to result in death by strangulation, hanged until dead and hung for at least two hours completely unnoticed by guards.
— There is no indication that the medics observed anything unusual on the cell block at the time that the detainees were hanging dead in their cells.
— The initial military press releases did not report that, when the detainees‘ bodies arrived at the clinic, it was determined that each had a rag obstructing his throat.
— There is no explanation of how the supposed acts of ―asymmetrical warfare‖ could have been coordinated by the three detainees, who had been on the same cell block fewer than 72 hours with occupied and unoccupied cells between them and under constant supervision.
— There is no explanation of why the Alpha Block guards were advised that they were suspected of making false statements or failing to obey direct orders.
— There is no explanation of why the guards were ordered not to provide sworn statements about what happened that night.
— There is no explanation of why the government seemed to be unable to determine which guards were on duty that night in Alpha Block.
— There is no explanation of why the guards who brought the bodies to the medics did not tell the medics what had happened to cause the deaths and why the medics never asked how the deaths had occurred.
— There is no explanation of why no one was disciplined for acts or failures to act that night.
— There is no explanation of why the guards on duty in the cell block were not systematically interviewed about the events of the night; why the medics who visited the cell block before the hangings were not interviewed; or why the tower guards, who had the responsibility and ability to observe all activity in the camp, were not interviewed.
Although the Harper’s Magazine story runs through the implausible official narrative, highlighting its most unbelievable absurdities, it is hardly alone in doing so. The main additional piece of reporting that Mr. Horton contributes is the testimony of four guards on duty at Gitmo on the night in question who allege some kind of cover-up, and felt strongly enough about the matter to seek out law enforcement officials in the Obama Administration. It is true that none of these guards can prove that the detainees were killed, but their testimony is at the very least persuasive evidence that the official narrative is partially fabricated. What motive do these men have to lie? I appreciate Mr. Carter’s service to our country, and concede that it gives him insights into this matter that I lack, but as he invokes his time in the service to assert that the Harper’s Magazine story is implausible, one can’t help but weigh more heavily the fact that at least four guys who served at the prison apparently do find it plausible!
Mr. Carter writes:
Now I’m a skeptical of the government as the next guy. But my skepticism includes the government’s ability to pull off such an elaborate and complex scheme.
I too am skeptical that the government could succeed at pulling off a cover-up like this, and lo, it seems as though they’re not succeeding — their official narrative is being rightly ridiculed as transparently implausible, and former Gitmo soldiers with no reason to lie are now challenging that narrative. It is my position that the government hasn’t succeeded in their cover-up at all: however those detainees died, one thing that seems clear is that it didn’t happen the way the official report says it did.
Mr. Carter also writes:
All of that, however, pales in comparison to my inability to believe that the Obama administration would risk their own credibility to cover up murder that happened on Bush’s watch. That strikes me as extremely implausible and no credible narrative for their motives has even been attempted. (Did the Kenya branch of the Illuminati—the one that forged the President’s birth certificate—pressure Obama into going along with the conspiracy?)
Insofar as I know, Mr. Carter, President Obama and I agree that torture is illegal, that water boarding is torture, and that the Bush Administration water boarded detainees. And of course there are also documented deaths of detainees under the last administration, apart from these three characters at Gitmo. What is President Obama’s motive for failing to investigate these crimes (“covering up” implies more than is necessary)? Perhaps the fact that it’s a battle he hasn’t any desire to wage, because he’d rather spend his political capital on other matters, and he knows that the American people as a whole would rather pretend that prisoner abuse under the Bush Administration never happened.
It’s perfectly reasonable for Mr. Carter to argue that we’ve insufficient evidence to prove the Gitmo three were murdered. My own view is that there is circumstantial evidence for that claim, though so far there isn’t evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I’d merely like to persuade Mr. Carter and other skeptics that there is enough fishiness going on here to warrant further investigation, and good reason to believe that whatever happened that night, the official narrative isn’t it. Unless perhaps someone has plausible explanations for the bulleted items above?
Even more importantly, Mr. Carter apparently fails to realize is that a study released by Seton Hall Law School itself casts devastating doubts on the official narrative of the detainee deaths.
Actually, it doesn’t. The Seton Hall study even admits that it is questioning the investigation, and not the narrative of events from that night in question: “The following report examines the investigation, not to determine what happened that night, but rather to assess why an investigation into three deaths could have failed to address significant issues.”
Also, “This report accepts as true all of the information released by the government to the extent that the information is not internally inconsistent.”
Again, let’s keep in mind that the Seton Hall Study is merely a criticism of the investigation. But even on that it fails since it is trying to reconstruct the investigation based on an incomplete understanding of all the material. As the study notes:
——The way in which the investigative files are presented makes it difficult to understand how the investigation was conducted. It produced more than 1,700 pages of interviews and information regarding the events of June 9 and 10, but the evidence obtained as presented is virtually impenetrable. Pages are missing, paragraphs are redacted, and documents with information are disorganized, making it difficult to review any of the evidence obtained through the investigations.——The investigation had its failings (as all investigations do) but the conclusion that that the deaths were suicides appears all but indisputable when all of the relevant facts are reviewed.
We will also see a little later in this comment that the Seton Hall report directly contradicts the key portion of Horton’s article.
All by itself, that study raises enough questions to warrant a new investigation.
Actually, there were three investigations done. Obama’s Justice Department—which unlike Seton Hall, had access to the full investigation—reviewed all three investigations and found nothing wrong with them.
The main additional piece of reporting that Mr. Horton contributes is the testimony of four guards on duty at Gitmo on the night in question who allege some kind of cover-up, and felt strongly enough about the matter to seek out law enforcement officials in the Obama Administration.
This is not entirely correct. Only one of the guards—Scott Hickman—makes any claim to have knowledge of a cover-up. Another soldier, Army Specialist Christopher Penvose, merely adds that he told was by someone “to go immediately to the Camp Delta chow hall, identify a female senior petty officer who would be dining there, and relay to her a specific code word.” (What this has to do with anything is unclear.) Tony Davila merely repeats a few rumors that he heard. David Caroll said he didn’t see any “prisoners transferred to the clinic that night, dead or alive.” (Which possibly contradicts part of Hickman’s testimony that bodies may have been unloaded at the medical clinic.)
It is also misleading to say that Hickman “felt strongly enough about the matter to seek out law enforcement officials in the Obama Administration.” The fact that he he didn’t feel strongly enough to speak out for three years raises doubts about his veracity. Also, the article says that “When Barack Obama became president, Hickman decided to act.” Technically, this isn’t a lie but it is misleading. As Scott Horton admits, Hickman decided to come forward after seeing him on Keith Olbermann’s show.
It is true that none of these guards can prove that the detainees were killed, but their testimony is at the very least persuasive evidence that the official narrative is partially fabricated. What motive do these men have to lie?
Let’s be clear: These guards can’t prove: (a) the existence of any CIA black site, (b) that any prisoners were moved at all that night, (c ) that the prisoners who died that night were the prisoners they claimed to have seen, (d) that the prisoners were not carried to the medical facility.
The fact is that they have no firsthand knowledge of any of the events that deal directly with the prisoners. They also did not feel it worth coming forward for three years to claim that the official narrative was wrong.
In contrast, 52 guards and medical personnel gave sworn statements within days of the deaths. These statements are quite detailed about what occurred that night (the Seton Hall reports agrees that there is no question the dead prisoners were transported from the cells to the medical facility).
What motive would these 52 men and women have for lying? And assuming they were, how were they able to get their stories so similar to pull off such a massive cover-up?
. . . but as he invokes his time in the service to assert that the Harper’s Magazine story is implausible, one can’t help but weigh more heavily the fact that at least four guys who served at the prison apparently do find it plausible!
So we are to discount the eyewitness testimony of over 50 servicemembers and the investigation by two criminal investigative units because four soldiers did not see the events in question?
Also, what are we to make of the fact that the Justice Department and FBI talked to these four solidiers and found their claims unpersuasive?
What I find surprising is that I know for a fact (at least I thought I did) that Conor would not have approved this story based on nothing more than the rumors of four National Guardsman. He has higher and more rigorous standards and would never have allowed this story to go to print without some sort of corroborating evidence. Conor would have attempted to contact at least one of the four dozen eyewitnesses to get the other side of the story. Horton makes no such effort.
This is one of the most shoddy pieces of investigate reporting I have ever seen. It makes WorldNetDaily’s reporting on the Birther nonsense seem Pulitzer worthy in comparison.
It is my position that the government hasn’t succeeded in their cover-up at all: however those detainees died, one thing that seems clear is that it didn’t happen the way the official report says it did.
You are entering Andrew Sullivan’s “Gitmo Truther” territory. Keep in mind that the Seton Hall study presents no evidence that the deaths were not suicides. Indeed, Scott Horton himself does not have the courage to claim that the deaths were not suicides. They are willing to let gullible people like Sullivan get out in front with such speculations while they hang back and can plausibly claim, “Well, I never said they were murders. . . “
Anyone who has read significant portions of the government’s report will conclude that the three deaths were suicides. Each of the prisoners was found in their cells with suicide notes. Each had soiled themselves. Each was in a state of rigor mortis that makes it impossible for them to have been moved and “adjusted” to fake a suicide. It is nearly impossible to believe that none of the other 25 prisoners heard anyone entering the cellblock to prop up three dead prisoners in order to make it look like a suicide. The “murder” narrative is so ridiculous that no one in their right mind can take it seriously.
Also, what shocks me is that those who are gullible enough to think these are murders that were covered-up seem not to ask the most basic question: Why would the very people are trying to make it look like a suicide include and admit to details that cast doubt on their story? Why go to trouble of creating an elaborate government conspiracy but include (when its not necessary) details that would raise questions about the event?
I’d merely like to persuade Mr. Carter and other skeptics that there is enough fishiness going on here to warrant further investigation, and good reason to believe that whatever happened that night, the official narrative isn’t it.
There were three investigations. The Justice Department investigated the investigations and found their conclusions satisfactory. At what point do we have to say that maybe the people who are in possession of all the facts might actually know more than the people who are trying to reconstruct the narrative based on rumor and incomplete documents?
I would be very, very leery of hanging your credibility on this Gitmo Truther story. Right now its still under the radar. If the story starts to gain more traction you will start seeing pushback from those accused of covering up three murders. All the government has to do is show the cell block videotapes that reveal the prisoners never left their cells to squash this one (You knew about the videotapes, right?). The result will be that those who fell for this nonsense will be left looking foolish.
But for those who believe this conspiracy is true, I encourage you to pressure the media to get to the bottom of this story. Get HuffPo to ask Gibbs at the next White House briefing why Obama’s FBI and Justice Department are involved in a cover-up (as Horton claims). If you really believe it, push it hard. The Birthers have had the spotlight for far too long. It’s time to let the Gitmo Truthers have their turn. ; )
— Joe Carter · Jan 23, 09:44 AM · #
Thank you, Conor, for homing in on precisely why Joe Carter’s rebuttals fall so completely flat.
Isn’t this a distinction without a difference? It is, after all, the investigation that lays out the narrative. I don’t see how you could question the investigation and its conclusions without that being the exact same thing as questioning the narrative, since the narrative comes from the conclusions of the investigation.
