Investigation through osmosis.
By on Feb 7th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Investigation through osmosis.
“An Army officer who investigated possible abuse at Guantanamo Bay after some guards purportedly bragged about beating detainees found no evidence they mistreated the prisoners — although he did not interview any of the alleged victims, the U.S. military said Wednesday.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Typical. This reminds me of the deaths classified as homicide of prisoners in U.S. military custody that weren’t investigated, either.
February 7th, 2007 at 5:57 pmNeocon Ideology 101: If you refuse to look at the elephant in the room, you can assume that it isn’t there.
February 7th, 2007 at 6:03 pmNo matter how much the elephant dung stinks?
February 7th, 2007 at 6:08 pmAfter conducting a thorough personal investigation leaving no stone unturned, no potential document or witness overlooked, I have concluded and can state with complete confidence to the American people, that the Office of the Vice President of the United States had no connection whatsoever no played any part willing or unwilling in the events of the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame affair. Now, if you will please excuse me I will return underground, as the sunlight is beginning to burn my flesh.
February 7th, 2007 at 6:12 pmMistrial declared in the court matrial of officer who efused Iraq duty.
February 7th, 2007 at 6:13 pmHow predictably corrupt? Obviously, the one who was not beaten would know nothing about any beating….duh….this is a typical GOP “no brainer”! Do they really believe that the people of this country are stupid?
February 7th, 2007 at 6:19 pmI can’t wait for the public to tar and feather Not-So-Tricky-Dicky-DooDoo in the Valerie Plame incident – I’m smacking my chops!
February 7th, 2007 at 6:20 pmOhhh… I see… said the blind man.
February 7th, 2007 at 6:24 pmWhat’s this? Yet more corruption-on-a-stick? Me no likey!
what do you think those guys have been doing for entertainment down there, playing checkers????????
February 7th, 2007 at 6:27 pmThis reminds me of the case of the man who commited suicide by stabbing himself repeatedly in the back and then slitting his own throat… twice. What was that name, again? Oh, yeah… Julius,aka, George Caesar.
February 7th, 2007 at 6:29 pmThere’s an old adage
February 7th, 2007 at 6:41 pmMilitary Justice is to Justice
as Military Music is to Music.
Seems to fit here.
#6, they’re counting on it, baby!
February 7th, 2007 at 6:42 pmOh, for pity’s sake — conducting an investigation into alleged prisoner abuse without talking to any of the prisoners themselves makes no logical sense whatsoever. One might as well attempt to investigate a murder without examining the body, or a theft without examining the crime scene.
The neoconservatives and their supporters have been saying for the past five-odd years that only those people who have something to hide need to be concerned about governmental intrusion into people’s affairs — but it seems to me that this could (and should) work both ways! If the government has nothing to hide about the way in which it’s treated the prisoners at Guantanamo, then there’s no reason for this failure to investigate the complaints fully by talking to the prisoners themselves.
February 7th, 2007 at 6:42 pm#13 Bluestocking
As I correct others time and again, you cannot complain about something this administration does or says not being logical because this administration and the neocon community do not use logic. Remember, their views and explanations are emotion based, not reason based.
February 7th, 2007 at 6:59 pmInterviewing the victims would not establish whether or not mistreatment occurred. It’s he said he said. Only other evidence, even circumstantial evidence, would establish whether something in fact happened.
But unless you’re not persuaded, let’s say Bush claims that Iran is harboring Osama bin Laden. Do you interview Bush to determine the truthfulness of the statement? Of course not, you try to find independent evidence to corroborate the claim.
February 7th, 2007 at 7:18 pm#15 Seixon
The problem is interviewing is part of an investigation. Eyewitness accounts should be part of the evidence, and should never be ignored. These are especially important if you are trying to find out whether abuse is occurring in detention conditions.
Lemme give another example. If we had an investigator, say, go to Iran or North Korea to investigate conditions for detainees (assuming such an investigation would be permitted), would you just look around and conclude that everything is a-ok, or would you interview detainees to find out what happens when they are not expecting such an investigation?
February 7th, 2007 at 7:27 pmre#15 Seixon
I guess in your world finding beating marks on the victims, does not show evidence of mistreatment!
So in your world, please tell us how you would determine if the victims had beating marks without interviewing them?
February 7th, 2007 at 7:29 pminterviewing the victims would not establish whether or not mistreatment occurred. — Seixon
In your rules a rape victim would never be examined or interviewed to get a description of the person who raped the victim.
