Whistleblower says Guantamo "suicides" were cover up of death-by-torture

[Praktik]

Scott Horton has an excellent article in Harper's. (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368)

Chilling stuff.

A description of the beating given to one:

On June 9th, 2006, [Aamer] was beaten for two and a half hours straight. Seven naval military police participated in his beating. Mr. Aamer stated he had refused to provide a retina scan and fingerprints. He reported to me that he was strapped to a chair, fully restrained at the head, arms and legs. The MPs inflicted so much pain, Mr. Aamer said he thought he was going to die. The MPs pressed on pressure points all over his body: his temples, just under his jawline, in the hollow beneath his ears. They choked him. They bent his nose repeatedly so hard to the side he thought it would break. They pinched his thighs and feet constantly. They gouged his eyes. They held his eyes open and shined a mag-lite in them for minutes on end, generating intense heat. They bent his fingers until he screamed. When he screamed, they cut off his airway, then put a mask on him so he could not cry out.

The treatment Aamer describes is noteworthy because it produces excruciating pain without leaving lasting marks. Still, the fact that Aamer had his airway cut off and a mask put over his face “so he could not cry out” is an alarming fact. This is the same technique that appears to have been used on the three deceased prisoners.
...
He asked a distraught medical corpsman what had happened. She said three dead prisoners had been delivered to the clinic. Hickman recalled her saying that they had died because they had rags stuffed down their throats, and that one of them was severely bruised. Davila told me he spoke to Navy guards who said the men had died as the result of having rags stuffed down their throats.And a curious coda to the story, the "suicide" prisoners were returned to their families with their necks removed:

The pathologists place the time of death “at least a couple of hours” before the bodies were discovered, which would be sometime before 10:30 p.m. on June 9. Additionally, the autopsy of Al-Salami states that his hyoid bone was broken, a phenomenon usually associated with manual strangulation, not hanging.

The report asserts that the hyoid was broken “during the removal of the neck organs.” An odd admission, given that these are the very body parts—the larynx, the hyoid bone, and the thyroid cartilage—that would have been essential to determining whether death occurred from hanging, from strangulation, or from choking. These parts remained missing when the men’s families finally received their bodies.Click the link for the whole story. What is most heartening here is the courage of Hickman, a proud conservative, to come forward with what he knows. The values that make torture a moral aberration are not confined to one party or pole of the spectrum: they are universal.

[Upchurch]

What is most heartening here is the courage of Hickman, a proud conservative, to come forward with what he knows.
....if true.

[BenBurch]

If true, there will be some prosecutions coming...

[Upchurch]

one guy's word against multiple others (assuming everyone else is denying it) is not a strong argument.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

On June 9th, 2006, [Aamer] was beaten for two and a half hours straight. Seven naval military police participated in his beating. Mr. Aamer stated he had refused to provide a retina scan and fingerprints. He reported to me that he was strapped to a chair, fully restrained at the head, arms and legs. The MPs inflicted so much pain, Mr. Aamer said he thought he was going to die. The MPs pressed on pressure points all over his body: his temples, just under his jawline, in the hollow beneath his ears. They choked him. They bent his nose repeatedly so hard to the side he thought it would break. They pinched his thighs and feet constantly. They gouged his eyes. They held his eyes open and shined a mag-lite in them for minutes on end, generating intense heat. They bent his fingers until he screamed. When he screamed, they cut off his airway, then put a mask on him so he could not cry out.

If Aamer was into S&M, he wouldn't be complaining.

[Peephole]

Come on, guys. Don't you know that some of life has to be mysterious?

[Praktik]

If true, there will be some prosecutions coming...

Ya, well the Pentagon has already admitted to "homicides", which is their term for torturing to death... no redress that I'm aware of.

[Upchurch]

Ya, well the Pentagon has already admitted to "homicides", which is their term for torturing to death...
"Homicide" is a broader term that, I think, would include "torturing to death". Do you find the term inaccurate or insufficient?

[Praktik]

Well it makes it sound like the "bad apple" excuse - when such homicides are a product of an environment fostered by policy, and almost a natural consequence of opening pandora's box by legalizing torture.

