I received a letter from my senator, Ellie Kinnaird, in response to my recent letter to the editor.
Her letter was as follows:
Dear Mr. Weaks,
Perhaps you are not aware that the Red Cross reported the violation of the Koran in front of the prisoners to the pentagon. The Pentagon subsequently forbid the practice.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Kinnaird
The letter also including a printed copy of this NY Times’ article.
Here is my response to Ms. Kinnaird mailed on 5/26/05.
Dear Ms. Kinnaird,
Thank you for writing. I am quite aware of current events.
I am sure you must have a coherent point or a logical reason for writing to me, but I fail to grasp it. If you wish to enlighten me further, I will kindly listen.
Your claim that the Red Cross reported “violations of the koran†is misleading. What the Red Cross reported was that detainees at Guantanamo Bay complained about mishandling of the koran.
“The International Committee of the Red Cross told the Pentagon “multiple” times in 2002 and early 2003 prisoners at the base in Cuba alleged U.S. officials showed “disrespect” for the Muslim holy book, said Simon Schorno, an ICRC spokesman.
“The U.S. government took corrective measures and those allegations have not resurfaced,” Schorno said.
The ICRC spokesman declined to specify if the complaints included the flushing of the Koran down the toilet or if U.S. officials used the disrespect as part of interrogations. Members of the humanitarian organization, which is given access to the prison, did not witness any mishandling of the Koran.†(See Reuters article enclosed)
In January 2003 the U.S. military did indeed issue some guidelines at Guantanamo concerning the koran. Those guidelines may or may not have come as a result of the abuse reports. They may have come because something was happening or it may simply have been due diligence.
I trust the U.S. military more than the terrorists.
Your inclusion of the New York Times’ article baffled me as well. The article further demonstrates the point I was making about poor journalism.
A cynic would say that the Times ran the story with some kind of ulterior motive. The story first ran two months ago (Saturday, March 26), when the Army announced the investigations. The timing of its next appearance could be perceived as suspicious, but regardless there are multiple things suspect:
One, the cases the article reports occurred over two years ago and every fact in the story was uncovered and reported on by the U.S. military investigating itself. They brought criminal charges against seven soldiers. It’s an example of self-examination and responsibility that the military never seems to get the slightest credit.
Two, the article, taken from “leaked†confidential reports, cannot be contradicted at this time.
Three, the quotes throughout the article could easily be taken out of context, see point two.
Four, the Times states: “The Times obtained a copy of the file from a person involved in the investigation who was critical of the methods used at Bagram and the military’s response to the deaths.” So, the source has a bias and possibly an agenda. That does not mean the source is wrong, but the source would clearly want the report to be seen the way they see it.
In regards to the claims of terrorist detainees, it is entirely possible and reasonable to believe that Al Qaeda will play distortion games. (Reference: see the training manual uncovered in England and posted online by the U.S. Department of Justice: www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm) That is not to say that all allegations of abuse are false.
Also, a related and under-reported issue is the fact that detainees have been deceptive about their motives and actions and when released have returned to their “jihad†and killed U.S. and coalition soldiers. (See Washington Post article enclosed)
What does this have to do with Newsweek’s sloppy work? Well… not much really. The Newsweek story was false and thankfully, although somewhat grudgingly, retracted. There is no evidence to support the story.
Even if the story were true it’s still an example of poor journalism. The point of my letter was not about the so-called “koran abuse,†but rather the shoddy nature of Newsweek’s reporting and especially the excuse makers who tried to justify it.
I don’t blame Newsweek for the deaths and riots associated with the story. That wasn’t the point either. The big issue is that we have some serious problems in our free press. Bias, shallowness and expediency are replacing truth, depth and accuracy. It does not bode well for the future of our republic.
Finally, I have hope that someone in the local media “gets it.†See Herald-Sun editor Bob Ashley’s article, enclosed. That is an example of the proper response and not the “blame Bush†mentality exhibited in Mr. Schram’s guest column.
I wish you peace and may God bless.
Sincerely,
James A. Weaks
