DrudgeReport leaked the news today that Prince Harry is serving on the front lines in Afghanistan.
Of course, the entire reason the depoloyment was shrouded in secrecy was to avoid putting Prince Harry and other troops in Afghanistan at additional risk.
Whose side is Drudge on? Only his own?
Winning today's award for the most alliteration in one headline:
Feckless fishmonger faces flak for foisting fatal fugu on famished foreign female
Read the sad story. Then try saying it three times fast.
Americans are being abducted by aliens. No, really.
DemocracyRules brought you the news on Saturday of a break in the disappearance of American student Natalie Holloway ("What Really Happened to Natalie Holloway"), and now the videotaped evidence he referred to has been released.
As reported at Fox News, hidden camera footage broadcast in the Netherlands on Sunday shows Dutch student Joran van der Sloot saying he was with Natalee Holloway when she died on a beach in Aruba, and that he asked a friend to dispose of her body at sea.
Continue reading "New Video in Natalie Holloway Case Shows Alleged Confession of Van der Sloot" »
By DemocracyRules
h/t Small Dead Animals
They will go bankrupt soon unless they cut staff or increase revenues. Is this new News or the same old news called new News?
Newspapers seem determined to ride the market right down to the bottom. Confronted with change or extinction, they have chosen extinction.
Marshall McLuhan said "The Medium is the Message," meaning that the medium will determine what type of information is transmitted, and how it is consumed. McLuhan said newspapers were a 'hot' medium, served up in chunks, where you had to work to swallow it as it was, take it or leave it. 'Cool' media involve the person as a participant, and people can interact with the medium, engaging with myriad images, watching bits and pieces and changing channels or web sites. Hence, his 'Global Village' of cool media consumers.
TV is 'cool' but blogs are cooler. Bloggers, readers, and commenters create interactive and interlocking spheres of experience. Forty years ago McLuhan said the hot media were doomed. I wish they would hurry up.
By DemocracyRules
A lot is being said about this 'candid video' of Katie Couric behind the scenes. Some are noticing her swearing, her occasional rudeness.
The main concern is her apparent frippery, her ignorance of politics, her insouciance about the actual subject matter she is dealing with. I have done hundreds of media interviews, and met many reporters and newsreaders. Honestly, most of them are like Katie Couric.
If it seems that they know little about their subject matter, or they are superficial, it's because they are. They don't have to know anything in great depth. Mainly they have to be very engaging on camera.
They only have to know a little more than the average person, and they must be extremely articulate and smooth in delivery. They have very little airtime. When you subtract the time they spend reading straight from tele-prompters, cut-aways to other reporters, and commercial breaks, the newsreader spends very little time in substantive discussions where they have to think about the topic at hand.
Furthermore, most interviews are pre-recorded. Almost all questions are read, and material is subject to amazingly detailed editing. After a newsreader asks an interviewee a question, it is common for them to do something else during the response -- check notes, adjust clothing, etc. When the interviewee stops talking, the newsreader asks the next question -- often with no knowledge of what the interviewee has just said.
Later, the cameraman will shoot some footage of the newsreader from behind, or the side, nodding and 'attentively listening' to the interviewee. These shots can be done after the interview is over. In this sense two monologues are occurring, and later the editor splices the questions, the answers, and the 'attentive listening' shots into an 'interview'.
This creates the idea that there was a knowledgeable discussion, when none occurred at all. Ultimately it is fair to feel that there is no 'there' there in TV. I know how news is constructed, so my opinion may not be relevant. However the prima facia evidence of superficiality is right there in the images on TV. Of course that gorgeous, hot looking newsreader with the smooth delivery was not hired because he/she has a PhD in political science.
Canada's most famous newsreader was a Toronto cabdriver whose fare one day was a CBC news producer. The producer loved the cab driver's voice and delivery, and now Peter Mansbridge reads the CBC news every night. He also does elaborate political 'interviews' with no real substantive knowledge of the issues (he's good at nodding though).