[Praktik]

21 deaths classified as "homicide" by pentagon (by 2005 only) (http://www.aclu.org/human-rights-national-security/us-operatives-killed-detainees-during-interrogations-afghanistan-and-)

[Brainster]

The "whistleblower" is somebody who observed trucks going back and forth. He did not say that the suicides were cover-up of death by torture.

I note as well, the usual "they were completely innocent" claims:

The Pentagon claimed that Yasser’s frontline battle experience came from his having been a cook in a Taliban camp. Al-Zahrani said that this was preposterous: “A cook? Yasser couldn’t even make a sandwich!”

And:

Also returned to Saudi Arabia was the body of Mani Al-Utaybi. Orphaned in youth, Mani grew up in his uncle’s home in the small town of Dawadmi. I spoke to one of the many cousins who shared that home, Faris Al-Utaybi. Mani, said Faris, had gone to Baluchistan—a rural, tribal area that straddles Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan—to do humanitarian work, and someone there had sold him to the Americans for $5,000. He said that Mani was a peaceful man who would harm no one. Indeed, U.S. authorities had decided to release Al-Utaybi and return him to Saudi Arabia. When he died, he was just a few weeks shy of his transfer.

Let me ask something of the "skeptics" on this thread. If indeed the U.S. authorities had decided to release him, why would he come in for such rough treatment? Why would he even be interrogated? Just for kicks?

[Praktik]

Ummm he saw a bit more than trucks - there's the whole way the "suicides" were managed by NCIS and by commanders instructing the troops on what to say - all detailed in the article.

Your question regarding their innocence, predicated on a self-serving appeal to skepticism could equally be flipped around.

Shouldn't there equally be skepticism directed to the claims of guilt?

Why was the US moving to release some of these individuals prior to the alleged suicide if they were dyed-in-the-wool terrorists?

Did dubya get off on ensuring there'd be a future threat? Or maybe there were a host of individuals picked up on hearsay in a complex environment the Americans didn't understand so when Habib turned in the guy who got the girl back in high school they took his word for it...

[JihadJane]

If indeed the U.S. authorities had decided to release him, why would he come in for such rough treatment? Why would he even be interrogated? Just for kicks?

Maybe - who knows? Perhaps they were suspected of being taxi drivers.

Your question is impossible to answer because we don't know which of the multitude of governmental and quasi-governmental operations, public or private, was responsible for their deaths or why they were killed.

The success of the underwear bomber, however, demonstrates just how good the vast, bloated "intelligence" machine is at synthesizing and communicating information...

[Tailgater]

The success of the underwear bomber, however, demonstrates just how good the vast, bloated "intelligence" machine is at synthesizing and communicating information...

Sure, one person out of 7 billion people on this earth gives us an educated view.

[JihadJane]

Sure, one person out of 7 billion people on this earth gives us an educated view.



Translation please.

[Tailgater]

You think one incident in a world of billions gives you an educated view of a worldwide multinational "intelligence" machine. That better?

[INRM]

Unsurprising...

[JihadJane]

You think one incident in a world of billions gives you an educated view of a worldwide multinational "intelligence" machine. That better?

Well, that's how huge swathes of the world's media portrayed the latest US intelligence "cock-up".

You may now return to the thread's topic ...

[JihadJane]

If true, there will be some prosecutions coming...

The problem may be that almost every branch of the government appears to be implicated in the cover-up that followed the deaths. (http://www.alternet.org/rights/145257/astonishing_report:_we%27re_executing_gitmo_prison ers_and_calling_it_suicide?page=entire)

[JoeTheJuggler]

If true, there will be some prosecutions coming...

You'd think. I don't recommend holding your breath.

In the Dilawar case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_(human_rights_victim)#Culpability), where an innocent man was tortured to death by U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, one guy was sentenced to 2 months in a military prison. Two others were convicted, but served no time at all.

NB: this would have been criminal even if the person tortured to death were a bad guy.

And there were allegations (including autopsy reports) of other cases of detainees tortured to death that weren't prosecuted at all.