February 7th, 2007 at 7:51 pmYou obviously know nothing about law enforcement investigating or you are just being intellectually dishonest, once again.
criticalthinker,
Beating marks would be corroborating evidence of abuse, but apparently there was no evidence of beating marks.
An interview has nothing to do with assessing beating marks. If the prisoner had been beaten, they would have been treated my medical staff.
The point of an interview is to ask questions, not medically examine someone.
Since there was no corroborating evidence that the prisoner was beaten, testimony by the prisoner is irrelevant.
I will again refer you to what I asked:
But unless you’re not persuaded, let’s say Bush claims that Iran is harboring Osama bin Laden. Do you interview Bush to determine the truthfulness of the statement?
February 7th, 2007 at 7:52 pmYou obviously know nothing about law enforcement investigating or you are just being intellectually dishonest, once again.
Comment by Wayne
My thoughts exactly. They’re called investigators for a reason.
February 7th, 2007 at 7:57 pmBut unless you’re not persuaded, let’s say Bush claims that Iran is harboring Osama bin Laden. Do you interview Bush to determine the truthfulness of the statement? — Seixon
Yes, it’s called asking him to prove the statement. You ask him what is the evidence and then check to make sure the evidence he quotes is correct. Follow to the souce.
February 7th, 2007 at 7:57 pmIts called investigating. duh.
osama’s hiding in the white house!!! hurry and bomb it!!!
February 7th, 2007 at 8:04 pmWayne,
OK, so if an investigator interviews the detainee and asks him to prove it… He has what? His testimony. That’s it. I can see that what you’re saying would make sense in another situation, but in a prison, unless there are physical clues, or admissions by those working there, how are you going to get any evidence?
Some prisoner alleges that he was beaten up in his cell by two soldiers. OK. So he has no beating marks. The alleged assailants are known and have been interviewed. What could the prisoner possibly tell them to prove their case? It’s not like there were any other witnesses. What’s left?
This isn’t like investigating who robbed the local bank.
February 7th, 2007 at 8:06 pmSeixon,
The investigator should be questioning EVERYONE involved. Then you weed out those things that cannot be confirmed. Leaving out interviewing the alledged victim leaves out evidence. Leaving evidence out of an investigation is a sign of either an incompetent investigator or a coverup.
Your logic and strawmen are really faulty. There is no excuse to not interview the victim as well as his cellmates that may have observed the incident.
This was a shoddy half assed investigation and smells to me like a coverup.
February 7th, 2007 at 8:14 pmHuh. Another thing Seixon thinks he’s an expert about, but he’s wrong. :p
February 7th, 2007 at 8:25 pmSeixon pulling another graveyard shift? It was past 1 am in Norway when he posted….
Comment by Seixon — February 7, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
Only, here, it is the guards saying he has no beating marks. the prisoner is never seen by the investigator. Thus, there is “no evidence” of prisoner abuse.
There is a similarity here in the government’s position with its position against Padilla. He will most likely be found no longer sane enough to stand trial, due to his “experiences” while being held by the government for the past several years without charges. The government now argues that since he is insane, he cannot be used as evidence of mistreatment against the government.
What the Bush Administration did to Padilla, they can do to anyone. Four dozen Republican Senators are insuring the Bush will not be embarassed while He remains in power.
February 7th, 2007 at 8:47 pmSeixon
there would be both medical records and corraborating testimony from other guards, medical personnel or the chaplains / immans for at least some of the cases the guards discussed if the allegations are true. So, were these people spoken to or not and what exactly was their testimony? It would be interesting to see all of it, because frankly after all the bullshit that has gone down (Abu Ghraib, Pat Tillman, Haditha massacre etc., etc)I, and a majority of Americans, no longer believes what the Pentagon or this Administration says.
February 7th, 2007 at 8:55 pmTP? Could you do something with this posters name?
ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
It is mischaracterizing someone elses name in a bad light.
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus needs to be BANNED!
February 7th, 2007 at 9:30 pmWhat is the problem? Seixon does it constantly, throwing concepts into the table without anything to back it except lengthy, boring posts.
February 8th, 2007 at 7:58 amHaving conducted IG investigations for the Navy, the investigator in this case should absolutely have interviewed the victims. Even if he felt their statements were lies, he should have asked the questions anyway, postulated his thoughts on their statements, and provide backing evidence for his thoughts. I lean right (duh) and wish there was some way I could defend this investigation, but I can’t because it violates IG procedures.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:56 amSeixon, you are not that stupid, are you? No interviews? Damn nice police work. You are defening this? Please tell me you are. I am in a bad mood and I would love to go off on you.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:11 pm