The average TV viewer wants superficial, glitzy, smooth, attractive, stimulating viewing experiences. Most don't even watch the news, and if they were substantive, fewer would watch. The average IQ is 100, and that's OK, it's been that way for thousands of years.
Informed news consumers should not be surprised that newsreaders seem uninformed or superficial. Thank goodness for the Internet.
What do you say when Iraqis take up a collection and donate $1,000 for victims of the San Diego fires?
Thank you.
_________________________________
Via Jawa Report
How did Iranians spend the day today?
Why, threatening the destruction of Israel and burning Israeli and American flags, of course!
From Iran's Islamic Republic News Agency website:
International Qods Day ralliers in Tehran on Friday set the flag of the Zionist regime ablaze to show their resentment of the Zionist regime's crimes in the occupied territories.
The ralliers, chanting slogans such as "Death to the US" and "Death to Israel", also set an effigy bearing the US flag on fire.
They also set the effigies of the US President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on fire in the ceremony.
The Tehranis carried the Palestinian flags, crying, "Palestine is victorious and Israel is doomed to failure."
This sort of thing -- threatening the violent destruction of other nations in mass public gatherings -- is a regular occurrence in Iran.
It all seems harmless until someone gets hurt.
You've heard about Iran's funding of weapons and explosives that have killed American soldiers in Iraq. You know about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Have you heard about Iran's suicide brigades? Iran is deadly serious.
He who digs a pit for another falls into it himself.
Tim Rutten writes in the Los Angeles Times today that Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS is an act of ego. His opening line:
Dan Rather took the best seat in the house that Murrow built and then left the place a ruin. Now he has returned to torch the rubble.
Rutten elaborates:
The former "CBS Evening News" anchor has a filed a $70-million suit against the network where he worked for 44 years, alleging that the network breached his contract when it asked him to step out of the anchor's chair and pushed him into broadcast obscurity. CBS did this, the suit contends, because of his role in producing what turned out to be a wholly unsubstantiated "60 Minutes II" segment alleging that a young George W. Bush used family connections to obtain favorable treatment that allowed him to evade service in the Texas Air National Guard.
Rather's suit further alleges that CBS' internal investigation -- directed by two outsiders, former U.S. Atty. Gen. and Pennsylvania Gov. Richard Thornburg and ex-Associated Press chief Louis Boccardi -- was a "fraud." According to Rather, Sumner Redstone, chairman of Viacom, the network's corporate owner, along with then-CBS news President Andrew Heyward and Les Moonves, CBS' chief executive, sacked Rather and four other journalists to get the Bush administration off their backs.
"Central to the defendants' play to pacify the White House," the suit contends, "was to offer Mr. Rather as the public face of the story and as a scapegoat for CBS management's bungling of the entire episode -- which, as a direct result, became known publicly as 'Rathergate.' "
Oh, that's how that happened.
Here we thought that trite "Rathergate" business came about because a lot of conservative commentators gleefully pounced on a self-evidently shoddy piece of journalism served up by a newsman they'd long suspected of bias and because he and his network then obligingly confirmed their suspicions by arrogantly defending the indefensible -- bad work.
Now, if you once had thought of yourself as situated at the heart of the journalistic universe for nearly half a century, and suddenly found yourself 75 and toiling for an obscure cable operation that seemed to generate more press releases than viewers, it probably would be much more satisfying to see yourself as the victim of an intricate, high-level conspiracy than as someone undone by the kind of personal screw-up that would make a first-year reporter blush.
The problem is that there's more than one guy's injured vanity at play here. In fact, the adjectives that come to mind as you assess the substance of what Rather now has done are wanton, reckless and irresponsible.
It's a hard-hitting reaction to Dan Rather's lawsuit, especially considering where it's published -- the left-leaning Los Angeles Times.
Another L.A. Times staff writer, Mary McNamara, isn't impressed with Dan Rather's explanation of his lawsuit on Larry King's show, either.