[Skeptic]

Scott Horton has an excellent article in Harper's. (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368)

Harper's lost it long ago (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b106/nichomachus/Harpers.jpg) in its insane "Bush is eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil" conspiracy theories. Here (http://reopen911.net/ReOpen911_2007Archive/images/Harpers-whitwash.bmp) is another typical cover: "How the 9/11 commission defrauds the nation" (a big hit with 9/11 "truthers", of course); "Dying for Dollars: are you ready for the Iraqi gold rush?". Or another one (http://combatarms.mu.nu/archives/Harpers.jpg): "When Desertion is the only option" (glorifying soldiers who went AWOL instead of going to Iraq); "Undercover of Florida's Republican shock troops" (a "Republicans are like the Nazis!" story), etc. Oh, and did you know America is now officially fascist (http://www.cjr.org/politics/fascism_fascism_everywhere_and.php)? Lewis Lapham said so in Harper's in 2005, so it must be true! Damn, I'm surprised you're even allowed to say something against Dear Leader Bush, Praktik, who, like all fascist dictators, gave up power when the constitution said he should. How come you're not in a concentration camp yet?

And, from the current issue (lest someone think this insanity is solely Bush-related), the complaint that the media "provides a sanitized view of Haiti's history for American audiences (http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006353)". Translation: the knuckle-dragging morons don't blame evil racist imperialist white-man colonialism for Haiti's troubles, like us superior people! They must have been brainwashed!

And you take Harper's seriously? Might as well read the Soviet era Pravda and get it over with. Both seem to be saying the same thing over and over: the evil imperialist USA is ruled by murderous war-criminal oligarchs who brainwash the stupid population into compliance.

Pravda was famously used as toilet paper in the paradise of the workers, where such capitalistic luxuries were in short supply, since nobody believed a word it says anyway. Harper's credibility is on the same level, but its paper is too glossy for the above purpose; so, on the whole, Pravda wins in terms of its usefulness and connection to reality.

[JihadJane]

But he is evil....

[Praktik]

Harper's lost it long ago (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b106/nichomachus/Harpers.jpg) in its insane "Bush is eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil" conspiracy theories. Here (http://reopen911.net/ReOpen911_2007Archive/images/Harpers-whitwash.bmp) is another typical cover: "How the 9/11 commission defrauds the nation" (a big hit with 9/11 "truthers", of course); "Dying for Dollars: are you ready for the Iraqi gold rush?". Or another one (http://combatarms.mu.nu/archives/Harpers.jpg): "When Desertion is the only option" (glorifying soldiers who went AWOL instead of going to Iraq); "Undercover of Florida's Republican shock troops" (a "Republicans are like the Nazis!" story), etc. Oh, and did you know America is now officially fascist (http://www.cjr.org/politics/fascism_fascism_everywhere_and.php)? Lewis Lapham said so in Harper's in 2005, so it must be true! Damn, I'm surprised you're even allowed to say something against Dear Leader Bush, Praktik, who, like all fascist dictators, gave up power when the constitution said he should. How come you're not in a concentration camp yet?

And, from the current issue (lest someone think this insanity is solely Bush-related), the complaint that the media "provides a sanitized view of Haiti's history for American audiences (http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006353)". Translation: the knuckle-dragging morons don't blame evil racist imperialist white-man colonialism for Haiti's troubles, like us superior people! They must have been brainwashed!

And you take Harper's seriously? Might as well read the Soviet era Pravda and get it over with. Both seem to be saying the same thing over and over: the evil imperialist USA is ruled by murderous war-criminal oligarchs who brainwash the stupid population into compliance.

Pravda was famously used as toilet paper in the paradise of the workers, where such capitalistic luxuries were in short supply, since nobody believed a word it says anyway. Harper's credibility is on the same level, but its paper is too glossy for the above purpose; so, on the whole, Pravda wins in terms of its usefulness and connection to reality.

All well and good, what does this have to do with the facts of the case?

I'm equal opportunity Skeptic, sitting beside the few issues Ive grabbed are my Commentary reader and a few years of The American Conservative..;) In any event, I thought more "Scott Horton" than I thought "Harper's" when I found out about the article. He's been someone I've read before online and I found his perspective refreshing. Pretty weak trick here, to ignore the name of the author and go right to an OT tirade on Harper's, you know, rather than discuss the argument Horton puts forward.

[Tailgater]

All well and good, what does this have to do with the facts of the case?

