[Marxism] Does NYTimes finally get it? 6,000 word lead article
lshan at bcn.net
Fri May 20 03:47:25 MDT 2005
This was at the top of my NYTimes e-mail this morning. I presume that
it will be also be featured on the front page of the print edition.
Since subscriptions to the NYTimes are free, I presume that everyone
has access to it. If I am wrong, Louis can post the whole thing or
It is notable that the NYTimes publishes this article just as the Bush
administration attempts to manipulate Newsweek's minor source slip-up.
The front page placement may be an answer to the administration.
This article reminds us that during the publicity about Abu Ghraib,
there were many more images that were much more revealing than the ones
that we were shown. They were shown at closed hearings. They have never
been shown to the public.
It is also a reminder that the Abu Ghraib soldiers have been made the
major scapegoats because of the publicity around images that featured
them. Known murderers are receiving fines and demotions in rank.
Where is congress on this?
Should the antiwar movement initiate its own hearings?
In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths
By TIM GOLDEN
A file of an inquiry into the deaths of two detainees at Bagram,
Afghanistan, depicts repeated harsh treatment of prisoners.
At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to
his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several
days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he
could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally
sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain
the prisoner back to the ceiling.
"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.
Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr.
Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would
be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific
detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an
innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the
. . .
Even though military investigators learned soon after Mr. Dilawar's
death that he had been abused by at least two interrogators, the Army's
criminal inquiry moved slowly. Meanwhile, many of the Bagram
interrogators, led by the same operations officer, Capt. Carolyn A.
Wood, were redeployed to Iraq and in July 2003 took charge of
interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison. According to a high-level Army
inquiry last year, Captain Wood applied techniques there that were
"remarkably similar" to those used at Bagram.
Last October, the Army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded that
there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel
with criminal offenses in the Dilawar case ranging from dereliction of
duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter. Fifteen of the same
soldiers were also cited for probable criminal responsibility in the
So far, only the seven soldiers have been charged, including four last
week. No one has been convicted in either death. Two Army interrogators
were also reprimanded, a military spokesman said. Most of those who
could still face legal action have denied wrongdoing, either in
statements to investigators or in comments to a reporter.
"The whole situation is unfair," Sgt. Selena M. Salcedo, a former
Bagram interrogator who was charged with assaulting Mr. Dilawar,
dereliction of duty and lying to investigators, said in a telephone
interview. "It's all going to come out when everything is said and
More information about the Marxism