Nor is left-leaning Newsweek particularly enthusiastic:
Hewitt says he had questioned whether the reporting was biased at a CBS meeting convened to discuss the controversy that began to swell after the story aired. “Let me ask one question,” he recalls addressing the gathering. “If this had been John Kerry, wouldn’t you have been more careful about the story?” A senior CBS News insider said Rather is further damaging his reputation by suing. “I think it looks pathetic,” this executive told NEWSWEEK on condition of not being identified. "It looks like the musing of an older man who can’t let go. This will have no winners. But the biggest loser will be Dan.”
Rather and CBS labored long and hard to dig a pit for President Bush. When they could not find convincing proof of wrongdoing from Bush's Texas national guard days, they settled for what they had -- evidence that was, in their minds, "fake but accurate."
Worse, Rather stood by the fake story long after the "evidence" (a memo supposedly typed on an old national guard typewriter that just happened to perfectly match the modern Microsoft Word default layout and font) was proven to be a sham.
Dan Rather helped dig a pit for another man, and now he's fallen into it himself.
There is a way out of the pit, but it involves genuine fairmindedness, sincere regret, a dose of humility and common decency.
Unfortunately, Rather is still digging.
This is going to be a dilemma.
I don't know which side to root for.
Of course, in litigation, it's often true that nobody wins.
So this could turn out well.
The situation is becoming desperate in Zimbabwe, where President Mugabe's ignorance of the basic laws of economics led him to try to control inflation by outlawing high prices. The predictable result: Massive shortages.
Desperate citizens of Zimbabwe are now abandoning their pets or slaughtering them for food:
HARARE, Zimbabwe (AP) -- Pets are being slaughtered for meat in shortage-stricken Zimbabwe and record numbers of animals have been surrendered to shelters or abandoned by owners no longer able to feed them, animal welfare activists say.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said it could not feed surrendered animals or find them new homes and was being forced to kill them and destroy the corpses.
Animals, like people, are being hard hit by Zimbabwe's economic meltdown, with official inflation of more than 7,600 percent, the highest in the world. Independent estimates put real inflation closer to 25,000 percent and the International Monetary Fund has forecast it will reach 100,000 percent by the end of the year.
Vets have run out of the drug used to put down the animals and are relying on intermittent donations from neighboring South Africa. One veterinary practice was waiting for supplies to destroy about 20 animals, and on Friday could neither feed them adequately nor fatally inject them.
Earlier:
Peggy Noonan is a bit of skeptic on the future of Iraq, as her latest column eventually makes clear. But Noonan writes so well, and with such an awareness of the larger picture that transcends ordinary daily events, and with such evident goodwill, that I cannot help but enjoy her writing even when I disagree with it. Here's a bit of her latest:
In a way, David Petraeus won the day when MoveOn.org came forth with its famous "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad. They shot themselves in the foot and deserve to be known by their limp. Republicans enacted fury (Thank you, O political gods, for showing the low nature of our foes!), and Democrats felt it (Embarrassed again by the loons!). No one--no normal American--thinks a U.S. Army four-star came back from Iraq to damage our democracy by telling lies.
Gen. Petraeus's testimony was dry, full of data points and graphs. He gave the impression that everything he said was, to the best of his considerable knowledge, true. One sensed that like good witnesses everywhere, he was not saying everything he thought.
He was earnest, unflappable, and low-key to the point of colorless. Maybe he figures things are colorful enough. I felt relief that he was not wearing his heart on his sleeve or talking about our guys and gals. It was very Joe Friday: Just the facts, ma'am.
He clearly had a point of view, and it was, not surprisingly, in line with the administration's. But I think the appearance of independence and straight dealing that was necessary to his credibility was lessened by the White House's attempts to associate itself with him in the weeks leading up to his appearance.
The level of sophistication and seriousness shown by Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain and Chris Dodd was equal to the moment, and seemed to me patriotic. They were probing, occasionally strict, always respectful. At one point Gen. Petraeus was asked by Sen. John Warner if Iraq has made America safer and said, "Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind." Later, invited to expand on this by Sen. Evan Bayh, said he'd been surprised by Mr. Warner's question and added that "we have very, very clear, very serious national interests" in Iraq.
That of course is the great question. History will answer it.
