DESECRATE THE QUÁRAN. WAS NEWSWEEK EVER IN ERROR? ©

It was late on a Friday evening. On the east coast, network nightly newscasts had already aired. The calm and stillness of the weekend was setting in. Some were readying for bed, others for a night on the town. It was time to leave the hustle and bustle of the workweek behind; it was time to enjoy the weekend.

What better time for the Whitehouse to release a story that might bring controversy? Customarily, people leave thoughts of global chaos for the weekdays. Saturdays and Sundays are considered days of rest. The media respects this time-honored tradition. Therefore, if details of a story could be damaging, if they might defeat an intended Bush plan, this administration reveals them in the quiet of a Friday night, and so it was with this story.

On Friday night, June 3, 2005, the true story of the Quáran [Koran] was made public. Newsweek did not report the story; they were beaten, battered, and badly bruised. They could take no more chances, no more criticism. The Whitehouse had won their battle with this periodical. Newsweek editors partially retracted their earlier report “GUANTANAMO, A Scandal Spreads.”

On May 9, 2005, Newsweek had published a piece stating, American interrogators had flushed a Quáran down the toilet. Unheard of, not possible, or so the Whitehouse claimed. American servicemen and women would never do such a thing. Remember Abu Ghair.

In the days immediately following the May 9th missive, Spokesman Scott McClellan berated the magazine, its reporters, editors, and their policies. Speaking on behalf of the President, Mr. McClellan questioned the use of an anonymous source. A tale such as this is “too important” and warrants more scrutiny before it is placed in print. He stated Newsweek has done “irreparable damage” to the reputation of the United States.

Later, the President and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld chimed in. Each claimed Newsweek was the cause for riots and bedlam; their carelessness caused fifteen deaths. Ultimately and sheepishly, Newsweek correspondents Michael Isikoff and John Barry affirmed, they had only one source, and that source was unwilling to speak on the record. Newsweek editors were embarrassed. Reluctantly they admitted they were in error; the statement should not have been published. It would be a while before this magazine was ready for another skirmish. Yet, the results of another investigation on the mistreatment of the Quáran were revealed on this Friday, June 3.

Amnesty International did not disclose these details, though this organization had also revealed disturbing tales of woe and derision. In the Amnesty report, there were many discussions of abuse. There was talk of the misuse of executive powers. Violations of the Geneva Convention were voiced. Then there were the anecdotes; American interrogators and guards were indeed defacing sacred texts at Guantánamo. Amnesty International titled their account “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: a human rights scandal.” Unlike the Newsweek report, these accounts sited many sources. A Kentucky guardsman was quoted. FBI investigators were as well. Officials from the American Red Cross also voiced concerns for the abusive treatment of internees and of their holy scriptures.

With the advent of the Amnesty review, the administration articulated more harsh regards. President Bush stated the newer document is “absurd.” Vice President Cheney followed, “Frankly, I was offended by it. For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don’t take them seriously.’ Speaking on the issue, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, I find the report "reprehensible, it cannot be excused.” Amnesty International did not back down; they stand firm. However, this latest revelation of abuse was not theirs.

This recent release was that of the American military. A Department of Defense inquiry affirms that guards and interrogators at the Guantánamo Bay detention center in Cuba kicked, stepped on, and splashed urine on the Quáran. Nineteen incidents were documented; only five are considered certain. Admittedly, say the officials, many of these were intentional, others accidental.

The Pentagon asserts the “splashing of urine was unintentional.” It is said to have occurred when a guard urinated near an air vent. The wind blew his urine through the vent, into the prisoners cell, and onto the detainee's clothing and holy book. One might wonder. Clearly there are toilets at Guantánamo Bay; there was never a denial of that. Yet, a guard feels a need to urinate in public. Why?

Nonetheless, the military report claims that he did. They state the detainee was given a clean uniform and a new Quáran. The sentry was reprimanded; he was assigned permanent guard duty for the duration of his stay. At this locale, he could not and would not be able to associate with internees again. Once more, there is reason to contemplate.

Why would the military feel it necessary to ensure that this guard has no contact with captives if he had not intentionally urinated in a manner that would defile a person and his scriptures? One can assume that a prisoner carrying a Quáran is a prayerful person. Would not a prayerful person understand and accept a sincere apology? Was one offered? We can only wonder.

Investigations into the ample allegations reveal other mishandlings of the Quáran. Wet Quárans were found. Night guards were throwing water balloons into cellblocks. Why? Our government has repeatedly assured us that American troops, interrogators, and guards are treating prisoners with respect, regardless of charges by Amnesty International. Yet, again, we can only speculate. Is the throwing of water balloons reverential?

Then there is the two-word obscenity written in English, on the inside cover of an English-language-version Quáran. The Department of Defense maintains that it is impossible to know whether a guard or a detainee wrote these words. Yet, one can ask. Why would a believer in the scripture violate his own text?

In February 2002, a captive complained that during an interrogation his Quáran was kicked. According to the New York Times, in July 2003, a contract interrogator apologized to a detainee for stepping on his Quáran. This same interrogator was eventually terminated. Officials declared that he had “a pattern of unacceptable behavior, an inability to follow direct guidance and poor leadership.” Are we expected to believe that he is the exception not the rule?

United States officials promise us, captives are given the best of treatment. They are given Quárans, clean clothes, and three meals a day. Their life is good. Yet, if conditions in this camp were first-rate, why would all or any of this occur? We cannot know with certainty, however, we can know that the release of this story was timed in an attempt to lessen the speculation. Timing is everything.

Speaking of which, it might also be interesting to note that the Whitehouse in its infinite wisdom, certain that the Newsweek story was in error, did not begin this inquiry until three weeks after the May 9, 2005 accounting was released. Were and are Quárans being desecrated and was Newsweek ever in error? What do you think?

Please indulge. There are other thoughts. Steve Soto of The Left Coaster offers Bush Waits Until Late Friday News Dump To Admit Some Koran "Mishandling"

At Alternet.org, Amy Goodman is Debating Guantanamo