I'm equal opportunity Skeptic, sitting beside the few issues Ive grabbed are my Commentary reader and a few years of The American Conservative..;) In any event, I thought more "Scott Horton" than I thought "Harper's" when I found out about the article. He's been someone I've read before online and I found his perspective refreshing. Pretty weak trick here, to ignore the name of the author and go right to an OT tirade on Harper's, you know, rather than discuss the argument Horton puts forward.



ARTICLE (3)LETTER (2) 49-60 December 2008
Article
Justice after Bush:
Prosecuting an outlaw administration
By Scott Horton
SEE ALSO: Abuse of administrative power; Career as U.S. president; Bush,

37-46 March 2008
Article
Vote machine:
How Republicans hacked the Justice Department
By Scott Horton

74-81 July 2007
Article
State of exception:
Bush's war on the rule of law
By Scott Horton


Just sayin.

[Praktik]

have you read those articles?

One of the reasons I like Horton is because he doesn't have the strident tone and get all emotional like say, Olbermann or Chomsky. Skeptic succumbs to this shortcoming often and its why I find someone like Ziggurat say, infinitely more credible.

I like a writer whose tone is more neutral. As a law professor, he achieves a reasoned tone that I respond to positively.

Shouldn't derail the thread much further, but you'll find that from people like John Dean, Victor Gold and others on the right, to people like Horton, David Cole, Remnick and others on the left, that Bush has often been characterized as hollowing out the rule of law. I don't find that headline of the article to be all that much of a signifier of being unhinged. We also don't know how the editors may have finessed his titles.

And you can't be unaware of the Justice department controversies, can you?

In any event, this is still disregarding the facts of the argument put forward by Horton on this case in particular.

[Tailgater]

I just thought it was funny that Skeptic lists a bunch of other Harper articles and you respond with thinking "Scott" not "Harpers", and all his titles read like articles he listed. Just a humorous observation.

[Skeptic]

All well and good, what does this have to do with the facts of the case?

It has to do with the fact that it is exceedingly unlikely, given Harper's record of buying into any and all "Bush is evil" conspiracy theories, that any article dealing with Gitmo will be remotely connected to reality. The particular author, as well, has a record of articles of the "put Bush the war criminal in jail now" sort, so it is more than likely that he distorts reality to blame those he hates.

To make an analogy, suppose the leader of the American Nazi Party had published a new article in the KKK's official newspaper claiming he found new evidence of Blacks' inherent genetic inferiority. Would you bother reading it, objectively considering the claims, or would you not bother, for obvious reasons?

[Praktik]

I just thought it was funny that Skeptic lists a bunch of other Harper articles and you respond with thinking "Scott" not "Harpers", and all his titles read like articles he listed. Just a humorous observation.

I don't have a problem with Harper's, but then I don't think Skeptic can provide an objective opinion on the quality of the magazine as a whole. Would be like getting Huffington's opinion on Reason - might be entertaining, but not much more valuable than that.

But I'm not a big Harper's guy, I've picked up a few at book stores and in airports.

It's left-wing, so what? As I said, I've followed Horton much more than I've followed that magazine.

And all of this is OT to the facts of Horton's case. Kind of a diversionary tactic, IMO.

[Praktik]

It has to do with the fact that it is exceedingly unlikely, given Harper's record of buying into any and all "Bush is evil" conspiracy theories, that any article dealing with Gitmo will be remotely connected to reality.

The particular author, as well, has a record of articles of the "put Bush the war criminal in jail now" sort, so it is more than likely that he distorts reality to blame those he hates.

The "fascinating" article is only "fascinating" in the sense of showing how the far left lost its mental stability, considering the real enemy its own government, while vicious Islamist terrorists are considered innocent victims.

yawn

more boilerplate, no substance

[Skeptic]

How's this for substance? My edited above:

"It has to do with the fact that it is exceedingly unlikely, given Harper's record of buying into any and all "Bush is evil" conspiracy theories, that any article dealing with Gitmo will be remotely connected to reality. The particular author, as well, has a record of articles of the "put Bush the war criminal in jail now" sort, so it is more than likely that he distorts reality to blame those he hates.

