O'Reilly falsely claimed "nobody died" at Abu Ghraib
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Bill O'Reilly called prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib "pathetic," "awful," and said "[n]o one should justify that, ever," then added, "But nobody died." In fact, at least one detainee reportedly died at Abu Ghraib during an interrogation by CIA personnel.
On the July 24 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, after stating that prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib was "pathetic," "awful," and "[n]o one should justify that, ever," O'Reilly falsely claimed, "But nobody died." In fact, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, at least one detainee reportedly died at Abu Ghraib during an interrogation by CIA personnel on November 4, 2003. The Pentagon labeled Manadel al-Jamadi's death a "homicide," indicating that it was not the result of natural causes.
The death of Jamadi at Abu Ghraib received widespread attention in the U.S. media following the publication of photographs depicting U.S. personnel at the facility posing and giving a thumbs-up over Jamadi's corpse. For instance, The New York Times reported on October 23, 2005, that "Mr. Jamadi's death was among the most notorious of the incidents at Abu Ghraib that became public in the spring of 2004, in part because his body was photographed wrapped in plastic and packed in ice. He died after being beaten by commandos of the Navy Seals who struck him in the head with rifle butts and then turned him over to C.I.A. interrogators at Abu Ghraib."
Following O'Reilly's incorrect assertion that nobody died at Abu Ghraib, he stated: "So the coverage was way out of proportion to what happened there. But of course, the left-wing media, this is what they're gonna do."
From the July 24 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Now, in every theater in World War II, Americans slapped around the enemy and did even worse to the enemy, OK? For a variety of reasons -- some was revenge, some was information. And -- and look, if you don't believe that in every single war in history things have happened that weren't right, then you're crazy. You don't know anything. But what the media's done here in the United States in the war on terror is every single mistake the United States has made has been amplified, like Abu Ghraib, into an enormous story.
Now, Abu Ghraib was pathetic. It was awful. No one should justify that, ever. But nobody died. OK? So the coverage was way out of proportion to what happened there. But of course, the left-wing media, this is what they're gonna do. But again, the folks aren't buying it. You know the folks are not buying it. Dave Letterman's buying it, but the folks are not.
The scum in custody are animals.
He/she isn't being sarcastic. Unfortunately, that ideology is what allowed the Grand Old Persecuters the access to go to war with Iraq instead of actually finding Bin Laden. "The scum in custody are animals." What's funny is a lot of people would say he's a proud American. LOL!! Racists.
Does O'Reilly ever check out the facts before he opens his mouth? This would have been very easy to check first but he doesn't do it.
He gets it wrong so often that I wonder if he just pulls stuff out of his a$$ and decides that since it fulfills his agenda he'll repeat it as if it's true. It would be a full time job fact checking everything that comes out of his mouth.
Abu Ghraib was one place. what about the other places, both known and unknown, that conduct "interrogations" (not even counting renditions)?
Hell. I bet those prisioners in the photos would have prefered a bullet to the head than being shocked and humiliated repeatedly (that also makes me wonder about the suicide rate of current and former detainees).
Maybe Billo's "volk" are not buying it.
He hates the troops and everyone else because he is projecting his own self-loathing.
Remember Billo's comments on the POW's of Malmedy, which he got wrong was well.
The difference is of course that in WW2 and other conflicts, it has not been official policy, sanctioned by the White House and condoned by their supporters. That's what the issue here is, but I can't expect Billo to understand that.
He is so incredibly unintelligent.
Nobody died?!
Well thank goodness!
Everything that happens there is A-OK with O'Reilly as long as nobody dies.
Good to know. I'd like to see him last 5 minutes at Gitmo.
Sorry to double-post.
It's just nice to know that O'Reilly's barometer of atrocity is set so high.
If I were to continue his *ahem* logic, basically any and every horrible thing that happens to another human being is fine as long as they don't die.
There's a debate on whether it's wrong to mistreat another human being? An old fashion back and forth, pros and cons discussion on subjecting someone to pain, humiliation, and degradation? Just how does one argue the merits of intentional abuse for entertainment purposes?
Abu Ghraib is nothing less than a shameful disgrace.
So you have no problem with enemy forces torturing our soldiers? Because obviously what you said applies to everyone, not just us.
Nice way to support the troops!