I can't comment on the other senators, but I think Noonan is too charitable toward Biden. He is typically rude, condescending and disrespectful toward the witnesses in front of him who are not on his side of the political aisle, and his demeanor toward Petraeus was no exception, at least in the soundbites I saw. It discredits Biden, of course, rather than the witnesses in front of him.
During the Alito confirmation hearings, Noonan wrote that she found Joe Biden endearing, "like a garrulous uncle after a drink." If Biden reminds Noonan of an old uncle, one can't fault her for it. But my uncles were much nicer than that.
As for Iraq -- well, its history is still being written. Are we powerful enough to prevail in Iraq? Absolutely -- as long as we persist until we're completely satisfied that the Iraqis can defend themselves. And yet, the plan right now is to reduce troop levels. As Noonan notes:
An unspoken part of the larger story is that Gen. Petraeus backed up the argument that our troops have been stretched painfully thin, and the postsurge presence cannot, practically, be maintained. Thus a seeming illogic in the general's presentation: For the first time in years we're making progress, therefore we should reduce troop levels to the same point at which we made no progress.
In seeming to stand pat and at the same time lower temperatures by bowing to public pressure and reducing troop levels, the administration has made a virtue of necessity. This was not unshrewd.
To put this in simpler terms, the surge has helped us make progress in Iraq. Reducing troop levels will risk the loss of that progress. Yet the Democrats demand that troop levels be reduced. Therefore, the plan is to reduce troop levels just enough to placate the left a bit, without losing the war.
The Democrats are already screaming that the troop withdrawals being planned are not enough.
Of course they're not enough! As long as we're winning the Iraq war, the left will be demanding that we withdraw enough troops to ensure that we lose it.
I blogged about the possible fakery in the recent Bin Laden video four days ago on September 9th ("Is the Bin Laden Video a Forgery?") and again two days ago on September 11th ("Both Recent Osama Bin Laden Videos Are Sock Puppet Fakery"), and now it's been confirmed:
On the Friday before the sixth anniversary of 9/11, Osama bin Laden appeared in a new video, his first since prior to the U.S. presidential elections in 2004. In analyzing the video, Neal Krawetz of Hactor Factor, an expert on digital image forensics, said in his latest blogs that the video contained many visual and audio splices, and that all of the modifications were of very low quality.
Most striking is bin Laden's beard, which has been gray in recent images. For this video it is black. "As far as my tools can detect, there has been no image manipulation of the bin Laden portion of the image beyond contrast adjustment. His beard really does appear to be that color." The Washington Post has the full video here.
Krawetz says the inner frame of bin Laden was resaved at least twice, and not at the same time. The images show fine horizontal stripes on bin Laden and a background indicating these came from interlaced video sources. In contrast, the text elements, such as the As-Sahab logo, appear to be from non-interlaced sources.
The September 7 video shows bin Laden dressed in a white hat, white shirt and yellow sweater. Krawetz notes "this is the same clothing he wore in the 2004-10-29 video. In 2004 he had it unzipped, but in 2007 he zipped up the bottom half. Besides the clothing, it appears to be the same background, same lighting, and same desk. Even the camera angle is almost identical." Krawetz also notes that "if you overlay the 2007 video with the 2004 video, his face has not changed in three years--only his beard is darker and the contrast on the picture has been adjusted."
More important though are the edits. At roughly a minute and a half into the video there is a splice; bin Laden shifts from looking at the camera to looking down in less than 1/25th of a second. At 13:13 there is a second, less obvious splice. In all, Krawetz says there are at least six splices in the video. Of these, there are only two live bin Laden segments, the rest of the video composed of still images. The first live section opens the video and ends at 1:56. The second section begins at 12:29 and continues until 14:01. The two live sections appear to be from different recordings "because the desk is closer to the camera in the second section."
Then there are the audio edits. Krawetz says "the new audio has no accompanying 'live' video and consists of multiple audio recordings." References to current events are made only during the still frame sections and after splices within the audio track." And there are so many splices that I cannot help but wonder if someone spliced words and phrases together. I also cannot rule out a vocal imitator during the frozen-frame audio. The only way to prove that the audio is really bin Laden is to see him talking in the video," Krawetz says.