To make an analogy, suppose the leader of the American Nazi Party had published a new article in the KKK's official newspaper claiming he found new evidence of Blacks' inherent genetic inferiority. Would you bother reading it, objectively considering the claims, or would you not bother, for obvious reasons?"

By the way, experience shows that when you start posting "yawn" and "you're just using boilerplate" that really means "you've got me there."

[Praktik]

KKK?

Seriously?

You're proffering an argument worth responding to in your mind, aren't you?

Amazing.

[GreyICE]

How's this for substance? My edited above:

"It has to do with the fact that it is exceedingly unlikely, given Harper's record of buying into any and all "Bush is evil" conspiracy theories, that any article dealing with Gitmo will be remotely connected to reality. The particular author, as well, has a record of articles of the "put Bush the war criminal in jail now" sort, so it is more than likely that he distorts reality to blame those he hates.

To make an analogy, suppose the leader of the American Nazi Party had published a new article in the KKK's official newspaper claiming he found new evidence of Blacks' inherent genetic inferiority. Would you bother reading it, objectively considering the claims, or would you not bother, for obvious reasons?"

By the way, experience shows that when you start posting "yawn" and "you're just using boilerplate" that really means "you've got me there."


Uh huh. Really. How's the weather on your planet?

[Skeptic]

Can you folks say, analogy?

I didn't say he is like the KKK. I explicitly said that I am making an analogy for the purpose of making clear why I am not listening to this guy: namely, there's no point to listen to someone whose preconceived notions, made in a publication with the same preconceived notions, writes an article that -- surprise! -- "proves" the same preconceived notion.

Now, I don't believe you folks can't understand that, especially when I explicitly made clear I am making an analogy, not saying the two are equivalent. But what a wonderful excuse to go off in a huff, after the unanswerable -- yet embarrassing -- truth about this author and the publication where he published the latest (yawn) "Bush is evil" conspiracy theory show it's not worth taking seriously.

Not that it stopped y'all from falling for it.

P.S.

It's interesting how, when I explicitly said Harpers' is like Pravda, that was slightly annoying to you, but OK; after all, all that Pravda ever did was justify Stalin's mass murders and smear the free world constantly. But that was OK, it was from the good ol' USSR, so it's heart was in the right place.

But when I made an analogy to the KKK -- for the purposes of elucidation, making clear it is an "analogy" and not a comparison -- you leave in a huff...

[Skeptic]

It's left-wing, so what? As I said, I've followed Horton much more than I've followed that magazine.However, Horton seems to be just as much a "Bush is evil" one-trick pony as Harper's.

[GreyICE]

P.S.

It's interesting how, when I explicitly said Harpers' is like Pravda, that was slightly annoying to you, but OK; after all, all that Pravda ever did was justify Stalin's mass murders and smear the free world constantly. But that was OK, it was from the good ol' USSR, so it's heart was in the right place.

But when I made an analogy to the KKK -- for the purposes of elucidation, making clear it is an "analogy" and not a comparison -- you leave in a huff...
So you do something stupid once, people get annoyed. You do something stupid twice, despite being told it's stupid, people get even more annoyed.

You decide they're more annoyed because they support Stalin's genocides, rather than because your posts have displayed evidence supporting a total inability to read what others or saying and use actual arguments rather than fallacious bullcrap.

Yes, this would be why people wonder what the weather is like on your planet.

[Praktik]

Its truly fascinating to watch, which is why I won't put him on ignore...

[JihadJane]

Pentagon yet to respond to allegations:

Keith Olbermann interviews Scott Horton , VIDEO (http://vodpod.com/watch/2654962-mysterious-suicides-at-guantanamo-bay-prison), 6.5 minutes

[Skeptic]

You know when you got the usual gang behind the eight ball: when they start using the usual "it's just fascinating to see you make a fool of yourself, you stupid conservative" cards. Ah well. Now, to the point: you guys fell for a rant by a conspiracy theorist, published in a magazine that specializes (lately, in any rate) in publishing anti-Bush conspiracy theories. You'll believe anything that blames the USA for something, won't you?