Maybe you don’t have a lot of experience reading legal documents, Joe, but this is an incredibly damning thing to say about an investigation. What this sentence means is that the Seton Hall reviewers found that the investigation arrived at conclusions that could not be supported by the evidence they related.
They’re all but calling the investigation and its conclusions bogus.
“Government investigates self; clears self of wrongdoing.” Once again you’re just giving more credibility to anonymous bureaucrats with every reason to lie than to named individuals testifying against their own self-interest.
Well, the NCIS investigator wrote that they did. Are these sworn statements available? Is every single one of these statements “oh, sure, I saw the men hang themselves in their cell”?
You don’t know the content of these statements or the persons who made them, so they’re hardly evidence in favor of your position.
Eyewitness testimony of what? Please be specific.
“Government investigates self; clears self of wrongdoing.”
— Chet · Jan 23, 10:04 AM · #
What this sentence means is that the Seton Hall reviewers found that the investigation arrived at conclusions that could not be supported by the evidence they related.
The Seton Hall study admits that it doesn’t have the information necessary to draw the necessary conclusions about the investigations. While the study provides a handy summary of some of the data, the actual report is a rather embarrassing presentation for a law school. For them to claim that over 85% of the documents have been redacted yet imply that they are still able to draw conclusions based on what is missing is just silly. I suspect that is why no one took the report seriously when it was released.
As for the rest, I’m not even going to bother arguing about it. You consider every explanation that refutes your point as further evidence of a massive conspiracy and cover-up.
I know its rather rude to say so, but I’m embarrassed that my friend Conor is associating himself with conspiracy theorists.
— Joe Carter · Jan 23, 11:05 AM · #
It’s from the fact that its missing (been redacted) that they draw their conclusions. It’s the dog that didn’t bark, in other words. The Seton Hall review makes it clear that the investigation did not meet its burden of proof in regards to substantiating its conclusions.
You have no explanations that refute my point, and you’ve mistaken your own impotence for some kind of intractability on my part.
This, frankly, is the best and only argument you have – the negative connotation of the word “conspiracy.” Yet, conspiracies happen. I don’t know what you’d call 9/11, for instance, but a conspiracy by 19 Al-Queda hijackers to deploy our own airplanes as weapons. Does it make you a “conspiracy theorist” to accept that narrative over the absurd claims of the 9/11 “truthers”?
We’re all waiting for you to present an argument that isn’t just an ad hominem attack.
— Chet · Jan 23, 11:22 AM · #
Conor,
Read the above back and forth with Chet, think about Joe Carter’s arguments, take a deep breath, and admit you are embarassed you took the “Harper’s” story seriously.
Then those of us who value your contributions to the “Scene” can keep reading your entries with a clean conscience.
— Arminius · Jan 23, 01:36 PM · #
For some context, recall that as of last year, over 100 detainees were killed in US custody. Some of these were ruled homicides by the military.
— matt · Jan 23, 03:05 PM · #
I’d like to add one more point that I forgot to mention yesterday. If we accept Hickman’s testimony as valid, then we can throw out everything that was found in the Seton Hall report. All of the testimony of the 50 guards and medical personell must be dismissed since they would have been lying about when the bodies arrived at the medical center. The guards and medical personnel claim it was around 12:40 AM while Hickman and Penrose claim it was 11:45 PM. So if the 50 lied about the time the bodies arrived, then we have no reason to believe anything else they claim (including how the bodies were found in the cells.)
So which one are we going to go with Hickman, et al. or the Seton Hall report? We can only choose one or the other.
— Joe Carter · Jan 23, 07:07 PM · #
I think Joe is right to demand we question the story rigorously, but wrong to be so passionately convinced of what he apparently wants to believe about its accuracy. Why do we have to conclude one way or the other? How will “further investigation,” as Conor recommends, hurt anyone?
I agree with Chet that throwing up the word “conspiracy,” making over-the-top attacks on particular publications and journalists, doesn’t make Joe any more persuasive.
I also don’t understand the grounds on which he is so convinced wrongdoing and cover-up could not have happened here. Did you follow Jane Mayer’s reporting in The New Yorker, or her book, “The Dark Side”? The “conspiracies” that indisputably occurred between 2001 and 2007 — involving torture, detainee murders, falsified reports, even changing the law in the service of covering up said evil deeds — are staggering in their depth, scope, and complexity. I would never have believed those things could happen under the United States government, especially that so many witnesses and whisteblowers could be slandered and silenced for so long. After that, I don’t know how anyone can doubt the ability of the military, intelligence agencies, and justice officials to keep the truth hidden — especially when no one, including the president, wants to find it.
— David Sessions · Jan 23, 09:23 PM · #
Joe Carter knows that there are’t “50 guards” who each individually claim anything akin to what he’s claiming they claim, here. There’s one NCIS report that claims to to have interviewed 52 guards, but it certainly doesn’t include their testimony – only the conclusions the NCIS investigator supposedly drew from them.
— Chet · Jan 24, 12:23 AM · #
Right, I mean obviously Arminius has no truck with conspiracy theories. He would never, for instance, assert that Wikipedia’s 11 million contributors are all engaged in a massive conspiracy to impugn the reputations of the researchers involved in the Tuskeege Syphilis experiment for, well, he never says why, exactly.
— Chet · Jan 24, 02:39 AM · #
Before I respond, I would like to encourage everyone in this discussion to read the NCIS report: http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/death_investigation/NCIS_DeathInvestigativeFiles.pdf.
The document is over 500 pages long, but even reading a sampling of the detailed testimony of the guards and medical staff will shed light on some of the more questionable claims made.
For example, despite the Seton Hall report’s claims that rags were “shoved down the prisoner’s throats,” the report says that they had merely gagged themselves (possibly from preventing them from biting off their tongues when they hung themselves). Also, the bound hands were only loosely tied, not tightly as some people presume. The entire event suddenly becomes much less nefarious once we become aware of what actually occurred.
I challenge anyone to read these and tell me that Hickman, et al., are telling the truth and these people are lying.
David says: I think Joe is right to demand we question the story rigorously, but wrong to be so passionately convinced of what he apparently wants to believe about its accuracy. Why do we have to conclude one way or the other?
The reason I think we have to conclude one way or the other is because we are accusing a group of people of covering up three murders. That’s a very serious charge and one that we should take very seriously. I’m passionately convinced because there has not been a shred of evidence presented that would cast a reasonable doubt on the conclusion that these prisoners had been murdered, much less that an extensive cover-up occurred.
It’s easy to forget that we are talking about individual men and women here. I can’t help but think about how I would feel if I or people I had served with in the military were being accused of such disgraceful actions. I would be rather ticked off that such claims were being made by respectable people based on mere hearsay.
It’s one thing for someone like Andrew Sullivan to say such things. He’s lost all credibility long ago and is not respected by serious-minded people. But for someone like Conor to make such claims is surprising and disappointing.
How will “further investigation,” as Conor recommends, hurt anyone?
It’s not that I’m opposed to “further investigation,” I just don’t see the point. Three investigations by three different agencies have already taken place. The problem is not that the results were inconclusive, it that the results don’t fit into the “Gitmo is a place of pure evil” narrative that some people have created. Do you really think that another investigation that concluded the deaths were suicide would change anything? Why would the people who thought the last three investigations were part of a massive cover-up be convinced by a fourth?
I agree with Chet that throwing up the word “conspiracy,” making over-the-top attacks on particular publications and journalists, doesn’t make Joe any more persuasive.
Read Scott Horton’s story—including the “Update”—and you’ll see that he is claiming that that numerous people are involved in a massive cover-up. How is that not a conspiracy? When theories are proposed that claim government officials are colluding to cover-up an event (the Kennedy assassination, Obama’s citizenship) we normally refer to them as “conspiracy theories.” We people claim that the “official story” is a lie and that the government is conspiring to hide the truth, we usually call it a “conspiracy theory.”
This doesn’t mean its not true, but we should call it what it is despite that fact that it might embarrass some people to be told that they are buying in to a (disreputable) conspiracy theory.
As for attacks on publications, I admit that it may be a bit over-the-top. But institutional reputation matters. If WorldNetDaily had presented this claim we would all be much more skeptical. Yet Harper’s, despite its venerable heritage, has the same lack of credibility. This is not to say that the magazine is wrong. The story could be true and we would still be warranted in our initial skepticism. When the National Enquirer broke the John Edwards story, we were all justified in assuming that it was less-than-credible despite the fact that they were right all along.
Also, I’m not one of those media snobs that think that only journalists can do real reporting. My problem with Horton is not that he is not an accredited investigative reporter, but that he is an activist. An investigative reporter may have biases, but generally their primary concern is getting to the truth. If they violate generally accepted journalistic ethics and protocols they know that it will damage their credibility. An activist—like Horton—is concerned more with advancing a particular agenda than with exposing the unvarnished truth. Even if his work is shoddy journalism, it will be forgiven by those who subscribe to his agenda. His article could end up being completely debunked and he will still have a job at Harper’s.
I also don’t understand the grounds on which he is so convinced wrongdoing and cover-up could not have happened here.
I think you misunderstand my position. It’s not that I think that similar atrocities could not occur. Over the last decade prisoners in military custody have been murdered and their killers have been brought to justice. I’m also open to the possibility that a cover-up can occur, though I think the size and scale that we are talking about is highly improbable.
But I am convinced that wrongdoing and cover-up did not happen in this case. The reason is that the evidence for suicide is overwhelming and convincing while the evidence for murders and cover-up is non-existent and unpersuasive.
The only reason that anyone is treating this seriously at all is because of what I would call the “Whistleblower fallacy.” We are conditioned to give more credibility to a single whistleblower—whose name we know—that steps forward with claims of wrongdoing and cover-up than we do the accused whose identities are unknown to us.
The reason that people like Chet can dismiss out-of-hand the testimony of dozens of eyewitness and accept the speculation of four people who have no firsthand knowledge is because we are conditioned to believe we are constantly being lied to and that solitary individuals who we can put a face to are more credible than collections of individuals whose identities are unknown to us.
Yet extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If it’s true that three murders occurred and that a half-dozen government agencies covered it up, then our duty as citizens is to ensure that justice is done. This means that dozens of people should go to jail, agency heads will be fired, corruption investigations should be launched, and President Obama should resign. The scope and scale of this allegation are so wide-ranging that nothing less is acceptable.
That means that the evidence for the allegations should be damning. But it is not. The deaths of these three prisoners were more thoroughly investigated than are any three average murders of American citizens. The conclusion that the deaths were suicides is overwhelming.
For what its worth, if speculation that you had murdered some people was based on such shoddy rumors I would defend you just as vociferously. ; )
Chet says: There’s one NCIS report that claims to to have interviewed 52 guards, but it certainly doesn’t include their testimony.
You might want to actually read the relevant documents before making such claims, Chet. Here again is the NCIS report: http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/death_investigation/NCIS_DeathInvestigativeFiles.pdf
It includes the sworn, signed testimony of guards and medical personnel. You should read it before making such claims about what was and was not done.
