home

Military Says No Gitmo Prisoner Abuse Found

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 11:12:22 PM EST
Tags: detainee abuse (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


The Pentagon announced today that an investigation of prisoner abuse claims at Guantanamo were unfounded. Of course, they didn't bother to interview any of the detainees.

The investigation was initiated after Marine Sgt. Heather Cerveny advised the military that she heard a conversation among guards at a bar in which "they described beating detainees as common practice."

< Today's Russert Testimony | Late Night: Born to Run >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Military Says No Gitmo Prisoner Abuse Found | 54 comments (54 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Ghosts (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 11:29:37 PM EST
    Of course, they didn't bother to interview any of the detainees.

    Says it all.

    They don't exist, legally. Whatever they said woudn't matter anyway, so why bother asking them.

    Ah well, (none / 0) (#2)
    by Al on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 11:39:30 PM EST
    that's all right then. Boy, am I relieved.

    Of course not. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 12:27:28 AM EST
    These prisoners have no idea what abuse looks like. Nobody has ever insulted them, called them a name, hurt their feelings, or ever once said a mean nasty word to them.

    Gitmo is a "civil" place, dontcha know.

    From the article (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:56:49 AM EST
    Cerveny _ a member of a detainee's legal defense team _ said a group of more than five men who identified themselves as guards had recounted hitting prisoners. The conversation allegedly took place at a bar inside the base.

    "The evidence did not support any of the allegations of mistreatment or harassment," the Miami-based Southern Command, which oversees Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in southeastern Cuba, said in a statement.

    Investigators conducted 20 interviews with "suspects and witnesses," the Southern Command said. Bassett did not interview any detainees, said Jose Ruiz, a Miami-based command spokesman.

    It is kinda hard to hide anything like this. Twenty interviews with suspects and witnesses will turn something up simply because those who aren't involved don't want to get in trouble for lying.

    My guess is that nothing happened and that a bunch of dummies was trying to look macho for Ms. Cerveny, unaware that she was on one of the defense teams.

    Macho???? (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 02:11:10 PM EST
    In your mind it is macho to beat up defenseless prisoners who are in shackles?

    I guess everyone has their own personal opinion of what it is to be manly. Most people I know, the macho ones especially, would consider that cowardly.

    Parent

    Squeaky tries a smear (1.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 04:17:38 PM EST
    Do you still beat your spouse?

    Your problem is that you claim that beatings took place. When in fact, the investigation proved they did not.

    You know, you almost set a record, going 24 hours without a smear attempt, but (sigh) you didn't make it.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.




    Parent
    Your Quote (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 06:26:48 PM EST
    My guess is that nothing happened and that a bunch of dummies was trying to look macho for Ms. Cerveny, unaware that she was on one of the defense teams.

    My comment had only to do with your quote regardless whether or not the prisoners were beaten.

    I was struck that this could be construed as being macho by anyone except for a coward.

    Sorry ppj, as usual you smeared yourself.
    And as usual you waved your red flag admitting that you have been caught out.

    Parent

    Let's not BS each other. (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:15:53 PM EST
    No. You were being snarky.

    If you had not meant it, you would have phrased it differently.

    Parent

    Non-seqitur (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:59:05 PM EST
    Wha...

    Nice change of subject.

    Parent

    Squeaky, you asked a question (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 04:23:13 PM EST
    and you received a smear.

    Some people consistently stoop. Nothing new here.

    Parent

    edger, here ya go (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 04:57:56 PM EST
    Squeaky asked a question designed to insult... He got the answer he deserved, including an explanation.

    But as you said.

    For the record (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:17:12 PM EST ......

    Anyone who wants me or others to be constrained from saying things that insult so that they will NOT feel constrained from doing things that kill, is trying to draw equivalence where there is none, and deserves absolutely no respect, civility, or any kind of tolerence whatever.

    That's pretty definitive, don't ya know??

    Parent

    Insult my a$$ (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 04:08:16 PM EST
    Squeaky asked a question designed to insult...