And remember, we're supposed to be the good guys. You torture people, officially like we have, and guess what happens when say, our guys get caught? They get tortured as well, and probably worse. You seem to forget that the United States is supposed to be the leading moral authority in the world. We lecture other countries about atrocity, and human rights, and then we go ahead and do away with them when we see fit (lately at least). There is this thing. It's called the Geneva Convention. It's what WE should adhere to, no matter who our enemy, and no matter what other groups, our countries do to our soldiers. Why? Because we're better than they are. We shouldn't stoop to their level of torture like we have under Bush. It's not a proposition of you do "anything" to someone else just because they're trying to kill you. Nope. Why? Like I said, we lose our standing in the world, and we've been taken down a few pegs since this whole business started. Thing is, now let's say we do actually bomb Iran. And we get into a real war against another nation. What happens now when they inevitably take some of our troops prisoner? They get tortured. They get waterboarded. They get mis-treated. Why? Because if we did it, must be OK for everyone else.
Don't you get it (that's a rhetorical question of course, I know you DON'T get it)?
"During a time of war, when someone is trying to kill you, there is no longer such a thing as basic human decency."
It's one thing when you're talking about acts on the battlefield--it's an entirely different matter when it's unarmed prisoners.
What's worse, so much of the abuse had nothing to do with any kind of interrogation. They were the acts of a few fools who decided to entertain themselves by behaving like brutes.
There's no debate on this--what happened at Abu Ghraib was wrong.
You aren't the first person to make that observation, it is well-understood (trite, actually), and it is the reason the Geneva Conventions were instituted. No nation is, or was, forced to agree to the Geneva Conventions, but our forefathers in the USA did.
The Bush2 administration has sought to reneg ... Bush2 is the first American president too inept to fight a war while keeping faith with the GC.
Did you see this?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/07/25/BL2008072501405.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
You obviously no nothing about the Geneva Convention or Rules of Engagement. To lower ourselves to the traits of the enemy does nothing more than make us as immoral as they.
Science: During a time of war, when someone is trying to kill you, there is no longer such a thing as basic human decency.
Phew! What a relief! Now all we have to do is go to war whenever we feel our consciences eating at us. I had no idea that war was like a moral and ethical "Time Out".
I suppose Hobbes will be pleased to learn that his philosophy has finally become reality. It took long enough.
When there is no such thing as human decency there is nothing human left.
You describe animals.
Good article Annes. I liked this part:
interrogators needed only to possess an 'honest belief' that their actions did not cause severe suffering. And the honest belief did not have to be based on reality."
From the article:
"The American Civil Liberties Union yesterday ... (July 24, 2008)... released three heavily blacked-out documents it received as a result of its ongoing, FOUR-YEAR-OLD Freedom of Information Act lawsuit."
How does this qualify as a state secret? (Note this wasn't released willingly in the spirit of transparency in govt, it was not released quickly, and it is incomplete).
To me, the 4-year delay in responding to a FOIA request smacks of a cover-up.
The way Bill keeps gnawing away at US bad behaviour in WW2 leads me to suspect maybe one of Bill's Irish American ancestors joined the "George Washington Brigade" of the Waffen-SS Freikorps - in the Factor World these guys may have admired Hitler but, like Bill, they hated secular-progressives and Hollywood pinheads, and negroes and jews and pansies and elites and moslems et al. Bill can't seem to forgive and forget that American GI's actually gave such patriotic kultur-warriors a hard time.
Unused portion from The O'Reilly Factor 7/24/2008 Edn:
"So there you have it - Malmedy GI's - pinheaded patriots and those smeared patriotic Americans of the 'George Washington Brigade' - patriots. I'll explain it all in my upcoming NYT best-seller: 'Kulturkampf!'"
There are two elements that the BushieCo administration spends most of their time and energy on – covering their butts and finding fault with their opponents. Those are two pursuits that have NOTHING to do with effectively governing the USA. Yet so much time, so much Rovian attitude is pulverized into these two strange elements.
<>If there is such a thing as karma or even the afterlife, all of BushieCo should invest in heat shields, along with their Halliburton stock."Now, Abu Ghraib was pathetic. It was awful. No one should justify that, ever"
Now allow me to take the next minute doing absolutely that....justifying it. Similar to how the closer the gap between thunder and lighting indicates the storm is nearing, the gap between when Bill says something and then completely contradicts himself is getting nearer. Are we about to experience supernova?
i never did understand al the hullabaloo about abu ghraib. seemed harmless enough to me. why all the sensitivity about the feelings of a bunch of murdering thugs, mohammedans at that.
these are the same people that create cartoon characters urging children to kill jews and become martyrs, so called.
