[Marxism] Does NYTimes finally get it? 6,000 word lead article

lshan 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  
major parts.

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?

Brian Shannon
______________

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  
wrong time.
. . .
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  
Habibullah case.

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  
done."

http://makeashorterlink.com/?I27821C1B OR
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html? 
th&emc=th


More information about the Marxism mailing list