    Your statement

    My guess is that nothing happened and that a bunch of dummies was trying to look macho for Ms. Cerveny, unaware that she was on one of the defense teams.

    either reflected on your own macho fantasies, or what you think the guards like to be seen as, or what either or both of you think is a good way to get women turned on.

    Your comment was meant to defend an obsene whitewash of the charges where only one side of the story was presented. This is particularly bad because it is not an isolated charge out of the blue. If anything, given the recent history of prisoner torture condoned by the US,  it seems more likely that the charges were true.  Not to mention that the prisioners are being held without trial, in contravention to all national and international laws.

    It would have been one thing if you were really trying to understand what happened and the "macho" speculation was one of a string of possible scenarios. But no, you were being a shamless apologist for horrid behavior at the least and torture at the worst.

    And you say that my comment was merely a snarky attempt to insult you? For you, this is all a game. Your comment was not only insulting to all those who are concerned about the US illegal detention and torture of human beings, but an insult to the guards, prisoners and women in general.

    Parent

    I'd like to hear your opinion (none / 0) (#14)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 05:18:24 PM EST
    of people whose way of being "macho," in your own words, is to brag about abusing prisoners.  

    Let's assume for a brief moment that you're right, that they made it all up to look "macho."  

    Now.  What does that say about them?

    Parent

    And I realize (none / 0) (#15)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 05:21:58 PM EST
    you've already called them "dummies."  I'm just wondering if you see the larger issue at play, connecting manliness with acts of violence.  It aint just a few guards who think that way, it's an institutionalized mentality, we've seen it time and time again in this Administration.

    That they sanction the torture and abuse of  prisoners shows their willingness to "get tough."  

    Parent

    Glanton old bean (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:09:59 PM EST
    Whatever it is.... my SPECULATION was that some dummies were trying to impress one of the few FEMALES they had been around in MONTHS.

    (I have observed that the stupidity of guys is directly porportional to he number of days they have been away from feamles.)

    (You can't go off base in GITMO. Trust me on that.)

    Either way, the investigation found NOTHING.


    Parent

    Glanton (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:13:48 PM EST
    It aint just a few guards who think that way, it's an institutionalized mentality, we've seen it time and time again in thiIs Administration

    And we saw it when the FBI decided to attack the compound at Waco...

    Sutpidity is a bipartisan disease.

    Parent

    Ahhh, Waco!!! (none / 0) (#22)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:53:19 PM EST
    You mean the people with the gun compound that wouldn't let the FBI in even though they had a warrant?  

    Anyway, if you think the government in that case was overzealous, fine, I can buy that.  And I'm sure you're on the constant lookout for cops and agents using excessive violence, a real advocate for exposing and punishing authority figures who abuse their power?

    Now.  What the heck does that have to do with the United States Government institutionalizing torture anyway?

    Parent

    Huh?? (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 09:31:55 AM EST
    Yes, they were.

    Yes, I am.

    On the subject of this claim. It has been investigated and been shown to not happen.

    Parent

    And of course (none / 0) (#23)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:55:37 PM EST
    you don't, won't, can't speak to the real issue your own speculation raises.  

    Which issue is, what kind of repugnant jacka%# would think that bragging about torturing prisoners is a way to impress a woman?

    Parent

    Perfect (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 09:38:45 AM EST
    What should I have to comment?

    If we commented on everything that we find stupid neither of us would have the time to do anything else.

    I mean....we being perfect specimens of humanity and all that.

    But I really thought this:

     

    that some dummies were trying to impress one of the few FEMALES they had been around in MONTHS

    pretty well expressed my feelings.

    Perhaps you became imperfect for a few seconds and didn't read my complete comment.

    Parent

    I read your comment (none / 0) (#28)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:22:30 AM EST
    and it just struck me as strange that you took it as plausible that men, long removed from female companionship, would take advantage of the first opportunity by bragging to her about torturing people.  Now, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming this isn't your idea of proving manhood, impressing a woman.  