[Praktik]

You know when you got the usual gang behind the eight ball: when they start using the usual "it's just fascinating to see you make a fool of yourself, you stupid conservative" cards. Ah well. Now, to the point: you guys fell for a rant by a conspiracy theorist, published in a magazine that specializes (lately, in any rate) in publishing anti-Bush conspiracy theories. You'll believe anything that blames the USA for something, won't you?

If you seriously believe that's what I think, then you should understand why I don't engage directly with your posts.

Why would I when all I get is broad caricature and steaming vitriol?

Once again, what does any of this latest rant have to do with the facts presented by Horton?

Or do you believe that breezy accusations of bias are enough to avoid having to deal with those facts?

Looking forward to your next screed Skeptic, you're so cute..;)

[Skeptic]

If you seriously believe that's what I think, then you should understand why I don't engage directly with your posts.

Your replying to my post to say your "not engaging directly" with them?

Well, actually, indeed you aren't: you completely ignore the unanswerable evidence (your "shocking discovery" is yet another "Bush is evil" conspiracy theory) and instead explain how "stupid" I am.

This is indeed not "engaging directly with my posts". Another name for that is "ad hominem" or "avoiding the issue".

Once again, what does any of this latest rant have to do with the facts presented by Horton?

It has to do with the fact that there is no more point treating them as "facts" than there is in treating the 1950s Pravda claims about the latest "imperialist warmongering USA" as "facts", or for that matter treating 9/11 conspiracy theories as "facts".

You can see Horton's and Harper's record or anti-Bush conspiracy theories published as "facts". There isn't much point in treating their latest conspiracy theory just because they claimed to have "discovered" yet another nefarious Bush plot, now is there?

To give a more specific example, I have discovered that Obama is actually born in Kenya (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/3074) (I just clicked on the first google link of "Obama born in Kenya", in case you wonder how I got that link). We have the same thing: a whistleblower! Several news sources reporting it! Officials saying so! Witnesses! Everything! Right? Damn Obama, stealing the presidency like that...

Well, not really. You probably, and quite correctly, don't treat the "facts" in that article seriously -- because this rather right-right-wing Israeli web site has published tons of other conspiracy theories about Obama's alleged nefarious plans, so there's little point in taking seriously yet another one. For exactly the same reason, I don't treat the "facts" in Horton's and Harper's latest "Bush is evil" rant seriously.

[GreyICE]

You know when you got the usual gang behind the eight ball: when they start using the usual "it's just fascinating to see you make a fool of yourself, you stupid conservative" cards. Ah well. Now, to the point: you guys fell for a rant by a conspiracy theorist, published in a magazine that specializes (lately, in any rate) in publishing anti-Bush conspiracy theories. You'll believe anything that blames the USA for something, won't you?

It's actually getting rather boring, and your politics are completely obscured by your terrible reasoning.

[Praktik]

To give a more specific example, I have discovered that Obama is actually born in Kenya (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/3074) (I just clicked on the first google link of "Obama born in Kenya", in case you wonder how I got that link). We have the same thing: a whistleblower! Several news sources reporting it! Officials saying so! Witnesses! Everything! Right? Damn Obama, stealing the presidency like that...

Ok, so this article = birtherism?

How strange! Hello my name is Praktik - isn't it nice that we have a place where such different people can interact?

[Skeptic]

Ok, so this article = birtherism?

Harper's in general, and Horton in particular, are conspiracy theorists, whose hatred for Bush is clearly the #1 guide, as can be seen by their long record. Perhaps higher-class conspiracy theorists; conspiracy theorists that cater to the "Bush is evil" golf and martinis set instead of to the "Obama is evil" beer and shotgun set; but conspiracy theorists nonetheless.

They're similar to, say, Michael Moore and Seymour Hersh, who either outright promote conspiracy theories about how Bush was involved in 9/11 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/), or else use the thinnest, unverifiable "sources" to claim, for example, US soldiers molested small boys in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Use_of_anonymous_sources).

Oh, and you're not arrested yet? Don't you know the USA is now officially fascist and you can't say anything bad about Bush? Harper's reported it in 2005, and had tons of facts in its article to prove it!

[Praktik]

Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?