Sands goes with his strength...ignorance, dehumanization,the bedrock of ughy americanism. It hasn't failed him yet. Not that he would have ANY familiarization with failure.
May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your nose.
ooh, that sounds so bad.
i don't want to be like those camel jockeys. i take a steam bath, at my cc, and shower every day. that is alien to those ululators.
The slyibus of any european university starting up post 1000A.D. was uniformly from muslem sources. At least the parts the church let them use. Excellent translations in Arabic with some forther work and notes. came from the middle east to Andalushia(muslem spain). Muslems,Jews and Christains cooperativily translated this works into latin and some in other lanuages comprehended by the Europeans. The post Greek knowledge of medicine has a strictly muslem source.
But for internal conflicts Islam would have taken europe in the eighth century. One respected source figures this put us 300 years behind socially techniclly and financially. By the time Islam considered taking on europe again. European powers in their infant way to the middle ages had achieved military pareity. They did this in large though the designation of heretofore unused things, as vitues. These would be a hereditary aristocracy,persecutory religious intolerance, cultural particuarism, and perpetual war.
Islam at its source and original desires is egalitarian. A previous try in Persia at this societal organisation was attempted towards the end of its 700 year war with Rome. The leaders produced failed, and killed a lot of the supporters of the idea. Islam was the next try at this basic social revoution. To an extent it did and continues to support this idea. It became less so when a leader in actions says"GOD is Great" but then proceeds to give his relatives and syncopants all the levels of power and prosperity.
The slyibus of any european university starting up post 1000A.D. was uniformly from muslem sources. At least the parts the church let them use. Excellent translations of comprehensive Greek sources in Arabic with some forther work and notes. came from the middle east to Andalushia(muslem spain). Muslems,Jews and Christains cooperativily translated this works into latin and some in other lanuages comprehended by the Europeans. The post Greek knowledge of medicine has a strictly muslem source.
But for internal conflicts Islam would have taken europe in the eighth century. One respected source figures this put us 300 years behind socially techniclly and financially. By the time Islam considered taking on europe again. European powers in their infant way to the middle ages had achieved military pareity. They did this in large though the designation of heretofore unused things, as vitues. These would be a hereditary aristocracy,persecutory religious intolerance, cultural particuarism, and perpetual war.
Islam at its source and original desires is egalitarian. A previous try in Persia at this societal organisation was attempted towards the end of its 700 year war with Rome. The leaders produced failed, and killed a lot of the supporters of the idea. Islam was the next try at this basic social revoution. To an extent it did and continues to support this idea. It became less so when a leader in actions says"GOD is Great" but then proceeds to give his relatives and syncopants all the levels of power and prosperity.
In the last, how is that different from what you'd do if you had the power to do so? You give no evidence that this woud be alien or unwanted by you. How do you differentiate your self from a muslem? Are you sure its an important difference?
That was a weird repeat.
Baths don't count for you either. Moorish Istambul was well noted for its baths. A well known,except to you, place of female political efforts, among many other social and hygenic uses.
Yur current alternate posting name just decrided the use of emotional arguments. Your calling this logic then?
I recently saw an old Edward G. Robinson movie about the FBI cracking a group of Nazi propogandists in the U.S. (Boy, we could use him to crack the crazy neo-con propoganda...) Anyway, Eddie G. is shown using FLATTERY to get one of his suspects to talk about the spy ring. And explains that it's the best way to get small little men who think too highly of themselves to reveal information.
I'm glad you're opening your mind to new possibilities there, ol' sands. I say do whatever works. And since torture has been shown to be ineffective, then an actual skilled interrogator might "produce" results. And, really, who can resist a good "Hollywood" movie?
Unfortunately, the kind of fact-checking Sands engages in requres that he get naked, put petroleum jelly on his fingers and shove them into his anal cavity.
Beware his fact-checking. It ALWAYS stinks.
At least he didn't repeat his smear of the the US forces in Malmedy, falsely accusing them or perpetrating the veryt crimes that the NAZI'S commited against them.
(I guess he does watch Olbermann after all.)
How dare Media Matters prove that Bill O'Reilly doesn't know what the hell he's talking about! (Again.) They're like the KKK!