The NYTimes has a very slanted, extremely long front page article out today on prisoner abuses in Afghanistan. It is clear something went on here, but to distill the story down to its essence one needs to go through the many pages of over emphasizing the negative and minimizing the counter points to get the true picture. For example, there is a long lead in about one interpreter’s claims about punishment (which may or may not be true). Is there a equally long discussion of opposing evidence or mitigating circumstances? Of course not, that would require journalistic balance and professionalism. Something long dead at the NYTimes.

Before you look over the long discussion to follow, you can find other opinions from:

Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs
Roger L. Simon, who seems to agree with my view on this regarding the ‘filtering’ done by the NYTimes

So, to see the essence of the story as I see it let’s focus on indisputable facts and ignore testimony (heresay):

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.

NYTimes got the information for the story from someone with political motivations, but they never say if they got ALL the information, or reported ALL the information, or that ALL the information is accurate

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. 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 Military is taking this seriously, and has a large number of people identified as culpable. Seven have been charged and apparently no one has gone through trial yet. So citing a lack of any convictions is a blatent attempt to miscommunicate and infer a problem where it may simply be a question of schedule. And of course they are all innocent until proven guilty – and many now claim that right. So it is a work in progress and convictions will take time as Court Martials are established. So simple yet the NYTimes cannot seem to clearly communicate these facts.

With most of the legal action pending, the story of abuses at Bagram remains incomplete.

Really, this is all you need to know about the story, as we should let justice do its thing.

Two months after those autopsies, the American commander in Afghanistan, then-Lt. Gen. Daniel K. McNeill, said he had no indication that abuse by soldiers had contributed to the two deaths.

Replace the word ‘indication’ with the word ‘proof’ and you might actually be getting close the actual quote. Note the lack of a quotation, which means the NYTimes was kind enough to translate for us and correct the perspective. Gee, thanks.

In the summer of 2002, the military detention center at Bagram, about 40 miles north of Kabul, stood as a hulking reminder of the Americans’ improvised hold over Afghanistan.

Summer of 2002 was less than maybe 9 months after we took on the Taliban, less than a year after 9-11. Yet to the NYTimes it was not a reminder that we were on the offensive going after the people who killed 3000 innocent people, no it was a reminder of our hold over Afghanistan. Our hold that freed women to be seen in public, go to school and have jobs – to not be owned by their male family members. The NYTimes seems to miss those good ‘0l days.

Specialist Corsetti, they said, would glower and yell at the arrivals as they stood chained to an overhead pole or lay face down on the floor of a holding room.

Minus the chaining (do they mean in shackles like those used on all prisoners) the yelling and glowering seems similar to the first day of boot camp. Who would yell and scream at violent prisoners? Anyone wanting to establish a clear sign of who is and is not in charge from here on out.

A few weeks into the company’s tour, Specialist Jeremy M. Callaway overheard another guard boasting about having beaten a detainee who had spit on him. Specialist Callaway also told investigators that other soldiers had congratulated the guard “for not taking any” from a detainee.

Maybe these soldiers were once boyscouts who were bringing in the colors for a democrat party convention, maybe that is why spitting on them brings back sad/pathetic memories of treatment back home. The NYTimes better be careful, liberals are not acting with anywhere near as much self control these days as these guards are trying to do.

Several were devout bodybuilders.

Envy? Was there a connection between body building and brutality in the Military??

Upon arriving in Afghanistan, a group of the soldiers decorated their tent with a Confederate flag, one soldier said.

That explains it, they were from the south. This will help the libs win races in Dixie. Sort of like Vincente Fox insinuating African Americans are best suited for low paying jobs, the ones they do not want and illegal aliens will do. The symbology is telling – not about the military but about the boogey men that strike fear inside the NYTimes

Read with an open mind. They admit their report is incomplete and the trials have not begun. Yet they are so ready to jump to conclusions siding against our Military.