[GreyICE]

Harper's in general, and Horton in particular, are conspiracy theorists, whose hatred for Bush is clearly the #1 guide, as can be seen by their long record. Perhaps higher-class conspiracy theorists; conspiracy theorists that cater to the "Bush is evil" golf and martinis set instead of to the "Obama is evil" beer and shotgun set; but conspiracy theorists nonetheless.

They're similar to, say, Michael Moore and Seymour Hersh, who either outright promote conspiracy theories about how Bush was involved in 9/11 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/), or else use the thinnest, unverifiable "sources" to claim, for example, US soldiers molested small boys in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Use_of_anonymous_sources).

Oh, and you're not arrested yet? Don't you know the USA is now officially fascist and you can't say anything bad about Bush? Harper's reported it in 2005, and had tons of facts in its article to prove it! Ah, perhaps you can cite some of these horrible things Scott Horton has said.

[Brainster]

I like this guy's take (http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/01/21/on-the-shameful-murders-at-gitmo-conspiracy/):

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’m also think that when an investigation concludes with a 1,700 page report that was reviewed by over a hundred people it is difficult to claim that the process wasn’t thorough. 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?)

And this follow-up (http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/01/22/on-the-shameful-%E2%80%9Cmurders-at-gitmo%E2%80%9D-conspiracy-part-ii/):

So a National Guardsman sees a an area of the base, doesn’t know what it is, and automatically assumes it’s a torture site for the CIA? What is even more striking than this silly rumor is that Horton doesn’t try to verify this claim or get any other corroborating witnesses. There are over 10,000 military personnel on Gitmo—many who have been there for years and are quite familiar with the base—yet Horton doesn’t talk to any of them. This is, of course, understandable: When you’re building a conspiracy theory you don’t want to get information that might dispute your belief.

[Skeptic]

As with most conspiracy theories, you have "awful proof of X" which only holds water when you (a) only present "evidence" that fits with your preconceived "Bush is evil" ideas, and (b) don't ask any logical questions. The links Brainster provided make mincemeat of Harper's and Horton's conspiracy theory. For example, from the second link:

What is amusing is that Sullivan is quick to dismiss the rather simple Birther conspiracy theory (as he should) but is fully onboard with idea that the U.S. military and federal government agencies pulled off the most complex, massive cover-up in the history of our nation. To be a Birther you only have to believe that someone went back in time and planted a birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper to cover for Obama. But to believe in the Gitmo murder theory you have to believe in a level of collusion and corruption among so many people and so many levels of government that it would make a 9/11 Truther snicker in disbelief.

Indeed. And...

The core contention of Horton’s story rests on one soldier: Joe Hickman. (To call him a “decorated non-commissioned Army officer” because he once won a commendation medal and an NCO of the Quarter award will sure make veterans chuckle.)... Hickman’s testimony is that he allegedly saw prisoners—that may or may not have been the ones who died—loaded into a paddy wagon and driven in the direction of an area that he and his buddies speculated might be a building that belonged to the CIA. He claims that some hours later the van returned and drove to the to the entrance of the medical clinic “as if to unload something.” (My emphasis - Sk.)

Gosh, with this sort of iron-clad evidence of an horrible CIA torture facility killing prisoners, how can you possibly doubt Horton's conclusion? Never mind that the DOJ did in investigate the allegations and found them groundless -- they're all in on the evil coverup, naturally.

P.S.

As it happens, I was in Manhattan on 9/11. I clearly remember seeing one ambulance going towards the twin towers, and later, going the other way! Clearly the only possible explanation is that it picked up the real terrorists, the folks who blew the building up with nano-thermite, and spirited them away to a secret location!

I am not decorated, alas, but I am not just an NCO, I am a senior NCO (nagad) in the IDF. There, I am now the senior NCO who blew the whistle about the truth about 9/11. You've heard it here first! This should be good for a "Bush is an evil murderer" six-page article in Harper's, any day now. What's Horton's cell phone number?

[JihadJane]

As with most conspiracy theories, you have "awful proof of X" which only holds water when you (a) only present "evidence" that fits with your preconceived "Bush is evil" ideas, and (b) don't ask any logical questions. The links Brainster provided make mincemeat of Harper's and Horton's conspiracy theory. For example, from the second link:



Indeed. And...



