I’m nearly at the saturation point for bad news from Iraq, so I’m hoping someone can disprove this story.
Reuters, NBC Staff Abused by U.S. Troops in Iraq
U.S. forces beat three Iraqis working for Reuters and subjected them to sexual and religious taunts and humiliation during their detention last January in a military camp near Falluja, the three said Tuesday.
The three first told Reuters of the ordeal after their release but only decided to make it public when the U.S. military said there was no evidence they had been abused, and following the exposure of similar mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.An Iraqi journalist working for U.S. network NBC, who was arrested with the Reuters staff, also said he had been beaten and mistreated, NBC said Tuesday.
Two of the three Reuters staff said they had been forced to insert a finger into their anus and then lick it, and were forced to put shoes in their mouths, particularly humiliating in Arab culture.
I may need to follow Rumsfeld, who followed Bush, in not reading the papers anymore soon.
Too bad it wasn’t Dan Rather (that rat bastard).
If this is true, how did it fail to get out for so long? I think if I were an editor at Reuters I’ve have gone ballistic.
Edward:
Brace up. Your personal interests may be well locked up in this news, in ways you may not contemplate.
Callup the Inactive Reserves, not just the Active Reserve Units?
Can a draft be far behind?
Check this:
Kevin Drum
or this:
Atrios
or consider an alternative I think is more likely:
Political Animal comment
Time for a bright young guy to be thinking ahead, IMO.
How about some good news?
Moderate Muslim taking action
This is one of those stories I have a hard time believing, for exactly the reason rilkefan stated: if it were true, how’d they keep it under wraps for so long?
If this is true, how did it fail to get out for so long?
It’s in the story:
Until the photos went public, there seemed to be a general refusal to believe that US troops would do this stuff. Look at the amount of denial when the Iraqi blogger Zeyad of Healing Iraq posted the story of the murder of his cousin by US soldiers. Even though he had been (and still is) quite pro-American, he was roundly denounced as a fool or a liar.
The same may have been true of these Iraqi journalists, and Reuters now feels that there’s a point to revealing the charges.
I grant d-p-u‘s point – but I still think that the news service should have (well, may have) responded by investigating; and apparently it wouldn’t have been that hard to gather enough facts for a juicy story. I suspect that when Hersh gets the Pulitzer, some Reuters editor will spend an hour kicking himself.
Apparently they are giving contracters a hard time too. email from civilian contracter in Iraq
“I grant d-p-u’s point – but I still think that the news service should have (well, may have) responded by investigating; and apparently it wouldn’t have been that hard to gather enough facts for a juicy story.”
Actually, as I noted here this story was in fact publicized when it happened, although the bit with the fingers wasn’t mentioned. The bit with the shoes, yes, but not the fingers. I know that this directly contradicts the bit about not making this story public; I don’t have an answer for that.
Moe, I just read through your three links and didn’t get anything like the sense they’d been beaten – I didn’t see the shoe thing.
To those who think this “failed to get out”, remember that it *did* get out. Somebody had already created a pretty good sculpture by March this year.
Sorry, rilkefan: I had grabbed three stories pretty much at random out of the bunch that I had found, and none of them happened to mention the alleged abuse re the shoe. Here’s one that does, dated January 13th.
Thanks, Moe, that’s clearer, though if the journalists were beaten the report should have pointed to bruises etc. Incidentally, the use of quotes in that article is just bizarre – someone notify Anarch.
This is just hilarious.
Incidentally, the use of quotes in that article is just bizarre – someone notify Anarch.
Meep?
As for the quotation marks… well, they’re clearly quoting the US military, i.e. the military must have used the word “drop”, but, uh… damn, you’re right, that is weird.
What’s much more interesting for the purposes of this query is the following quote:
Although Reuters has not commented publicly, it is understood that the journalists were “brutalized and intimidated” by US soldiers, who put bags over their heads, told them they would be sent to Guantanamo Bay, and whispered: “Let’s have sex.” [Emphasis mine]
First, understood how? There’s sourcing to the family of the staff members for other comments but not this one; very odd.
Second, I’m wondering if the fact that “Reuters has not commented publicly” might account for the confusion as to whether or not the story was publicized; the correct version of the statement might be something like (apologies for the awkward phrasing):
The three first told Reuters of the ordeal after their release but they (and we) only decided to go public themselves after the U.S. military said there was no evidence they had been abused, and following the exposure of similar mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.
which would render this controversy the result of bad copy rather than anything deeper.
Actually I wasn’t referring to punctuational aspects of the “drop” quote so much as how sad the Army’s denial now looks.
I like “apparent” too.
Speaking of scare quotes, eff the Washington Times.
That’s quite a bit of “reporting” in that Times article, asdf.
That’s quite a bit of “reporting” in that Times article, asdf.