As I wrote on September 11th:
There is no plausible explanation for Bin Laden's video image to be frozen in two separate videos while he is speaking of recent events-- except for video fakery.
I'm more convinced than ever that Bin Laden is dead or that he has dramatically altered his appearance and seeks to avoid detection. Either way, the video images we are seeing are years out of date.
Given the strange references to liberal hot-button issues like global warming in the latest Bin Laden video and other oddities, I think it more likely that Bin Laden is dead and that the "Bin Laden" videos are being entirely ghost-written.
As a practical matter, the West should proceed on the working assumption that Bin Laden is dead unless and until Al Qaeda produces credible video of Bin Laden in which his lips are moving when he speaks of current events.
When we fall for sock puppetry, we are being played for chumps by jihadists. In addition to lending aid and comfort to America's enemies by our naivete, we waste precious, irreplaceable time foolishly debating the wrong questions such as "Why haven't we yet caught Bin Laden?" and whether we should withdraw from Iraq in order to look for Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
If Bin Laden is alive, let Al Qaeda prove it. Their video sock puppetry suggests otherwise. Either they are engaged in an elaborate double hoax to lead the world to believe that Bin Laden is dead when he really is not (a hoax which the world has yet to even recognize), or, more likely, Bin Laden is indeed worm food and the jihadists are working with their dwindling supply of old videotape and one of Bin Laden's many male relatives to record the audio track.
I am surprised that more in the blogosphere, especially on the right, have not yet sounded the alarm about the apparent Bin Laden video fakery. In their defense, it has been a busy news week with General Petraeus's testimony to Congress and the 9/11 anniversary. Further, the conclusion that the videos are fakes is a matter of opinion, although one supported by the evidence in hand.
As we have learned through one media mistake and distortion after another in the war on terror discovered only by the blogosphere, we cannot rely on the Associated Press or Reuters to recognize a fake when it is presented to them. That is our job. I'm calling foul.
Remember, you read it here before you heard it from the AP, Reuters, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, or the New York Times.
Let's see how long it takes them to catch up.
Update: Consider all the foolish stories being uncritically printed and broadcast by the media this week that make no sense in light of this evidence. Journalists are reporting that Osama Bin Laden is "taunting" the U.S. in his latest video.
No, some dweeb with video editing equipment in a back room is "taunting" the U.S., while Bin Laden is mouldering in the grave (or -- remote possibility -- while he is cowering somewhere afraid to make a video that shows his current appearance). That Bin Laden is long dead is far more likely. It's a better fit with the facts and with what we know about human nature and the nature of terrorists.
But why does it matter?
Let me ask this in return: Should America be sending more troops to hunt for Bin Laden in Afghanistan? Or would that be a colossal waste of time, money, soldiers' lives, energy, and resources -- because Bin Laden is already dead?
Are we better off staying to fight Al Qaeda right where we are in Iraq?
It's rather an important question, wouldn't you say? It's more important than any other lead story you'll find in the print or broadcast media today, isn't it?
And yet we have total silence from the print and broadcast media on this story so far. What's their excuse? They have yet to even recognize that the issue of video fakery exists, let alone report the evidence that confirms these videos are fakes.
Update: A little example of Bin Laden video fakery for your amusement.
__________________________
Western media and pundits who uncritically state that Osama Bin Laden released two videos this week are falling for video sock puppetry. Either Bin Laden is dead or, less likely, he has dramatically altered his appearance and is not releasing any current video images in order to avoid capture.
First we had a video a few days ago supposedly showing Osama Bin Laden alive and well in which, it turns out, the video of Bin Laden is frozen whenever the audio refers to curent events -- but not during portions that refer to events long ago. Ex-Army linguist George Maschke wrote:
Osama Bin Laden's widely publicized video address to the American people has a peculiarity that casts serious doubt on its authenticity: the video freezes at about 1 minute and
3658 seconds, and motion only resumes again at 12:30. The video then freezes again at 14:02 remains frozen until the end. All references to current events, such as the 62nd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan, and Sarkozy and Brown being the leaders of France and the UK, respectively, occur when the video is frozen! The words spoken when the video is in motion contain no references to contemporary events and could have been (and likely were) made before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.The audio track does appear to be in the voice of a single speaker. What I suspect was done is that an older, unreleased video was dubbed over for this release, with the video frozen when the audio track departed from that of the original video.