    But your claim is nevertheless provocative and merits hashing out.  As I see it, two possibilities have emerged from this conversation, both of which reflect very, very
    badly on the Gitmo guards.

    Possibility #1)They actually tortured prisoners and were telling the truth because, according to their twisted view of masculinity, they thought it would impress the woman.

    Possibility #2)They didn't torture prisoners but said they did because, according to their twisted view of masculinity, they thought it would impress the woman.

    Now. Since in either case we have a mentality that endorses torturing prisoners as a hallmark of what it means to be a man, to be tough, then the probability that they actually did it rises considerably.

    (And I have, by the way, seen zero evidence of your claim that you are on the lookout for police and government abusing their authority.  Everytime a case comes up, whether on the border, in a city, during Katrina, whatever, you seem to reflexively side with the government.  I wonder what makes Waco different, hmmmmmm?)

    Parent

    Glanton. (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:28:04 PM EST
    Glanton - I speculated something. Believe, or don't believe it. It may be true or it may not be true. I really don't care either way,

    The investigation was made, the charges proved false and now you want to start some psychobabble.

    Sigh.

    Nite Nite


    Parent

    That's just sad (none / 0) (#46)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:51:57 PM EST
    No wonder so many people on this blog have utterly given up on the possibility of having productive discourse with you.

    My comment is clear, and is a direct response to what you said, and I think it's the height of intellectual cowardice on your part to run away, as you do so often, after making your little assertions.  If you don't have the guts to answer for what you write, then don't write it.

    You have been known to disparage anonymous posters because they lack some sort of courage.  But look at how you run when your argument breaks down.  Just look at what you just posted.  What a great follow up to your little snipe hunt with that tool Sparling.  

    What is wrong with you? You might ask yourself why you even bother to come on this blog at all.  Is it just to pi$$ people off?  Or do you want to have dialogue?

     

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 06:05:25 PM EST
    containing nothing but personal insults.

    Parent
    Sailor (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 09:40:26 AM EST
    Let me see. I quoted their own words and that insulted them???

    Wow

    Parent

    Sailor, by now it has become obvious to me... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Bill Arnett on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 01:53:51 PM EST
    ...-and I'm sure many, many others- that the commenter to whom you refer is genetically incapable of remaining on topic, acknowledging when he is wrong, ridiculing other commenters in the most outrageous and ridiculous and insulting manner possible, and is, therefore, nothing but a TROLL DISTRACTION AND OBSTACLE TO REASONED DEBATE AND UNDESERVING OF ANY RESPONSE TO HIS EVER GREATER DETACHMENT FROM REALITY.

    As to the topic here, when you don't bother to conduct a real investigation and don't intend to ever conduct a REAL investigation of detainee abuse, you won't find any detainee abuse, even when such abuses has been documented ad nauseam and that information has been in the public domain for years now.

    It is utterly repugnant and completely disgusting that anyone would find torturing people or bragging of torturing people to be "macho", and by clear inference therefore, something to be admired, respected, encouraged, tolerated, joked about, or that it is even "okay" in whatever shape, form, manner, or any means whatever to communicate any tolerance of people who torture people and brag about it.

    I would further expound on the scum of the earth and unrepentant torturers and braggers of torturing, bit I fear I would be immediately banned from this site if I finished stating my opinion of people of this ilk, and those who would turn a blind eye to this problem, in the language with which they should be condemned, classified, and then excised from civilized society through force of law.

    Sailor-would you email me at bill3arnett@mac.com re: Vidiot speak? Thanx. And Edger, pls hang onto my address as well. Thanx.

    Parent

    I will, Bill. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 02:17:12 PM EST
    Thx...

    Parent
    Bill (none / 0) (#31)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 02:25:07 PM EST
    It is utterly repugnant and completely disgusting that anyone would find torturing people or bragging of torturing people to be "macho", and by clear inference therefore, something to be admired, respected, encouraged, tolerated, joked about, or that it is even "okay" in whatever shape, form, manner, or any means whatever to communicate any tolerance of people who torture people and brag about it.