Gosh, with this sort of iron-clad evidence of an horrible CIA torture facility killing prisoners, how can you possibly doubt Horton's conclusion? Never mind that the DOJ did in investigate the allegations and found them groundless -- they're all in on the evil coverup, naturally.

P.S.

As it happens, I was in Manhattan on 9/11. I clearly remember seeing one ambulance going towards the twin towers, and later, going the other way! Clearly the only possible explanation is that it picked up the real terrorists, the folks who blew the building up with nano-thermite, and spirited them away to a secret location!

I am not decorated, alas, but I am not just an NCO, I am a senior NCO (nagad) in the IDF. There, I am now the senior NCO who blew the whistle about the truth about 9/11. You've heard it here first! This should be good for a "Bush is an evil murderer" six-page article in Harper's, any day now. What's Horton's cell phone number?

What do you think of the "asymmetrical warfare", rags-down-the-throat-suicide conspiracy theory?

[Praktik]

Horton has a new follow up (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006466) where he talks to a pathologist about the weird "missing neck" autopsies.

On the broken hyoid bone:

A fracture of the hyoid bone occurs more commonly in homicidal manual strangulation than in suicidal hanging. A pathologist performing the second autopsy should be able to examine the hyoid bone and larynx to independently determine if the fracture happened while the decedent was alive or inadvertently after death during autopsy removal of the larynx.hmmmm.

[Praktik]

The Pentagon got caught in a lie when it claimed (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35388) that no one requested the neck organs. Horton did due diligence and had another follow-up (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006471) to address that question:

This was discovered by Professor Mangin’s team during the autopsy. I promptly raised this fact in a letter addressed (http://www.harpers.org/media/image/blogs/misc/lettremallak060629.pdf)on June 29, 2006 to Dr. Craig Mallak, the head of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Rockville, Maryland:

The family of Ahmed Ali Abdullah requested our organization to help them organize an autopsy of the body of their son who died on 10 June 2006 in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. We gave a mandate to a medical team directed by Prof. Patrice Mangin, head of the Institute of Legal Medicine of Lausanne University, in Switzerland, to perform this task and the autopsy took place last week in Sanaa.

We would like to put you in touch with the Lausanne medical team which needs some documents, materials and explanations from your side in order for them to finalize their report of autopsy. They need in particular the following:

1) A copy of the report of autopsy carried out by your team and the histological samples as well as the anatomical sample corresponding to the upper airways including the larynx, the hyoid bone and the thyroid cartilage removed in one piece during the autopsy.

2) A copy of the report of the investigation performed by the authorities of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. More information is required about:

a) The circumstances of the discovery of Ahmed Ali Abdullah in a state of hanging in his cell.

b) The modus operandi and the exact nature (documented by photos if possible) of the ligatures used to this effect (the press talked about clothes and bed sheets).

c) If reanimation measures were taken or not. If yes, what is the nature of these measures (administration or not of drugs, endotracheal intubation)?

d) The previous state of the victim, in particular the possible existence of signs of depression, attempt of suicide, hunger strike, and if possible a close photography of the face of Ahmed Ali Abdullah showing his dentition.

e) The exact conditions of conservation undertaken for the repatriation of the body of Ahmed Ali Abdullah.

f) The justifications for cutting off the extremities of all the nails of the fingers and toes of the victim.

g) Any information about suicide attempts during the preceding days or months.

3) A confirmation that the soft internal organs put in a plastic bag inside the body of Ahmed Ali Abdullah belong to him.

And on the 2nd autopsy back home:

5. What did the second autopsy conducted by Dr. Patrice Mangin at the University Institute in Lausanne conclude?

You should examine the autopsy report itself (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006471) for its conclusions. However, the main conclusions were that there were some troubling and unexplained facts: missing organs, cleanly cut nails (Prof. Mangin said that nails are important in forensics as they could give clues about the last movements, fights, etc. of the victims). Prof. Mangin’s conclusion was however that due to the fact that he was performing a second autopsy and important organs were missing, he was not in a position to give a clear opinion on the cause of death. He would neither imply nor rule out any possibility. He insisted he wished he had at least some cooperation from the U.S. pathologists who conducted the original autopsy and who retained the throat organs, internal organs and clippings.