Rick Moran took the time to listen to the Bin Laden video and confirmed that it contained the long freeze frame sections identified by George Maschke.
Today we have a second video of Bin Laden featuring one of the vicious 9/11 murderers, and again the video image of Bin Laden is frozen, with dubbed audio. Furthermore, Bin Laden is wearing the exact same attire he was wearing in the video supposedly recorded this year and standing in front of the same backdrop.
Referring to the second video released today, the AP writes:
It begins with an audiotape introduction by bin Laden. While his voice is heard, the video shows a still image of him, raising his finger. In the image, bin Laden has the same dyed-black beard and the same clothes — a white robe and cap and beige cloak — that he had in Saturday's video.
But it was not known if the audiotape was recently made. In the past, al-Qaida has used footage and audio of bin Laden taped long ago for release later.
Here is a still image from today's video, via LauraMansfield.com:
There is no plausible explanation for Bin Laden's video image to be frozen in two separate videos while he is speaking of recent events-- except for video fakery.
I'm more convinced than ever that Bin Laden is dead or that he has dramatically altered his appearance and seeks to avoid detection. Either way, the video images we are seeing are years out of date.
Given the strange references to liberal hot-button issues like global warming in the latest Bin Laden video and other oddities, I think it more likely that Bin Laden is dead and that the "Bin Laden" videos are being entirely ghost-written.
As a practical matter, the West should proceed on the working assumption that Bin Laden is dead unless and until Al Qaeda produces credible video of Bin Laden in which his lips are moving when he speaks of current events.
When we fall for sock puppetry, we are being played for chumps by jihadists. In addition to lending aid and comfort to America's enemies by our naivete, we waste precious, irreplaceable time foolishly debating the wrong questions such as "Why haven't we yet caught Bin Laden?" and whether we should withdraw from Iraq in order to look for Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
If Bin Laden is alive, let Al Qaeda prove it. Their video sock puppetry suggests otherwise. Either they are engaged in an elaborate double hoax to lead the world to believe that Bin Laden is dead when he really is not (a hoax which the world has yet to even recognize), or, more likely, Bin Laden is indeed worm food and the jihadists are working with their dwindling supply of old videotape and one of Bin Laden's many male relatives to record the audio track.
I am surprised that more in the blogosphere, especially on the right, have not yet sounded the alarm about the apparent Bin Laden video fakery. In their defense, it has been a busy news week with General Petraeus's testimony to Congress and the 9/11 anniversary. Further, the conclusion that the videos are fakes is a matter of opinion, although one supported by the evidence in hand.
As we have learned through one media mistake and distortion after another in the war on terror discovered only by the blogosphere, we cannot rely on the Associated Press or Reuters to recognize a fake when it is presented to them. That is our job. I'm calling foul.
Update 1: In this late-breaking story today, the AP begins to acknowledge that the latest Bin Laden videos raise questions about his "health," but the AP avoids the elephant in the room -- the fact that the same videotapes also raise serious questions about whether Bin Laden is alive at all:
Because bin Laden's image moves for only a few minutes in the first tape and not at all in the second, questions are being raised about his health.
Really? You don't say!
Update 2: Former CIA Director James Woolsey also acknowledges that there is something very strange (and sophomoric) about the two recent Bin Laden tapes.
Update 3: Rusty Shackleford at Jawa Report thinks the safer bet (pending more proof) is that Bin Laden is alive but notes that the video altering technology exists to fake the Bin Laden video images we saw this past week.
On his latest video, Osama Bin Laden is thoughtful enough to explain the terms for America's surrender.