    Spot on, brother.  At some point in the evolution of this country you'd have thought this would have become an accepted truism by people on all sides of political debate.  

    But in this, you'd have thought wrong, very wrong.

    Parent

    BILL AND GLANTON (none / 0) (#32)
    by Peaches on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 02:56:39 PM EST
    It is utterly repugnant and completely disgusting that anyone would find torturing people or bragging of torturing people to be "macho", and by clear inference therefore, something to be admired, respected, encouraged, tolerated, joked about, or that it is even "okay" in whatever shape, form, manner, or any means whatever to communicate any tolerance of people who torture people and brag about it.

    I agree wholeheartedly with the above. However, I also think Jim's assessment of the allegations has some merits and we all benefit from his bringing it forward. There are a couple of things about the story to keep in mind. Cervaeny says more than  five guards allegedly admitted to hitting some prisoners. It does not necessarily follow that the guards considered this hitting to be torture or abuse from the guards perspective. So, Jim suggests that they were bragging to this defense attorney to act macho an win her attention. Also we should keep in mind that the conversation allegedly took place at a bar inside the base.

    Of course sex and torture should not go hand in hand. But, Jim reminds us of the sort of brainwashing that members of the military must undergoe. I haven't been trough basic training, but I've know enough people who have to have this little rhyme wring through my head courtesy of some friends who have.

    This is my weapon
    This is my gun
    one is for fighting
    one is for fun.

    Perhaps this little ditty is no longer a part of trainig now that women are also part of our armed personnel, but our military is still made up of many young men filled with testostorone and messages are sent that mix up sexuality with violence. They are both perversions that often go hand in hand.

    I have never been in the military, but I have worked as a guard in a juvenile detention center and I understand the mentality of young guards, both men and women. There are times that prisoners must be restrained. When it happens adrenaline flows. After hours, when sitting around bars for drinks war stories are broken out and men tell women stories and it is true that some women are impressed by the stories.

    Restraining and torture are two different things and, we know that this administration has a cavilier attitude towards torture. So, I think what I witnessed at a juvenile detention center is probably multiplied exponentially by a military compound with little oversight. Jim is giving a military perspective, i'm guessing because he understands it. I think this linking of sex and violence in the military is almost common sensical, although it repulsive. We should thank Jim for bringing it to our attention, rather than condemn his suggestion as complete lunacy. In fact, I think his suggestion makes quite a bit of sense, although it makes my skin crawl with disgust.

    Parent

    Peaches (none / 0) (#33)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 03:08:07 PM EST
    If you read my comments you will see that I never wrote off Jim's conjecture as lunacy; indeed, I said that he had made a provocative point that merited hashing out.

    Of course they mix sex with violence, and of course it is normal.  Normal in general, of course, but

    exponentially moreso in the context of military/police/prison cultures.  

    And it is that fact, that mentality, that I was saying needs to be skewered and deconstructed at every opportunity.  Jim's conjecture was true, his quip that this makes them "dummies" was cavalier, really lets them off the hook both for the violence they have committed and for their generally barbaric mentality.  It's the old what can you do, boys will be boys argument: one of the prime arguments used, by the way, to defend torture anyway (second only to the ticking time bomb tactic).  And it is highly offensive.  

    Parent

    agreed (none / 0) (#34)
    by Peaches on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 03:15:45 PM EST
    Yes, I agree with you and I know you were trying to explore this conjecture with Jim.

    Jim is not going to follow this to its origins and he's repeatedly argued the few bad apples defense in the cases of torture. It is another one of his many blind spots.

    You take what you can get from him, though. I find revealing that he'd suggest the "macho" interpretation of events.

    I think that we should also realize that the "dummies" or "boys will be boys" characterization is something most ex-military personnel have to use to defend some of the things they may have participated in while in the military. It might be the only defensive mechanism available to allow  the ones involved in the most heinous acts to have a normal life once they are out.  