— Joe Carter · Jan 24, 07:56 AM · #
It’s one thing for someone like Andrew Sullivan to say such things. He’s lost all credibility long ago and is not respected by serious-minded people. But for someone like Conor to make such claims is surprising and disappointing.
Nothing personal Joe, but why should we look to you as a spokesman for serious-minded people? You claim that Andrew Sullivan lacks all credibility, but I’d suspect that is more of a statement of what you think and what you want others to think than how the world really works.
Even if his work is shoddy journalism, it will be forgiven by those who subscribe to his agenda. His article could end up being completely debunked and he will still have a job at Harper’s.
The same could be said for you and your work. You write for an ideological journal and your work history is in the conservative political-media complex, which is a world that isn’t known for expelling those whose work is factually-challenged at best. Leaving aside whether or not you are right with regard to this particular issue, it looks to me like you are playing the agenda game as much (if not more so) than those you criticize.
— Mark in Houston · Jan 24, 05:24 PM · #
Thank you, Joe; one might almost get the impression you’re attempting to argue in good faith.
But, yes, let’s take a look at the report in the light of your claim that “52 guards and medical staff were eyewitnesses to the suicide.” (One wonders how so many people could have personally eyewitnessed the discovery of these hanging corpses. Did they sell tickets?)
Let’s start with the first interviewee: “b3b6 advised that he was not present at Camp Delta when these suicides took place. b3b6 stated that he had no information to provide…b3b6 stated that he learned of the hangings by talking to people.” Oops! Not an eyewitness, then. (51 “eyewitnesses” left!) The next interviewee? The nurse who found the suicide note explains that on the night in question, he was “wrapping up the body of ISN 0093 for shipment” in the Detainee Acute Care Unit and “felt something he assumed was paper in the inside shirt pocket.” This was the suicide note, but notice that it was found on the body, not at the scene of the hanging. So scratch another eyewitness; the bodies had already been “cut down” when this individual discovered the note. (50).
Next (I’m just going down the pages until I find the next interviewee report), the Master Chief at Arms, who testifies that after hearing the alarm raised over radio, ran to Alpha block and saw “two guards holding 0093’s hands and feet. 0093 was lying on the deck in his cell and his eyes were rolled back.” Later, when the second body (588) was discovered, he arrived at that cell, only to find the body already lying on the deck as well. As well, when he arrived at the cell of 693, that body was also lying on the deck, not hanging from the noose.
So, another one of Joe’s “eyewitnesses” proves to never have actually seen any of the victims hanging from a noose. He did, however, see the first one with the rag stuffed down his throat. (49!)
The next interviewee? Informed that one of the detainees had “tried” to hang himself, didn’t actually observe the bodies until they were being carried out of the cell. (48!) The next is finally the first individual who personally testifies to the discovery of 0093 actually hanging by his neck, and the very next page after the record of his testimony is his notification of his legal rights and that he is “suspected of False Official Statements, UCMJ Article 107.) That’s pages 188-189, if you’re trying to follow my work. On the next page, apparently in response to suspicion of perjury, he amends his testimony to note that he at first did not see the detainee in the cell, but when another guard shouted “he’s hanging”, came into the cell to find that guard and the hanging body, with a surgical mask over the mouth and a rag in the throat. (How would a detainee get a surgical mask? How would a hands-bound man stuff a rag down his own throat and don a surgical mask, and why would a suicide need to do so?)
The next testimony is of another guard who only saw the bodies after they had been “cut down.” (47.) The next, the same. (46.) The next observed the bodies being carried out. (45.) The next concerns a guard not on duty at the time of the deaths who searched Alpha block and found nothing in the cells a detainee could hang himself with. (44.)
I’d go on all the way down the list but I think I’ve made my point. Joe’s disingenuous “52 eyewitnesses” claim is nothing but a mirage that evaporates on any kind of inspection. At the end of the day you have a great many guards and medical staff who were told that the detainees had hung themselves, and only 2 or 3 who actually testify to that fact, all of whom were notified of being under suspicion of giving false statements to investigators.
— Chet · Jan 24, 09:45 PM · #
Just to expand what I meant by this claim (which is correct): The NCIS report contains summaries of what interviewees supposedly said; it certainly doesn’t include tapes or video or transcripts of them actually saying it. The names are redacted so it’s impossible to connect this testimony to any actual individuals (so you can’t ask anyone “did you actually testify to this?” because it’s impossible to know who was reported as saying what.)
You can read the report yourself, thanks to Joe; it’s clear he hasn’t read it at all since it contradicts nearly everything he’s said about it. The NCIS report simply summarizes interviews and (supposedly) has interviewees sign them, it doesn’t include actual testimony.
— Chet · Jan 24, 10:19 PM · #
This episode with Joe has prompted some interesting rumination on my part about what conspiracy theories society is and isn’t prepared to accept. Note that it has absolutely nothing to do with plausibility or scope; assert that a little under 20 people engaged in a cover-up of three murders in which they were personally culpable, and that’s too much to be believed. Assert that literally hundreds of thousands of journalists are engaged in a conspiracy to misinform the American people and cover up Saddam Hussein’s nukes, the President’s Muslim religion, and Sarah Palin’s eloquence, intelligence, and ample qualification for the Presidency, and that’s something about 30% of Americans will swear up and down to.
Propose an international shadow organization with its aim the subjugation of all Western peoples, that has people everywhere and can strike anywhere at a moment’s notice regardless of our security measures and call it “the Illuminati” or “the Templars” and you’re a tinfoil hat guy. Call it “al Qaeda” instead and you’ve just described an accepted truth of international politics. Even knowing the name “MK ULTRA” is enough to have you dismissed as a conspiracy theorist, even though its existence is a matter of legal and historic fact (according to the GAO, the US Senate investigating committee, and the US Supreme Court.)
Wonder why the US had planned a military exercise involving hijacked airplanes and you’re a rabid conspiracy theorist.
Like I said, these things have nothing to do with what is true and false, supportable or not by evidence, plausibility, and so on. (For my own part I take no conclusive stance on any of these except to note that the accepted narratives are no less implausible than some of the alternatives. The truth will emerge with the dispassionate distance of time, I’m sure.) We just, as a society, somehow determine that it’s simply improper to ask for evidence of certain things. In every sense it’s exactly like our discourse on religion.
— Chet · Jan 24, 11:10 PM · #
Mark: Nothing personal Joe, but why should we look to you as a spokesman for serious-minded people? You claim that Andrew Sullivan lacks all credibility, but I’d suspect that is more of a statement of what you think and what you want others to think than how the world really works.
Actually, it is reflects the views of just about everyone I know or read online. Aside from a handful of bloggers that refrain from critizing him for fear that he won’t send them traffic anymore, no one I know (even some of his friends) takes Sullivan seriously anymore. Can you think of anyone who does?
Consider this: How much credibility does WorldNetDaily have after their involvemenet with the Birther nonsense? While I’m sure that they still run factual reports and get some things right, they are no longer a credible source of information. The same is true for Sullivan. He put forth something even worse, the stupidiest and silliest conspiracy theory or our time—the Trig Truther nonsense. If we are going to claim that WND is less credible for publishing ridiculous claims about Obama (as we should) then we should hold Sullvan to the same standard.
Also, Sullivan makes claims every day to the effect that Obama is a courageous and trustworthy leader. Yet he implies that Obama does not have the courage and can’t be trusted to investigate what would be the greatest coverup in modern history. How credible should we consider someone who exhibits such inconsistency?
The same could be said for you and your work. You write for an ideological journal and your work history is in the conservative political-media complex, which is a world that isn’t known for expelling those whose work is factually-challenged at best.
You’re absolutely right. I work in opinion journalism and am not an investigative reporter. If I were to present a story as an unbiased examination of a newsworthy event you would rightfully be more wary of accepting my conclusions than you would a journalist who worked for a straight news outlet.
Leaving aside whether or not you are right with regard to this particular issue, it looks to me like you are playing the agenda game as much (if not more so) than those you criticize.
True enough. And I will admit that in this instance I have two agendas that could be relevant. The first is that I unapologetically codemn torture. I am more oppossed to torture than even Sullivan. Yet I also realize that crying wolf when no evidence that tortures have occurred is counterproductive and makes it appear that anti-toture advocates are making up lies in order to push their agenda.
The second agenda is my commitmend not to have innocent people slandered by accusing them of murder and corruption without a shred of serious evidence. Having reviewed the case in some detail, I am willing to put my own credibility on the line in order to say without reservation that the evidence clearly points out that these deaths were suicides.
For those who disagree, I wish they would be willing to make the same level of commitment. The wishy-washy way in which some people (including Horton and Sullivan) are trying to imply that a murder and cover-up occurred—while refusing to say with conviction that this is what they actually believe—is cowardly. Anyone that thinks that Hickman and crew are telling the truth and yet don’t have the guts to call all of those involved liars and abbetters to murder should refrain from saying anything. This “I’m not saying they murdered anyone and covered it up, I’m just raising questions” position is gutless. Either stand by your position or refrain from slandering people by implying that they committed heinous crimes.
Chet: I’d go on all the way down the list but I think I’ve made my point. Joe’s disingenuous “52 eyewitnesses” claim is nothing but a mirage that evaporates on any kind of inspection.
Good grief. Please try to keep up, Chet. My claim is not that there were 52 eyewitnesses to every part of the narrative but that the 52 eyewitnesses testify to part of the narrative that contradicts the claims of Hickman, et al.
To review, Hickman makes three implications:
1. All three prisoners were removed from the cell before 8 PM.
2. No bodies were taken from the cells to the medical facility.
3. All of this occurred before midnight.
Each of the witnesses contradict one of those three claims.
The NCIS report simply summarizes interviews and (supposedly) has interviewees sign them, it doesn’t include actual testimony.
The definition of the term testimony is “the statement or declaration of a witness under oath or affirmation.” The sworn statements by the interviewees were declarations of witnesses under oath about their knowledge of the events that transpired that night. If you want to play defense attorney, you might want to familiarize yourself with the legal terminology.
— Joe Carter · Jan 25, 12:21 AM · #
Joe – Thanks for your response. Personally, I don’t know who to believe with regard to this matter, and serious accusations like this one require serious evidence to support them. However, given many recent events (such as Abu Ghraib and others) which were initially dismissed by “serious-minded people”, I think this deserves to be looked at seriously and shouldn’t be dismissed with hand-waving about whether Scott Horton has an agenda or Andrew Sullivan is overly excitable.
With regard to Sullivan, I suspect his employers at the Atlantic still take him seriously, and it appears the writers here at TAS do also. Plus, he hasn’t been banished from the political talk show circuit, and while admittedly it’s hard to get banished from there once you’re in, the people who book such shows seem to consider him worth keeping around. So while the people you like reading may not take him seriously, a lot of other people do. Also, a lot of the criticisms you levied against Sullivan and others on this issue sounded to my ear like the criticisms levied during the high-water mark of the Bush years against critics of the Iraq War (many of whom were proven correct) by self-styled “serious-minded people” who turned out to have gotten a lot of the analysis wrong. You might want to consider that with regard to tone and persuasiveness.
— Mark in Houston · Jan 25, 12:50 AM · #
With regard to Sullivan, I suspect his employers at the Atlantic still take him seriously,. . .
Honestly, I’d be surprised if they did. I heard there was some internal controversy about him damaging The Atlantic brand when he started the Trig Truther stuff and many people there were highly embarrassed to be associated with him. But he generates a lot of pageviews—and revenue—so they decided to let him stay.
As for whether the TAS people consider him credible, I’d also be surprised if that was the case. There are a few people on TAS that have a personal relationship with him and so can be excused (sort of) for not calling him out on his silliness. A few other may forgive him because their was a Golden Age of Sullivan, a time when he was a serious thinker (though I’ve never been able to find evidence of this period), and so they give him respect because of that.
But the real question is whether people should consider him credible. How many times does a person have to present inconsistencies, false extrapolations of facts, flip-flops on key issues, and advocacy for bizarre and inane conspiracy theories before people stop treating him as credible? I truly don’t understand how people can knock Glenn Beck and WND for their bizarre remarks and yet give Sullivan a pass for saying things that are even worse. I’ll admit that Sullivan is as entertaining as Beck or Olbermann. But why would people who don’t take those clowns seriously treat Sullivan as if he is a respectable pundit?
— Joe Carter · Jan 25, 01:45 AM · #
I try my best to be objective concerning people like Beck, Sullivan, Palin, Olbermann, Limbaugh, etc. — much of the criticism regarding any one of them is over-the-top and unfair. For instance, I think Beck’s mixture of information and humor is effective, although I don’t agree with everything he says. Olbermann has a belief system and promotes it. Palin is Palin and you either like her or you don’t, but she’s as genuine as any other public figure under the spotlight. As for, Sullivan, a few years ago I saw him on a talk show and I though he presented himself as a free-thinker, and I thought that was good — I had a favorable opinion of him — but in the last year he has shown a side which is much different than someone like Beck, who at least tries to be objective, scathing toward Republicans and Democrats — Sullivan is vicious, subjectively self-centered, delusional and intellectually dishonest.
Joe Carter makes a good, reasonable case.
— mike farmer · Jan 25, 02:30 AM · #
The thing is, Andrew Sullivan isn’t the only person writing about this story, and the main article in question is written by Scott Horton at Harper’s. Sullivan is pushing the story, but he isn’t the only one doing so or a primary investigative source on it. Whether or not Sullivan is overwrought or biased doesn’t affect whether or not the story itself is factually correct, and focusing on him seems to me to be a distraction.
— Mark in Houston · Jan 25, 03:36 AM · #
I think Joe, and I might be wrong, was more concerned about his friend Conor being associated with Sullivan’s delusions than with Sullivan being important to the facts.
— mike farmer · Jan 25, 04:44 AM · #
Who the hell knows what you’re claiming, Joe? Every time I come back after researching your claims, you’ve made new ones. First it was 52 direct eyewitnesses to the hangings, a veritable parade through the crime scene. (Could 52 people even fit in one of these cells?) Then it was 52 witnesses in the Seton Hall report. Now it’s back to 52 eyewitnesses in the NCIS report, except they’re not witnesses to the hangings but to something else. You can’t seem to connect any particular witness to any particular fact so you’re simply ascribing all facts to all witnesses.
You’re flailing, in other words. And somebody pays you to do this? Amazing.
Which is quite precisely what is not in the NCIS report. Instead of “this is what I saw”, in the words of the intervewee, we have “this is what you said you saw, right? Right? I mean, you wouldn’t want to be investigated for false official statements, right? Just sign here.” A reasonable person with an interest in the facts would grant a lot less credence to that sort of thing than you have.
Bold, but I sincerely believe that you will come to regret doing so. You’ve staked your entire reputation on the second-hand summarized testimony of persons under suspicion of false statements. I don’t think it will be very long before many of these individuals either repudiate their “testimony” (if they ever indeed made it) or announce that they were pressured into making or affirming statements they knew not to be true.
— Chet · Jan 25, 11:00 AM · #
Re: Sullivan, apparently he’s taken seriously by no less a figure than the President of the United States. But, hey, that dude’s a secret Kenyan Muslim so who cares?
— Chet · Jan 25, 07:33 PM · #
Chet,
This will now be my last direct response to you, because I’ve decided you have some sort of mild mental disorder, and I grow weary talking with a crazy person. Joe never used the word “eyewitness”, just like I never claimed Wikipedia was responsible for forcing 11 million people to sign-up for some sort of conspiracy related to their crappy entry on the Tuskeegee experiment.
You remind me of the internet athiests who show up over at Vox Day’s website — he describes them as socially autistic, which I think is a pretty good descriptor for your problem. I would recommend seeking help, but somehow I doubt you’ll listen to me.
The good news is that I suspect your presence here as probably led Conor to do some soul searching and second guessing with respect to his own position on the matter of the Gitmo three. So at least I can thank you for that.
— Arminius · Jan 25, 08:39 PM · #
Holy crap, Chet, thank you a thousand times over for your efforts on this thread. Feel free to post the name of a bar you frequent, and I’ll send them a check to buy you a beer.
— Ossicle · Jan 25, 08:55 PM · #
While quite of bit of nastiness crept into this back-and-forth, I think it raised some good points.
I think the most important thing to keep in mind here is that the ADMITTED conduct of the U.S. government since 9/11 has been absolutely appalling by any standard we would have expected before 9/11. The most charitable argument that can be attributed to the government’s defenders is that this conduct was somehow necessary. I don’t agree and I think it was a huge blunder, but it’s an argument. But to accept the government’s story on any of this betrays a level of credibility that’s unbecoming in an adult free citizen. If you catch your spouse in a lie, do you not wonder what other lies they may tell you? If a witness in a legal case is caught in a lie, doesn’t that impeach their credibility to a juror? And if the government is caught in a lie, shouldn’t a free citizen wonder what other lies are being told to him?
— Seth Owen · Jan 25, 09:34 PM · #
Three questions that should have objective answers:
1. What percent of suicides by hanging include people tying their own feet?
2. What percent include tying their own hands?
3. What percent include stuffing something in their mouths?
You could narrow the comparison group to prison suicides only, since that would be a similar group of people trying to kill themselves quietly.
My guess is that the answer #1 is less than 1%, and the answers for #2 and #3 are less than 0.1%
I find the idea of tying your hands first and then hanging yourself especially unlikely – you’re much more likely to fall down with a crash (remember the tied feet). The official story doesn’t make sense.
— Brian Schmidt · Jan 25, 09:36 PM · #
This will now be my last direct response to you, because I’ve decided you have some sort of mild mental disorder, and I grow weary talking with a crazy person.
I guess when the facts aren’t on your side, it’s time to bust out the ad hominem attacks.
— Buck Diablo · Jan 25, 09:55 PM · #
Arimus (and Joe carter)-
Carter address none of the absurdities of the militaries explaination. His defense of his position is to attack the credibility of small pieces of the Harpers and the college report which he hopes discredit the whole thing. He isn’t even doing a good job of this. The passion and virulence is weird too. Carter says he’s agianst torture but he’s all het up if someone suggest that these three might have been tortured to death. Other’s have been, what would be so impossible about these three? Why get so het up? I believe it’s becasue this is Sullivans pet project and Sulivan has be critical of Joe carter in the past. Carter’s virulence reeks of begrudgment.
PS: Sullivan has posted some of Carter’s arguments and Chets rebuttle. Carter does not come off well.
— cw · Jan 25, 09:59 PM · #
Arminuis,
You said: “Joe never used the word ‘eyewitness.’”
Joe said: “So we are to discount the eyewitness testimony of over 50 servicemembers and the investigation by two criminal investigative units because four soldiers did not see the events in question?”
Are you even trying to think about things or are you just so consumed with being right and proving your point you don’t care whether you’re full of it or not?
— bakum · Jan 25, 11:17 PM · #
bakum,
Sorry, I meant to say “eyewitnesses to the suicide”. It was obvious that this was a claim Mr. Carter was NOT making and yet Chet suggested he made this claim. And you wonder why I question Chet’s mental abilities?
— Arminius · Jan 25, 11:47 PM · #
What’s odd about this argument is how early it is. Horton’s piece is essentially the first mainstream bit of journalism about the case, offering as it does some newsworthy testimony (which Joe Carter is rather determined to discredit, for some reason.) There are far more unanswered, and unasked, questions than there are facts. Chet can take issue with Carter (and so far has spanked him thoroughly) but over what? Carter is defending an account that is obviously incomplete, as if it were complete. He is defending the detainee system over a presumption of their conduct when their conduct has been clearly and consistently the opposite of what he asserts it should have been. He is constructing weird complex justifications of events when videotapes of those events exist. He is insisting that Horton is a Truther-echelon conspiracy nut when Horton did nothing but report the statements of four guards at Gitmo cross-referenced with the refutations, denials, and non-denial denials that are available. He thinks Sullivan is an insane, marginalized, ex-blogger just because Sullivan thinks (as I do) that this is worth looking into further.
Protest too much, much?
ice9
— ice9 · Jan 26, 12:39 AM · #
I find Mr. Carter’s attempt at disproof-by-association frankly hilarious.
P1. Andrew Sullivan believes the prisoners were murdered.
P2. Andrew Sullivan is a nutcase.
C. Believing that the prisoners were murdered makes you a nutcase.
Since Mr. Carter apparently find that logic compelling, I’ll supply my own.
P1. Rear Adm Harris stated that the prisoners were dedicated terrorists who committed suicide as an act of warfare against the United States
P2. So far as anyone can determine, none of them were terrorists of any sort.
C. Everything Read Adm. Harris says, including the statement that these were suicides, is a lie.
My conclusion isn’t even completely silly. Read Adm. Harris was the camp commander, and if he wasn’t aware that two of the three were close to being released as harmless, he damned well should have been before he opened his lying mouth. Tell me, Mr. Carter, when the lies are so thick on the ground, how can you believe anything those pieces of filth say?
— Mike Schilling · Jan 26, 01:16 AM · #
I have to say, being lectured on my potential mental illness by a Vox Day reader has been the highlight of my day. No wonder facts and reason make no impression on you. Do you read his shitty sci-fi novels, too?
— Chet · Jan 26, 02:20 AM · #
**But, yes, let’s take a look at the report in the light of your claim that “52 guards and medical staff were eyewitnesses to the suicide.” **
Obviously, you really aren’t arguing in good faith, are you Chet? I never claimed that these people were “ eyewitnesses to the suicide.” Either you are incapable of following the discussion or you are trying to score point by playing “gotcha” games. Either way, it shows that you are not interested in the truth.
This entire discusssion has been about Scott Horton’s article in Harper’s. Here is the primary claim of the article: “The guards’ accounts also reveal the existence of a previously unreported black site at Guantánamo where the deaths, or at least the events that led directly to the deaths, most likely occurred.”
In that article, three National Guardsmen made the following claims:1. Hickman claims that all three prisoners were taken from their cells prior to 8 p.m. and were not returned to “A” Block.
2. Christopher Penvose and David Caroll both said they didn’t see any “prisoners transferred to the clinic that night, dead or alive.”
At least 53 eyewitnesses have provided sworn testimony that refutes one or both of those claims. Although this list is not exhaustive, it includes the sworn statements provided in the NCIS report:
1. Nurse (p. 94) – Claims that the prisoners were brought to the clinic between 0045-0100
2. Guard (p. 95) – Saw guards transporting prisoner to clinic; found other prisoner in cell
3. Ilyas Beloued (civilian linguist) (p. 128) – claims to have seen the prisoners in their cells at 8:30 pm.
4. Detainee (p. 137) – overheard D3 talking about “martyrdom operation”; told another detainee that suicide occurred around 11 pm.
5. Nurse (p. 142) – found suicide note on body; witnessed NCIS find suicide note on another prisoner
6. Chief Master Sergeant (p. 180) – responded to emergency at A block after midnight; saw dead prisoners in cells; saw four guards carry prisoner to medical facility
7. Sergeant of the Guard (p. 183) – responded to emergency at A block after midnight; saw prisoners being carried to medical
8. Block NCO (p. 184) – saw prisoners in cells at 8:30; saw prisoners being taken to medical; saw other dead prisoners in cells
9. Guard (p. 188) – saw dead prisoner in cell; took prisoner to medical
10. Block NOC (p. 190) – found prisoners in cells; took prisoners to medical
11. Block Guard (p. 197) – saw prisoners in cells at 8:30; found dead prisoner in cell; took prisoner to medical; found other dead prisoners
12. Guard (p. 203) – saw prisoners in cells at 8:30; saw dead prisoner in cell
13. Guard (p. 209) – saw prisoners in cells at 8:30; saw dead prisoner in cell; took prisoner to medical
14. Guard (p. 217) – saw prisoners in cells at 8:30; saw dead prisoner in cell; took prisoner to medical
15. Guard (p. 221) – dead prisoner being taken out of A block to medical
16. Guard (p. 224) – found dead prisoner in cell
17. LPO for Escort Department (p. 230) – helped take prisoner to medical
18. Escort Control member #1 (p. 232) – found prisoner in cell; helped take prisoner to medical clinic
19. Escort Control member #2 (p. 234) – found prisoner in cell; helped take prisoner to medical clinic
20. Escort Control member #3 (p. 236) – found prisoner in cell; helped take prisoner to medical clinic
21. Escort Control member #4 (p. 237) – found prisoner in cell; helped take prisoner to medical clinic
22. Gloria Jemison (p. 240) – saw prisoners being taken from A block to medical
23. Master at Arms (p. 241) – saw prisoners being taken from A block to medical
24. Guard (p. 245) – saw prisoners being taken from A block to medical
25. Escort Control (p. 247) – heard radio call about prisoners being taken from A block to medical; rode with prisoner from medical to hospital
26. Escort Control (p. 248) – saw prisoners being taken from A block to medical
27. Escort Control (p. 252) – saw prisoners being taken from A block to medical
28. Escort Control (p. 254) – saw dead prisoner in cell; saw prisoners being taken from A block to medical
29. Escort Control (p. 256) – saw dead prisoner in cell; saw prisoners being taken from A block to medical
30. Unidentified (p. 261) – saw dead prisoner in cell
31. Guard (p. 263) – saw dead prisoner in cell
32. Guard (p. 266) – saw dead prisoner in cell
33. Incident Response Force member (p. 269) – saw dead prisoner in cell; saw prisoners being taken from A block to medical
34. Guard (p. 272) – saw dead prisoner in cell
35. Guard (p. 273) – saw dead prisoner in cell; helped take prisoner to medical
36. Escort Control (p. 275) – saw prisoners being taken from A block to medical
37. Medical assistant (p. 293) – saw prisoners being brought in by guards at 12:40
38. Nurse (p. 295) – saw prisoners being brought in by guards at 12:40
39. Nurse (p. 298) – saw prisoners being brought in by guards at 12:40
40. Corpsman (p. 300) – saw prisoners being brought in by guards at around 12:30
41. Nurse (p. 302) – was called from the chowhall to assist at 12:40
42. Nurse (p. 306) – saw prisoners being brought in by guards at 12:40
43. Corpsman (p. 310) – saw prisoners being taken to medical by guards
44. Medical Assistant (p. 313) – was called from the chowhall to assist at 12:40
45. Nurse (p. 315) – saw prisoners being brought in by guards at 12:40
46. Medical Assistant (p. 318) – saw prisoners being brought in by guards at 12:40
47. Unidentified Medical (p. 322) – saw prisoners being brought in by guards at 12:40
48. Escort (p. 324) – saw dead prisoner in cell; saw prisoners being taken to medical
49. Detainee (p. 344) – saw dead prisoner in cell
50. Detainee (p. 347) – saw dead prisoner in cell
I can’t think of a time when there has been this much evidence debunking the spurrious claims of supposed witnesses to a massive cover-up. That anyone could believe the Horton story after reviewing the actual evidence simply astounds me.
I’d go on all the way down the list but I think I’ve made my point. Joe’s disingenuous “52 eyewitnesses” claim is nothing but a mirage that evaporates on any kind of inspection. At the end of the day you have a great many guards and medical staff who were told that the detainees had hung themselves, and only 2 or 3 who actually testify to that fact, all of whom were notified of being under suspicion of giving false statements to investigators.
If you had bothered to read all of the statements, you would have found that
over twenty people—including detainees—saw the dead prisoners in the cells. This utterly refutes the claims of Hickman and crew and destroys the credibility of the Harper’s article. Scott Horton simply didn’t do his homework and is causing people to stake their own credibility on his embarrassingly shoddy reporting.
all of whom were notified of being under suspicion of giving false statements to investigators.
That is simply not true.
— Joe Carter · Jan 26, 06:31 AM · #
I think Joe Carter has the stronger hand here (and the bulk of the mainstream media appear to share that view). I don’t share his level of surety about his broad conclusions, but even with what seem to me some really fishy details and severe problems in the investigations, it’s still unlikely that so many people have sustained a cover-up of the nature required for this long. I would think that reporters with major mainstream publications have been in touch with their contacts at the Pentagon and Justice, and have been satisfied that there’s nothing to run with here, for now.
A few more points can be clarified some, I think.
The Seton Hall report does show some real problems with the official investigations, but it’s easy to mistake some of them. The report points out several things not explained in the investigations, but this doesn’t always mean there’s no explanation available based on the investigative materials they have. It apparently means that no complete explanation is offered and analyzed in the findings. So, for example (as Joe has pointed out at his own blog), there are scattered in the testimony partial explanations of how the bodies went undiscovered for so long: there were sheets or blankets hung to obscure vision, there were items arranged to look like the detaInees sleeping in their beds, guards felt they saw movement or skin when perhaps they didn’t as the light was poor and they weren’t supposed to wake the detainees with flashlights, and there was some laxity in observing the standard operating procedures.
This isn’t sorted out in any systematic way in the investigations in the way one might expect, not that I could find, at least, and therefore questions remain about whether it all adds up. In fact, the level of analysis in general in the NCIS investigation, at least, is very minimal.
There are also some nuggets scattered in the testimony about how detainees might have communicated and conspired, some evidence that they did so, some accounts of why testimony was delayed (though not any good reasons—this was a serious lapse in my view), why SOP wasn’t followed in regard to where the detainees received medical treatment, why some witnesses were advised of being suspected of making false statements, why the detainees had comfort items used to produce the dummies in the beds, and some other points raised in the Seton Hall report.
As Joe has said elsewhere, we don’t really know whether guards and others were disciplined for their lapses.
Other points raised in the Seton Hall report don’t seem to be addressed at all, such as how the detainees could have carried out their suicides in the manner required by the evidence. The investigations appear to leave that crucial issue completely to the imagination.
And the materials that the Seton Hall report points out aren’t drawn upon in the investigations, such as some of the logs and videos, and the spotty testimony that doesn’t cover really obvious questions, are also outstanding issues.
The significance of Penvose’s new claim that he was sent to find the petty officer at about 11:45 is that it coincides with the time frame in Hickman’s claims (and the testimony of one of the unnamed guards, who in the NCIS investigation reports the bodies were discovered at about that time, but in another investigation testifies it was an hour later, consistent with the other accounts in the investigations).
The new claims that no prisoners were seen being transfered from Cell Block One to the clinic don’t appear to contradict Hickman’s claims. Hickman says he saw a van go to the back of the clinic, while the other two guards apparently refer to nothing going in the front.
The 85% redaction figure only means that many of the documents were redacted some. Most of the documents in the NCIS portion, at least, are quite usable (despite the carping from Seton Hall). There’s enough there, including lists of the evidence, to see that Seton Hall is right that there are big holes in the evidence.
There’s no evidence I can find in the NCIS materials that the surveillance videos that are supposed to be made of the hallways were used to show anything.
Joe says, “The deaths of these three prisoners were more thoroughly investigated than are any three average murders of American citizens.” True, but these weren’t average cases. The circumstances are highly suspicious, with the limb bindings, rags in the backs of the mouths, supposedly high security, and so on. The investigations were distinctly subpar for such cases. And now the new claims add to the problems that a proper investigation should have settled more definitively by dealing directly and comprehensively with the more suspicious points in the testimony.
— Sanpete · Jan 26, 10:56 AM · #
Arminius,
Generally speaking the ones who call names and such are the ones whose sanity I question. Frankly between you and Chet that’s you. Between Chet and Joe Carter, it’s Carter. This is not to say what did or didn’t happen at Guantanemo. THis is just to say that both you and Carter both undermine your own reasoning as far as I’m concerned.
That said, when it comes to what happened at Guatanemo, if Carter is right that with so much redacted material the Seton Hall report is making claims out of thin air, the irony is that reasoning extends to Joe Carter as well. In other words, if Seton Hall’s report is based on nothing then same goes for the posts he’s been making here. Really, the more he insists there is no factual basis to believe anything other than what he thinks (“That anyone could believe the Horton story after reviewing the actual evidence simply astounds me.”) the more what he thinks sounds like the ravings of a conspiracist.
-b
— bakum · Jan 26, 06:08 PM · #
It’s a funny world, indeed, where first-hand eyewitness reports are refuted by conversations that are only assumed to have happened, and where the idea of giving more credibility to those prepared to stake their names and reputations on the veracity of their statements than those with the option to hide behind a veil of protective anonymity is called a “fallacy.” It is, of course, the world where the diminutive term “conspiracy theory” – with its visceral connotation that anything that that can be called a “conspiracy theory” has been refuted simply by doing so – gives pretty significant latitude for people to engage in conspiracies.
Less than 20 people, most of whom personally culpable in the crime? The rest with every political advantage in doing so? Who can take advantage of institutional secrecy and a military culture of following orders? Not exactly the criminal conspiracy of the century. The guardsmen who have come forward have no reason to invent these charges. They’re not exactly getting rich and famous from this.
— Chet · Jan 26, 06:26 PM · #
Chet,
Overall, you present a very fair analysis. But you made a minor, but significant, error in saying,
The new claims that no prisoners were seen being transfered from Cell Block One to the clinic don’t appear to contradict Hickman’s claims. Hickman says he saw a van go to the back of the clinic, while the other two guards apparently refer to nothing going in the front.
Here is what it says in the Harper’s article:
As he watched, the paddy wagon returned to Camp Delta. This time, however, the Navy guards did not get out of the van to enter Camp 1. Instead, they backed the vehicle up to the entrance of the medical clinic, as if to unload something.
Hickman says the van pulled up front, presumably to unload the bodies. But both he and the other two are refuted by the numerous witnesses who saw the bodies being carried directly from Alpha Block to the medical facility.
Chet: I was going to reply but I think after that last inane comment, it is evident that there is no reason to treat you as a serious interlocutor.
— Joe Carter · Jan 26, 07:48 PM · #
Oops. I got my point about whether the there’s a conflict between the new claims about the delivery of detainees to the clinic wrong. Hickman says nothing about going to the back of the clinic (rather he says the van backed up to the clinic), so Joe is right that there’s an apparent problem when the other guard says he saw no one delivered to the clinic. Did he see the van back up to the entrance or not? (I see Joe just corrected me on this.)
Bakum: “Generally speaking the ones who call names and such are the ones whose sanity I question. Frankly between you and Chet that’s you. Between Chet and Joe Carter, it’s Carter.”
Funny, I had different impressions about that.
Chet: “It’s a funny world, indeed, where first-hand eyewitness reports are refuted by conversations that are only assumed to have happened, and where the idea of giving more credibility to those prepared to stake their names and reputations on the veracity of their statements than those with the option to hide behind a veil of protective anonymity is called a “fallacy.””
You seem to be quoting me but responding to Joe. You’re credulous about some things that are highly dubious, and skeptical of others about which there’s not much reason for doubt. If you don’t think the mainstream media has contacted its sources about this story, which is how the media normally works, then you’re free to suggest some more likely theory about why they’re not touching it. The fact remains that those who have the best access to sources in the know about this aren’t touching it.
I have no idea how you arrived at the number 20 in regard to those involved in this supposed conspiracy. It would have to be far more, as Joe has clearly laid out. Not only those he listed, but also the detainees who would have seen something and have access to lawyers to tell about it, and many investigators and supervisors in several agencies.
I agree that the fact that Hickman and the others have come forward openly and withut apparent ulterior motives are points in their favor, and that complicity in guilt could be a motivation among a few of the government’s witnesses to go along with a wrong story. But there are a whole lot more witnesses than fit in that category, many of who probably object to murder and lying.
— Sanpete · Jan 26, 07:55 PM · #
Joe –
I didn’t say that.
Oh, right. I mean, the mark of a serious interlocutor is that he can’t remember to associate arguments with the names of the people who actually made them.
Of the two of us, Joe, nobody thinks it’s you who is being “serious.” What you’re engaged in is a pretty ridiculous attempt to misrepresent the arguments of your opponents in the most risible way possible. Remember, in the last thread, when I said all you were doing is repeating the objections raised against you in a sarcastic tone of voice – and you agreed? An honest person would have stopped doing it and tried to actually grapple with the arguments put before you.
Instead you’ve made assertion after assertion that have been disproven by the very sources you cite. It’s clear that you’re simply throwing arguments up against the wall like noodles, hoping some of them will stick. Which, oddly enough, was the exact same technique used by the NCIS investigators!
— Chet · Jan 26, 08:50 PM · #
I’m replying to the both of you, who seem to have underdeveloped faculties in terms of recognizing which parties are most likely to be lying.
It’s not difficult. People generally lie when it benefits themselves; they don’t generally lie to make their lives harder or to harm themselves. People guilty of crimes typically lie to cover them up. People who stand to lose much by the exposure, and by making powerful enemies, generally don’t come forward unless they perceive some degree of protection in knowing their story is true and verifiable.
Joe is so turned around in terms of his credulity that he thinks this is a fallacy. It’s actually such a reliable (if not perfect) guide to identifying liars that it’s enshrined in Federal law.
How about – it’ll create a world of shit that won’t sell them any papers? You know, the same reason they didn’t touch the US Attorneys scandal, the Pat Tillman cover-up, the phony rescue story involving that battlefield nurse, the warrantless wiretapping story they sat on for a year, and so on. The idea that exposing a government cover-up is a coup for the press is cute, a naivete from the days of Woodward and Bernstein.
It’s just a wild-ass guess. 6-12 military interrogators incriminated by their actions, 3-4 medical staff incriminated by negligence, a handful of investigators at the NCIS with every political reason to want this covered-up. Everybody else with a part to play can simply be ordered to do so without being brought into the conspiracy, or already has the job of preserving institutional secrecy (for secrets they don’t even know about!) against an only occasionally-skeptical press. When a receptionist at the Anatomical Institute is told to give Scott Horton the brush-off when he calls asking questions, it’s not necessary to induct her into the Freemasons or something to secure her participation; it’s sufficient to just tell her to do that. It’s her job.
Joe is wrong, as I’ve repeatedly showed. Most of the people he says have to be “in” on the conspiracy actually don’t. That’s the point of having things like black sites and institutional secrecy.
— Chet · Jan 26, 09:08 PM · #
“How about – it’ll create a world of shit that won’t sell them any papers?”
No, quite the opposite is true, that it would sell a lot of papers. It’s a juicy story.
“You know, the same reason they didn’t touch the US Attorneys scandal, the Pat Tillman cover-up, the phony rescue story involving that battlefield nurse, the warrantless wiretapping story they sat on for a year, and so on.”
Not good parallels. The media did go after those stories when they had good evidence. The exception was the wiretapping, for which only one paper had the story until it was about to break. This story has already broken. By far the most likely explanation in this case is that the media don’t find the evidence credible.
Being ordered to lie and doing so (which isn’t merely stonewalling) is being part of the conspiracy, whether one knows the reasons or not. Joe’s shown that if Hickman is right then at least 50 witnesses are lying, or at least have bad memories, because what they say is incompatible with what Hickman says. That’s in addition to the investigators, their bosses, and so on who are behind and OK with the cover-up. It’s a lot of people.
— Sanpete · Jan 26, 10:20 PM · #
Chet,
I said I wouldn’t respond to you again but I just can’t resist: I dare you to head over to Vox’s website and comment on his posts having to do with religion (you can comment on his other posts but I don’t always find him convincing on economic and political topics). I’d love to sit back and watch the fun as you try and defend your theological views (or lack thereof) with Vox and his internet friends.
— Arminius · Jan 26, 11:35 PM · #
But not until then. Which means it’s a little too early for you to use conversations you’re simply assuming might have happened to refute statements that were actually made. Again it’s not at all clear to me why you think that’s a valid means of determining what’s true or not.
Well, but again – these statements were prepared on behalf of the interviewees, they’re not transcripts or depositions. They aren’t even signed. We really have no idea if these supposed “eyewitnesses” actually made these statements. They’re so redacted, we don’t even know who to ask.
Joe’s wrong, as I’ve demonstrated. His only response to my complete demolition of his claim was a playground taunt.
— Chet · Jan 27, 06:43 PM · #
“Which means it’s a little too early for you to use conversations you’re simply assuming might have happened to refute statements that were actually made.”
You’re missing the point. As I said, the parallels you give don’t support your view. Rather they support mine, because the press did pursue those stories when presented with new evidence, which is what I expect they’ve done in this case in response to Horton’s new evidence. The problem for you is that it appears they haven’t found anything that supports Horton’s theory enough to warrant publishing about it.
If you don’t like that view, the alternative is that they find Horton’s bombshell so lacking in credible evidence that they haven’t bothered to look into it. Take you pick. Either way, it appears they aren’t buying this new theory enough to even dignify it with a mention.
Why do you think the sworn statements aren’t signed? Of course they’re signed. The signatures are redacted to conceal the names, but that indicates they were signed. The statements aren’t so redacted that one can’t easily extract from them what Joe has listed above. You’re avoiding the plain sense of the evidence.
I don’t know how you think you’ve shown Joe is wrong about the 50 witnesses he listed, but you haven’t. Your points about that have been refuted. I agree transcripts are better, but these are still sworn statements (except for the ones from the detainees). (Horton’s witness statements aren’t, by the way.) If not all 50 (maybe finding the suicide notes doesn’t count, for example), then close to 50 witnesses directly contradict what Horton’s witnesses say, while others indirectly support the government’s story over Horton’s. It’s a lot of people to be part of a conspiracy, in addition to the investigators and two chains of command, military and civilian.
— Sanpete · Jan 28, 12:04 AM · #
Who’s “they”? What sources did they interview, at which organizations? What was said during these conversations? Is there a single journalist you can identify who you know has read the Harper’s story, decided to pursue it, has interviewed any sources?
No? Then what on Earth are you talking about?
Or, they just haven’t bothered to look into it. Just like they didn’t look into the US attorney firings.
Because I read the documents, Sanpete. Is there some reason you haven’t, yet?
But I have. It was up there, where I actually read the document and saw that nearly everybody Joe was calling an “eyewitness” had not actually witnessed anything that disproves Horton’s piece. And that everyone who did had been suspected by investigators of giving false statements.
No, they haven’t been. Joe’s abandoned this thread rather than address them. His parting shot was the same playground pique he’s brought to this discussion since the get-go – he thinks saying that something is a conspiracy theory is the same thing as proving it wrong. It’s not.
“Close to 50”? Not at all. Less than 6 of those interviewed made any claim that can’t be reconciled with the Horton story. Most of those were suspected of giving false statements. (Joe’s reply to this was “no they weren’t”, but the official notifications of suspicion of falsehood are right there in the document. He’s lying.)
Even if it were 50, that’s not a lot of people to be involved in a conspiracy. The Tuskegee Syphilis experiment, which resulted in the deaths of over a hundred men and the unnecessary infection of dozens of women and children, involved more than 200 researchers, doctors, and administrators, two government agencies, multiple public universities, and the American Medical Association. In spite of all that it remained a perfect secret for more than 50 years. And that was just a medical experiment!
Less than 20 guys? Or, for that matter, 50? All of whom either personally implicated in the chain of wrongdoing that led to these deaths, willing to sign a false statement for the good and pride of the Corps, or in a position to be ordered to comply and be punished if they refuse? No, that’s hardly too large a conspiracy to be believed. That’s less people than you would need to throw a surprise birthday party, for Christ’s sake.
— Chet · Jan 28, 12:48 AM · #
You’re still missing the point. “They” are obviously the media, and whatever investigation they’ve done, it’s enough to satisfy them that there’s nothing to warrant spreading this story further. (The media did look into the attorney firings as soon as there was good reason to do so.)
If you’ve read the documents you should know the sworn statements are signed. Now you’re plainly being disingenuous about your knowledge of the documents, while pretending that I’m not familiar with them. I have them in front of me as I type.
“I actually read the document and saw that nearly everybody Joe was calling an “eyewitness” had not actually witnessed anything that disproves Horton’s piece. And that everyone who did had been suspected by investigators of giving false statements.”
That’s just false. Since you claimed to do that, Joe has listed fifty witnesses and on which points each specifically contradicts Horton’s theory.