Ed Morrissey responds:
Isn't that sweet? If we just agree to live as slaves under our new Taliban masters, we can finance our homes at a flat 2.5% fee. Think of how liberating that will be! Well, except for the burqas, the barbers, the end of music, dancing, Judaism, Christianity, voting, the press, the 13th-21st centuries, science ...
Oh, and there's this little thing called democracy that will have to go, too.
That Bin Laden. He's such a card. He slays me.
Actualy, it's over 3,000 Americans he has slain, just considering 9/11 and the U.S.S. Cole alone.
Somebody knows where he is.
Every time he releases a public statement, I think we need to triple the reward for Bin Laden's capture, dead or alive.
Possibly Related Posts:
It's slowly beginning to dawn on the human rights community -- and the jihadists they enable -- that there is indeed a fate worse than Guantanamo. (Via No Pasaran!)
By golly, it turns out that some jihadists released from Guantanamo are treated worse in their home countries than they were treated by the U.S. Some of them now want to go back to Guantanamo!
FORMER DETAINEES ABUSED BACK HOME
'I'd Rather Return to Guantanamo'
When two Tunisian men were sent home after five years in Guantanamo, they thought they would be free. Instead, they faced imprisonment, abuse, threats and solitary confinement. Now they say things were better back in the US prison camp.
Many of the detainees sitting in Guantanamo Bay hail from countries with a terrible record of torturing and abusing prisoners. While they may want to see an end to their ordeal in the US prison camp, they also have reason to dread the treatment they could face back home.According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), the US government is not doing enough to ensure that prisoners sent back home are not subjected to ill treatment, despite diplomatic assurances from their home countries. The US is continuing to repatriate prisoners, sending home 16 Saudis on Thursday. But in their haste to reduce the numbers at Guantanamo, it seems they are being less than thorough in ensuring that the former prisoners are not mistreated.
In its "Ill-fated Homecomings" report released on Wednesday, HRW focuses on two Tunisian men, Abdullah al-Hajji Ben Amor and Lofti Lagha, who were released from Guantanamo six weeks ago and are now sitting in jail in Tunisia. The researchers did not have access to the prisoners but spoke to their families and their lawyer, Samir Ben Amor. . . . .
The two men were held at the military camp in Cuba for five years, without being charged with any crimes, and Lagha was never represented by a lawyer during that time. Rather than facing freedom when they finally got home, the two men were taken directly into custody and say they were threatened, abused and put in solitary confinement. They now claim things are so bad that they would rather be back in Guantanamo -- despite Tunisia's pledge to the US that they would be treated humanely.
Abdullah al-Hajji left Tunisia in 1990 and had no idea that he had been convicted in absentia in 1995 of being a member of a foreign terrorist organization. He was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and sent to Guantanamo Bay.
According to HRW, when he landed back in Tunisia in June he was held at the Ministry of the Interior for two days, where he was slapped and told his wife and daughters would be raped. He was shaken repeatedly to keep from sleeping and told to sign a paper he couldn't read because he needs new glasses. He was then sent to the same military court that had convicted him in absentia, told he would face a new trial on Sept. 26, and then thrown into solitary confinement for six weeks. He told his lawyer that, if he had been told of the conviction, he would have objected to returning to Tunisia.
The "solution" pushed by Human Rights Watch is not to admit that perhaps Gitmo isn't so bad after all -- at least compared to Tunisia and many other nations -- but instead to again raise the bar by demanding that the U.S. guarantee the safety of the enemy combatants even after their release.
But wouldn't that be rather . . . imperialist? Just how far should the U.S. go in sticking its nose into the internal affairs of Tunisia or Saudi Arabia -- hmmmm?
And why on earth should enemy combatants be given immunity from crimes committed in their home countries, anyway? This is not Wheel of Fortune. The prizes upon release from Guantanamo do not include lifetime immunity from prosecution anywhere on planet Earth.
If Tunisia has a human rights problem, then maybe it's time to stop the endless whining about Gitmo and instead to acknowledge the excellent job the United States has done in its detention of enemy combatants. When jihadists are begging to be let back into Guantanamo, that tells you all you really need to know.
Recent Comments