In a statement obtained by this NewsBuster, a senior Bush
administration official has disputed a New York Times article, Jailed 2 Years, Iraqi Tells of Abuse by Americans that suggests
that the review process for detainees held by the
Without responding to the specifics of Mr. Ani's case, the senior Bush
administration official told me that "the facts of our detention system
belie the themes of this article. We follow well-established standards of
review that go well above and beyond what the law requires. And we do so
in the face of a ruthless and determined enemy."
He offered the following overview of the review process:
- Every individual detained by MNF-I receives a
review within 14 days of being detained by the detaining unit. At
this review, there is a determination of whether "there are
reasonable grounds to believe" the person "poses a threat to
security and stability in
- Those who pass this initial review are then given
another review, within seven days of being transferred to a theater
internment facility. This is an evidentiary review, conducted by a judge
advocate acting as a magistrate.
- For those still held, there is another review, within
180 days, by a Combined Review and Release Board (CRRB) -- consisting of
officers from MNF-I and representatives from Iraqi Government
ministries.
- The applicable UN and law-of-war authorities do not
require the presence of the detainee at the reviews, but the procedures in
place by
Concluded the official: "Bottom line: we do not hold
any detainee arbitrarily."
The Times track record in getting its fact straight on
detainee affairs in Iraq should be noted. On
"A front-page article last Saturday profiled Ali Shalal Qaissi,
identifying him as the hooded man forced to stand on a box, attached to wires,
in a photograph from the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal of 2003 and 2004. He
was shown holding such a photograph. As an article on Page A1 today makes
clear, Mr. Qaissi was not that man. The Times did not adequately research Mr.
Qaissi's insistence that he was the man in the photograph. Mr. Qaissi's account
had already been broadcast and printed by other outlets, including PBS and
Vanity Fair, without challenge. Lawyers for former prisoners at Abu Ghraib
vouched for him. Human rights workers seemed to support his account. The
Pentagon, asked for verification, declined to confirm or deny it.
"Despite the previous reports, The Times should have been more persistent
in seeking comment from the military. A more thorough examination of previous
articles in The Times and other newspapers would have shown that in 2004
military investigators named another man as the one on the box, raising
suspicions about Mr. Qaissi's claim. The Times also overstated the conviction
with which representatives of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International
expressed their view of whether Mr. Qaissi was the man in the photograph. While
they said he could well be that man, they did not say they believed he
was."
Mark was in
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
And the drum continus to roll.
February 18, 2007 - 19:37 ET by acaiguanaAnd the drum continus to roll.
No statement formally or informally in the article by American or Iraqi authorities.
Another NYT hit piece with no validity as far as I can see. But it got printed.
I don't know Mark. It is discouraging. They will print anything like this ceding credibility to people off the street; then question whether Bush is lying about Iranian involvement in the Iraqi unrest.
There you have it?
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Just a regular al-Joe
February 18, 2007 - 20:47 ET by acumen“I’m a normal person, just a usual man, and don’t have anything to do with anyone who was fighting against the Americans.”
"But he regularly turns his television to a new station called Al Zawra, transfixed by its running montage of videotaped attacks on American troops."
This is considered a credible source at the NY Times?
Propaganda
February 18, 2007 - 22:41 ET by nkviking75If The NYT didn't have it's own agenda, it might occur to them that perhaps (?) they are being used for propaganda purposes. It's not as if Al-Qaeda is subtle about it.