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#35)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 03:27:42 PM EST
    Very well said.  Especially the last paragraph.  

    It takes a great deal of bravery to recognize one's complicity in terrible acts, I imagine.  Just thunk about how slow we are to even come clean about our harmless shortcomings.

    Parent

    Hat tip to Sailor for this one (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 03:35:53 PM EST
    It takes a great deal of bravery to recognize one's complicity in terrible acts...

    But it can be done, and it eventually can become necessary.

    An Iraq Interrogator's Nightmare

    Despite my best efforts, I cannot ignore the mistakes I made at the interrogation facility in Fallujah. I failed to disobey a meritless order, I failed to protect a prisoner in my custody, and I failed to uphold the standards of human decency. Instead, I intimidated, degraded and humiliated a man who could not defend himself. I compromised my values. I will never forgive myself.
    ...
    While I was appalled by the conduct of my friends and colleagues, I lacked the courage to challenge the status quo. That was a failure of character and in many ways made me complicit in what went on. I'm ashamed of that failure, but as time passes, and as the memories of what I saw in Iraq continue to infect my every thought, I'm becoming more ashamed of my silence.


    Parent
    Peaches and Glanton (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:59:54 PM EST
    Jim is not going to follow this to its origins and he's repeatedly argued the few bad apples defense in the cases of torture. It is another one of his many blind spots.

    Aint true. Prove me wrong.

    BTW - It appears that you and Glanton are guilty of confusing the messenger and the message.

    Peaches comes close to the mindless, dumb things that some guys will say to impress the female of the species.. I think it goes back to the imperative to breed.. survival of the fittest, etc... (You do believe in evolution, don't you???)

    I view all the haha's about my speculation to be just you guy's typical try to condemn America.

    Parent

    Condemning Guards Who Follow Orders and Torture (none / 0) (#50)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 11:22:15 PM EST
    is not condemning America.

    Condemning this particular administration's institutionalized policy of torture is not condemning America.  

    Condemning the jacka$$, barbaric mentality that holds bragging about torture as a way to impress women is not condemning America.

    Condemning posters who want to give such barbaric jacka$$es a free pass by saying "ha, ha, those dummies trying to get laid" is not condemning America.

    Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Parent

    He's done it to you guys again (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 02:22:38 AM EST
    He accuses you of doing exactly what he's does. It's one of his oldest tricks. The he invites you to prove a negative, and you're both trying to refute him?

    He's not worth "debating", because he's not "debating". All he is doing is forcing responses out of you. He doesn't care if they are attacks. In fact he prefers it if he can paint you as attacking him, he thinks he "wins" something if you do.

    But all he wants is response of any kind to make him feel relevant. Watch how he responds to this comment.

    Parent

    actually, Edger, (none / 0) (#55)
    by Peaches on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 08:17:21 AM EST
    I was speaking to Glanton, not ppj.

    Parent
    What a relief. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 09:37:48 AM EST


    Justice? (none / 0) (#6)
    by dogjudge on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 09:45:49 AM EST
    My disgust with this "investigation" is directed at the investigating officer Colonel Bassett.

    According to reports that I've read, after his "investigation" led to nothing, he reportedly recommended that Sgt. Cerveny be given counseling for filing her complaint.  

    So what would conclusion would you draw from that?

    Conclusion (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 01:57:17 PM EST
    I would draw the conclusion that she went over the edge and caused a lot of BS that should never have happened.

    But then I don't think all the prisoners are sweet hearts...

    BTW - Anybody around here want to house some of these guys while they await trial????

    Just remember you'll have to get rid of your dog..

    Parent

    Au contraire (none / 0) (#9)
    by Al on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 02:56:18 PM EST
    Given the likelihood of these prisoners ever getting a fair trial, I think you should house them. Since you clearly believe they will, that shouldn't be a problem.