Only five of the fifty witnesses listed were warned they were suspected of making false testimony. (This number is conformed in the Seton Hall report at page A-31.) There’s no evidence that any of them was shown to be making false testimony. They were given the opportunity to change their testimony, and some did in regard to how they recalled small details. The points in their testimony that appear to have been suspected are minor ones about when and whether they did stuff like walk the hall or make an entry in the computer, not whether they actually saw the bodies in the cells or hallways, which was in any case confirmed by testimony from many others.
“Less than 6 of those interviewed made any claim that can’t be reconciled with the Horton story. Most of those were suspected of giving false statements. (Joe’s reply to this was “no they weren’t”, but the official notifications of suspicion of falsehood are right there in the document. He’s lying.)”
Wow. Again, flatly and obviously false, from beginning to end. Aside from the one about the suicide notes, which of the fifty doesn’t directly contradict Horton’s theory? Again, only five were notified of being suspected of making false testimony. Joe isn’t lying, but you’re being willfully reckless with the facts yourself.
The Tuskegee syphilis experiment is the extreme exception, not the rule. As I’ve said, fifty witnesses, plus investigators and chains of command are a lot of people for a conspiracy to last this long.
You’re willing to accept unskeptically the unsworn testimony of a few while you dismiss the sworn testimony of many. That makes no sense.
— Sanpete · Jan 28, 02:34 AM · #
The investigation the media has done is Scott Horton’s article, so far, and clearly it was his impression, and the impression of the editors at Harpers’, that there was enough there to justify a feature in their magazine about it.
So I still don’t understand your point.
Show me the signatures, then.
What, they got lucky? You’re being ridiculous. “Exception” to what? We’re not saying that they cover up torture homicides every other day at Gitmo; just this one time. And as Conor has pointed out – the cover-up is failing. You know, just like you would expect if more people were involved than they could reliably control.
No. As I said, I’m quite reasonably privileging the statements of specific, known individuals disclosing against their own self-interest over completely anonymous individuals who with every reason to lie – and who we have every reason to believe are lying. “Unskeptical” is Joe and you, uncritically accepting the official line in spite of all the question you can’t and have never even attempted to answer. Why were the neck organs removed? Why and how did men who were committing suicide bind their hands and feet and swallow rags – then put on surgical masks so they couldn’t spit them out? What was the explanation for the various physical injuries identified by Saudi medical examiners but completely unmentioned in the NCIS report? How did three men who couldn’t talk or pass messages to each other arrange a suicide pact? Who recorded the headcount that none of the guards remembered making, which is the only evidence contradicting Horton’s account of where those three men were?
— Chet · Jan 28, 03:36 AM · #
I see you didn’t give any examples of the fifty instances Joe listed that don’t directly contradict Horton’s theory.
“So I still don’t understand your point.”
You’re avoiding understanding it, it appears. It’s simple enough. The mainstream press that has the best contacts with those who know apparently doesn’t buy this story.
“Show me the signatures, then.”
Already explained to you why they’re redacted, but if you’re too silly to follow that point too, you can scroll through the documents and see parts of the signatures in some cases.
“I’m quite reasonably privileging the statements of specific, known individuals disclosing against their own self-interest”
That they’re specific, known individuals isn’t that strong a point, really, in comparison to the mass of testimony they’re contradicting. Horton’s witnesses aren’t in the service anymore, so I don’t think they have much to lose by coming forward.
“completely anonymous individuals who with every reason to lie – and who we have every reason to believe are lying”
You haven’t shown they have any reason to lie, only that they would if there were some conspiracy that required them to lie, or else. And we hardly have any reason to think they are lying apart from the testimony of Horton’s few. You’re assuming in both cases what you’re trying to support. It’s not reasonable to do that.
It’s apparent you haven’t paid much attention to what’s actually in this thread and the others on this topic that you’ve participated in. The questions you list are good ones, and I take them seriously as problems, but most of them have in fact been addressed in discussion with you or in the documents you say you’ve read.
“Why were the neck organs removed?”
Joe suggested that they were kept as evidence in case the autopsy results were challenged.
“Why and how did men who were committing suicide bind their hands and feet and swallow rags – then put on surgical masks so they couldn’t spit them out?”
Why? Maybe to keep them from changing their minds after hanging themselves and trying to get out of the noose and calling out. The bound feet are less obvious for those purposes, but they too might help prevent trying to get back up on the sink or the like. How? That’s tricky, and I wish the investigation had addressed it. I suppose those with bound feet (two of them) must have climbed into position first, before binding the feet. The bindings on the hands were said to not be tight, they would have been the last things.
“What was the explanation for the various physical injuries identified by Saudi medical examiners but completely unmentioned in the NCIS report?”
The most likely to me is that the body was in fact damaged by the process of trying to revive him. There were needles involved in that, and some violent force.
“How did three men who couldn’t talk or pass messages to each other arrange a suicide pact?”
There’s a fair amount of evidence relating to this in the investigative documents. At least one guard said they do pass notes and talk to each other, even though they’re not supposed to, and there was evidence of that found in the cells on that block after the hangings. There was also testimony that some of the detainees said things implying they knew about the suicides before the fact or shortly thereafter, though none of them had been told. There’s also considerable testimony about unusual singing that night in that cell block around the time of the hangings.
“Who recorded the headcount that none of the guards remembered making”
Don’t know, but it’s likely one of the guards did it.
“which is the only evidence contradicting Horton’s account of where those three men were?”
It’s not the only evidence at all. Horton’s theory is that the men were taken straight from the black site, where they had been since before 2000 hours, to the clinic, not back to their cells. Many witnesses say they saw them in the cell block or in transport from the cell block at various times when Horton would have them at the black site or already in the clinic.
— Sanpete · Jan 28, 05:40 AM · #
Who in the mainstream press, exactly? Be specific. What contacts did they interview, and what were the results of that interview?
The only one in the mainstream press who we actually know spoke with contacts and interviewed sources was Scott Horton, and clearly he and his editors thought something newsworthy was there, because they had a whole feature on it in Harpers’.
You seem to keep pretending like that didn’t happen, or like it didn’t count, or something. That’s the part I’m not following. But the fact remains that the only journalist we know actually contacted sources and investigated the story came away with precisely the opposite impression you keep saying. Scott Horton and his editors were convinced the story did have merit, not the reverse. The fact that there’s a story in Harpers’ about it is the proof.
Oh, so you don’t actually know they’re there, you just assume they are.
Quite the contrary, it’s an incredibly compelling point. Anonymous “testimony” is worthless; people who can hide behind it have no reason to tell the truth.
I don’t understand this. Someone who is complicit in the deaths of three people has ample reason to lie to conceal his culpability.
But they have been challenged, by multiple independent forensic pathologists. So where are they? Joe’s suggestion – which he makes based on absolutely no evidence and contrary to established ME practice – doesn’t hold up. And it doesn’t explain the missing kidneys and heart, which would not have any relevance to a death by asphyxiation by hanging, but might be removed to make a toxicology screen impossible and to conceal damage to the heart.
Unfortunately, no. Dead bodies don’t bruise, especially when they’ve been dead for hours. (Physically impossible, as they have no blood pressure.)
So one of the guards is lying, then? The guards that you keep saying have no reason to lie?
So, Horton’s timeline may be wrong, therefore the NCIS timeline is correct and authoritative in every detail? What if the corpses were simply dumped in their cells and staged to look like hangings that had just been cut down? Almost no one testified to actually seeing hanging bodies.
Sanpete – when your argument hinges on “unusual singing” – which never accompanied the forty-some actual attempted suicides at Gitmo – you’re flailing. You’ve been flailing from the get-go. Still, though, you’ve relied a lot less on what Joe has been doing – calling everyone who disagreed with even the most minor of his points a “gullible conspiracy theorist” – so I guess you deserve some credit.
— Chet · Jan 28, 05:08 PM · #
“Who in the mainstream press, exactly? Be specific. What contacts did they interview, and what were the results of that interview?”
As I said, you’re trying to avoid the point. You’ll figure it out as soon as you want to.
“Oh, so you don’t actually know they’re there, you just assume they are.”
Amazing.
“Anonymous “testimony” is worthless; people who can hide behind it have no reason to tell the truth.”
Baloney. They signed sworn statements. The statements weren’t anonymous.
“I don’t understand this. Someone who is complicit in the deaths of three people has ample reason to lie to conceal his culpability.”
Almost all of the witnesses would have had zero culpability if Horton’s theory is true. It’s only participating in a cover-up that would make them culpable. You’re straining many points to the point of absurdity.
The idea that the missing organs were kept as evidence is perfectly logical. There hasn’t been any investigation that would require them to be produced.
I don’t know the details of the bruising, but hanging by a poor noose will produce bruising, as will falling in a noose against a wall. In a situation like that death doesn’t occur for several minutes.
“So one of the guards is lying, then?”
That’s one possibility, and naturally the only one that enters your mind. It’s also possible that one guard forgot.
“Horton’s timeline may be wrong”
Penvose says he was preparing for his shift that began at midnight when he went to the mess to find the petty officer, which seems to mean it had to be before midnight, as he claims it was. Hickman says the supposed delivery of the bodies was before midnight and that the camp lights came on around 0015. None of this fits with the timeline of the other testimony.
“What if the corpses were simply dumped in their cells and staged to look like hangings that had just been cut down? Almost no one testified to actually seeing hanging bodies.”
Five people is almost no one? It’s more than Horton has. If the bodies were returned to their cells and then transferred from there to the clinic, then Penvose and Caroll’s claims that there were no prisoners transferred to the clinic don’t fit.
“when your argument hinges on “unusual singing””
I never suggested it did hinge on that, and it obviously doesn’t.
— Sanpete · Jan 28, 07:12 PM · #
No, you’re trying to avoid defending your point, which was that we could simply discount the testimony of real, identified individuals based on what you assume someone told somebody else, without knowing who they were, what they said, or who they said it to.
I mean, by this reasoning, I could just as easily argue that every single reporter for the press who decided to investigate this story – and remember, international military base goings-on is a beat relatively few reporters are on – talked to a Pentagon source who completely confirmed Horton’s story, and then paid the reporter a million dollars to keep quiet.
Hey, on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever it’s as least as reasonable as what you’re saying happened. At the end of the day, however, the media response to this incident so far has included Scott Horton’s and his editors’, whose response was to consider the evidence for a cover-up of three murders compelling enough to print and to ask for further investigation; Atlantic columnist and editor Andrew Sullivan, who found the evidence as compelling as Scott and who has found Joe’s defenses completely lackluster; and Conor Freidersdorf, who similarly has found enough credibility in the Harpers’ story to ask for further investigation on two separate occasions, now.
So I have absolutely no idea how you’ve imagined this fable where every two-bit columnist at the Post and the Times have double-secret deep-background Pentagon sources ready to spill the beans on every cover-up, have asked them, and have been told there’s no such thing. The people who are actually looking into this, like Horton, Sullivan, and Friedersdorf, come away with zero confidence in the official story.
Then what are the names of all the people who made them? What are the names of the people who took these statements?
Nonsense. They were involved in the murders of three people. That’s a significant reason to want to lie.
Untrue; a number of Saudi medical pathologists are investigating the deaths and have requested the samples from the Anatomical Institute. If the AI was simply holding on to them in case their findings were challenged, they’re certainly under challenge now, so why haven’t they been released?
But none of them did forget. They all distinctly remembered (or said they remembered) other entries that they did make; they all remembered not making that one. The headcount that none of the guards remember making is the only evidence that the prisoners were present and accounted for in their cells at the time Horton speculates they were being killed at the black site. None of the guards were able to get “eyes on skin” confirmation of the prisoners in their cells at the time, they’re all pretty specific on that point.
So?
Now you’re saying that five people is too many to be in on a conspiracy? Or too many simply to be ordered to sign a false statement? What a bizarre world you must live in, where not even two people can agree to keep a secret.
Oh, my mistake; I thought you brought that point up as evidence in your favor. I guess you just like to pepper your posts with complete non sequiturs?
— Chet · Jan 28, 09:30 PM · #
“No, you’re trying to avoid defending your point, which was that we could simply discount the testimony of real, identified individuals based on what you assume someone told somebody else, without knowing who they were, what they said, or who they said it to.”
No, I’ve made no such argument. I’ve explained my argument above.
“I could just as easily argue that every single reporter for the press who decided to investigate this story – and remember, international military base goings-on is a beat relatively few reporters are on – talked to a Pentagon source who completely confirmed Horton’s story, and then paid the reporter a million dollars to keep quiet.”
This only shows your inability to discern the probable from the improbable, or to recognize the importance of the difference.
Andrew Sullivan is no authority figure for me, sorry. And having read his pieces on this, it’s easy to see that he hasn’t read the relevant documents and knows little about this. If he wants to do something useful, he should contact some of his friends who do real journalism and see why they aren’t touching this.
Conor hasn’t responded to the responses to his post, so I don’t know what his thinking is at the moment. I disagree with what he said about the need for a new official investigation. I’m fine with journalists doing more investigation, as I would think they already have.
There’s not the slightest evidence that Conor and Sullivan have done any investigation into this.
“Then what are the names of all the people who made them?”
Don’t know. They were redacted, remember? That doesn’t change the fact that none of the sworn statements was given anonymously.
“Nonsense. They were involved in the murders of three people. That’s a significant reason to want to lie.”
Which witnesses do you think were involved in murder, according to Horton’s scenario? He implies they were killed at a different site by people from a different outfit. The only thing the vast majority of the witnesses could be implicated in is covering up murder, which they would avoid by not lying.
The Saudis haven’t subpoenaed the evidence, so no, there has been no investigation that would require producing it, as I said.
“The headcount that none of the guards remember making is the only evidence that the prisoners were present and accounted for in their cells at the time Horton speculates they were being killed at the black site.”
Yeah, if you don’t count the fact they were found dead and stiff in their own cells.
“So?”
So, as I made obvious, your idea that Horton’s timeline is wrong means his witnesses were wrong in ways that completely undermines their claims.
“Now you’re saying that five people is too many to be in on a conspiracy?”
No, how do you get that out of it? Try dealing with what I say instead. Again, it’s more than Horton’s got.
“I thought you brought that point up as evidence in your favor.”
You really can’t distinguish the idea that something hinges on a point (so the point is crucial) and the idea that a point is evidence?
— Sanpete · Jan 28, 11:54 PM · #
This article mostly makes points Carter has already made but sometimes perhaps one needs to hear it from someone else.
— ck · Jan 29, 01:16 AM · #
I didn’t say he was an authority. But he’s certainly in the media, is an accomplished editor and pioneering blogger, and he’s someone who has looked into this issue – who we know has looked, we don’t have to assume – and come away with precisely the opposite conclusion that you claim unspecified members of the media did after having unspecified conversations with unspecified sources at some unspecified time. That strikes me as significant, but you just go on believing all those conversations that seem to be going on in your head.
And, look, ck just linked to a webpage that lists a number of other sources who have reported inconsistencies about the official story. Keith Olbermann has reported on it. The Associated Press has reported on it. Two British newspapers ran articles on it.
Look, when you’re in the position of trying to argue that the Associated Press doesn’t count as “the media”, it’s time to stop. Seriously.
Um, that’s the very definition of “anonymous.”
I’m not sure there’s such a thing as an international subpoena; Saudi investigators probably don’t have subpoena power under American law. If that’s the legal loophole you’re trying to hide behind, that’s tantamount to saying that only in America do we have real laws and police. Saudi coroners have asked for the missing organs. They have not been provided. That puts the definitive lie to Joe’s claim that these organs are simply being held until requested.
Well, try to make it more obvious because I didn’t follow. How does the petty officer being in the mess disprove any murders?
Even if you count that. The bodies weren’t discovered until well after midnight.
— Chet · Jan 29, 05:52 AM · #
Honestly, CK, that’s just the same stuff that’s already been demolished – the absurd “50 people can’t be in on a conspiracy” claim, the “eyewitnesses” that turn out not to have seen anything, the same total failure to even mention the most suspicious flaws in the official story. The ridiculous idea that even though Gitmo is known to host a CIA black site, the one part of the base that not even the chief of security can get official confirmation of existence can’t be reasonably assumed to be that site. No indication in the Slate story that multiple probative organs were missing. No indication that multiple witnesses in the NCIS report substantiate rags down the throats of at least one of the detainees. Of course, the most hilarious contention is at the beginning of the piece – the idea that mentions in more than a hundred newspapers, including two of Britain’s largest and the New York Times, plus the attention of a national prime-time cable news host, constitutes being “ignored” by the media.
— Chet · Jan 29, 06:08 AM · #
I don’t know why you think Sullivan has “looked into this,” if that means anything beyond reading Horton’s article and glancing at the other materials. He shows no evidence of it.
I have no more regard for Olberman than Sullivan. Neither does objective-style journalism anymore, in any case. The AP article with Bumgarner’s denial of everything was over a week ago, and has been the only peep out of the mainstream media. The British articles reflect the difference in journalistic standards between our countries.
I can see that you don’t want to understand the point about whether the sworn statements were given anonymously. You don’t even want to accept that the statements were signed. But you’re fine with Horton’s story of murders based on seeing a van go back and forth, and you’ve apparently convinced yourself that the mainstream media isn’t refusing to touch this story. You understand and believe what you please.
“That puts the definitive lie to Joe’s claim that these organs are simply being held until requested.”
Joe never said that.
“How does the petty officer being in the mess disprove any murders?”
No one has suggested anything like that.
“The bodies weren’t discovered until well after midnight.”
That doesn’t alter my point at all. The men weren’t seen anywhere but in their cells until they were discovered dead.
“the “eyewitnesses” that turn out not to have seen anything”
You have it backwards. Hickock saw no prisoners’ bodies, but many other witnesses did.
— Sanpete · Jan 29, 07:59 AM · #
I really can’t tell if you’re being serious. I mean it, I really can’t.
Yeah, and the reason is all the mainstream media outlets in which this story is appearing – hundreds of newspapers, cable TV, and so on. The idea that “the media isn’t touching it” is a ridiculous claim. How do you think we’re even hearing about it, except through the media?
This is akin to the claim by conservatives that “the mainstream media is liberally biased”, to which the counterexample of Fox News is given, to which conservatives reply “yeah, but Fox isn’t liberally biased so it’s not part of the mainstream media.” Defining their claim into a tautology, as you’re doing now, where anyone who has touched this story – the AP, even! – is defined to be not in the “mainstream”, and thus is the claim proven by assuming itself to be true.
Except by the guardsmen who say they saw them on the way to Camp No.
That the prisoners (interesting word, since they were guilty of no crime) are dead is not in dispute.
— Chet · Jan 30, 03:10 AM · #
“I really can’t tell if you’re being serious. I mean it, I really can’t.”
I believe you. You show every sign of being completely lost.
“all the mainstream media outlets in which this story is appearing”
You appear to be referring blog posts or something, not new stories, which is plainly what’s at issue.
“Except by the guardsmen who say they saw them on the way to Camp No.”
Hickman is the only one of Horton’s witnesses who saw detainees being taken away, and he didn’t claim to be able to ID them.
“That the prisoners (interesting word, since they were guilty of no crime) are dead is not in dispute.”
Glad you understand that much, but you missed the point, as usual.
— Sanpete · Jan 30, 05:07 AM · #
At what point did I refer to “blog posts”? No, I’m not talking about blog posts. I’m making a pretty simple point that you don’t appear to understand – this isn’t being ignored by the media.
Right, I suppose it was some other three detainees who none of the other guards were able to definitively ID in their cells with “eyes on skin”. Oh, wait, those were the only three individuals so missing.
— Chet · Jan 30, 10:24 PM · #
“this isn’t being ignored by the media.”
Now just click your ruby red slippers three times and you’ll be home.
“Oh, wait, those were the only three individuals so missing.”
What makes you think the detainees Hickman saw were missing? You have no idea what else was going on in Camp 1. There were a lot of detainees there in eight cell blocks. The least likely origin of the ones Hickman saw was Alpha Block, given the overwhelming witness testimony.
— Sanpete · Jan 31, 12:52 AM · #
Oh, I don’t know, the fact that all of the guards on-duty at the time stated that they didn’t get “eyes on skin” confirmation of their presence, but just assumed they were there? It’s in the NCIS document. Why did they assume they were there? Because of the head-count that said they were there. But who made the head-count? All of the guards were pretty specific that it wasn’t any of them.
— Chet · Jan 31, 02:11 AM · #
So your theory, contrary to what Horton believes, is that three detainees were removed from Alpha Block, one at a time (according to Hickman), and their bodies put back there with no one noticing, not even the detainees? You know every detainee can see who passes by his cell? And that there are guarded locked gates in and out, right? And that the guards can also see?
— Sanpete · Jan 31, 04:09 AM · #
That’s one theory, at least as credible as the idea that three men who couldn’t talk to each other and were about to be released somehow arranged a suicide pact for no reason, and were able to hang by their necks from the rafters for two whole hours in front of all your guards and detainees who, as you say, can see.
Thanks to the obscuring efforts of the NCIS, we can’t yet definitively say what occurred that night. And no one is trying to – no one, that is, but you and Joe, who are trying to defend the NCIS investigation as definitive. But everything that casts doubt on Horton’s theory casts the same doubt on the “suicide” theory.
— Chet · Jan 31, 07:04 PM · #
“three men who couldn’t talk to each other”
They could talk to each other, obviously. They were in close enough physical proximity to easily hear each other, and the guard testimony shows detainees did in fact speak with each other.
“were about to be released”
None of them knew that, and it’s only true that two were probably going to be released.
“for no reason”
Where did you get that idea? Two of them had just come off long hunger strikes that required force feeding to keep them alive. Comments from other detainees made it clear that the suicides were seen as a victory against the US.
“for two whole hours in front of all your guards and detainees who, as you say, can see”
You obviously haven’t read the documents you earlier implied you had. The bodies were behind blankets hung in the cells, the light was poor on that side of the cell block (the lights were on the other side), no flashlights were allowed, and there were dummies set up to look like the men were sleeping.
“trying to defend the NCIS investigation as definitive”
Hardly, but it’s far, far better that Horton’s. I see you haven’t read my comments either.
“everything that casts doubt on Horton’s theory casts the same doubt on the “suicide” theory”
Um, no.
— Sanpete · Jan 31, 07:27 PM · #