    Parent
    Al (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 04:21:53 PM EST
    To paraphrase Johnny Carson..

    "Wrong oh America Evil breath...."

    Why should I put myself and loved ones at risk when it is you that think they are sweethearts?

    Me? I think they terrorists.

    Parent

    To Jim (none / 0) (#16)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 05:24:20 PM EST
    It says, "Those are MY kind of men."

    The (none / 0) (#38)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 04:29:31 PM EST
    next time I meet a right wing woman on the prowl Im gonna have to try out that "Ive smacked around a few prisoners in my day" line. Worked in the past for you, Jim?

    Jondee (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:43:58 PM EST
    Nope.

    You? Oh well, they wouldn't believe you, anyway.

    Parent

    It's macho (none / 0) (#39)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 04:32:46 PM EST
    but not as macho as running roughshod over a defenseless nation; that'll really get the red state birth rate on the upswing.

    Apparently (none / 0) (#40)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 09:22:46 PM EST
    Cerveny's CO finds the report less than complete. "Outrageous" is the term used.

    Very unAmerican or very American (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:35:49 PM EST
    The liberators speak:

    One said, "I took the detainee by the head and smashed his head into the cell door," she told ABC News in October after filing a sworn affidavit with the Pentagon Inspector General.  Another "was telling his buddy, 'Yeah, this one detainee, you know, really pissed me off, irritated me.  So I just, you know, punched him in the face.'"

    For me it seems really unAmerican, but I'm not a radical like Leeden and his pals who want to control the world. They fancy themselves to the left of the left and cringe at being called conservatives.

    Just because the NeoCons call themselves radicals, doesn't make it so. Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler et al, also thought of themselves as radicals.  

    The NeoCons exploit Postmodernism in order to maintain their power. Funny that they rely, so much on French Post-Structuralism, since they hate the French. Old Europe, isn't that what they call them?

    They specialize in Deconstruction. They create reality and we are left to write down what they tell us to say. Judging by the MSM today, it seems to be working.  The truth is that those guys are clearly on the dark side. Anyone for perpetual war has to be.

    They seem to be losing their grip though. Yes, it looks that way.


    Parent

    More on Che's link (none / 0) (#54)
    by Sailor on Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 02:41:53 PM EST
    The following investigation by SouthCom, which oversees military activities in the Caribbean and Latin America, looked into Cerveny's account and another filed by a civilian employee on the base that recounted a conversation between a female guard and a male interrogator on a training range.


    Parent
    abuse at GITMO (none / 0) (#41)
    by diogenes on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:00:26 PM EST
    So there was some abuse at GITMO, as there likely is at most maximum security prisons in the US and the world.  Is this such a surprise, and does this mean that you all support keeping GITMO open but without abuse?  
    If closing prisons where inmates are abused is the highest priority, then maybe we did good getting rid of Saddam Hussein's network of prisons after all.  Ask some of the released prisoners.  

    But we didn't ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Sailor on Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 02:03:08 PM EST
    ... get rid of saddam's prisons, we just took them over and continued the abuse while establishing more secret prisons around the world that perpetuate the abuse.

    Parent
    You misread the post (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:54:22 PM EST
    Note that it has nothing to do with the subject, but tries to open up a discussion of "beating" defensless prisoners after the post has noted that no beatings had happened.

    Maybe you missed this bit:

    Of course, they didn't bother to interview any of the detainees.
    squeaky (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 11:01:40 PM EST
    Evidently they didn't need to.

    If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

    Parent

    Another possibility (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 11:37:56 AM EST
    My guess is that nothing happened and that a bunch of dummies was trying to look macho for Ms. Cerveny, unaware that she was on one of the defense teams.

    Rather than project a 'macho' defense, by way of apology for either torture or acting badly, it is very possible and not unlikely that these guards cracked and were confessing. They wanted to come clean about the horrible things they had done.

    Military Says No Gitmo Prisoner Abuse Found | 54 comments (54 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment