COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us

The prisoner, clad in an orange jumpsuit, was dragged from under his bunk in his cell at Guantanamo Bay.

He describes what happened next:

They grabbed my arms, my legs, twisted me up and unfortunately one of the individuals got up on my back from behind and put pressure down on me while I was face down. Then he — the same individual — reached around and began to choke me and press my head down against the steel floor. After several seconds, 20 to 30 seconds, it seemed like an eternity because I couldn't breathe.

The prisoner attempted to communicate with his US guards, but couldn't get any air. He goes on to describe how his US guards beat him so severely he wound up hospitalized for 48 days:

When I couldn't breathe, I began to panic and I gave the code word I was supposed to give to stop the exercise, which was `red.' . . . That individual slammed my head against the floor and continued to choke me. Somehow I got enough air. I muttered out: `I'm a U.S. soldier. I'm a U.S. soldier.' "

Yes, he was a soldier. And his name is Specialist Sean Baker--a member of the Kentucky Army National Guard. He wasn't an uncooperative prisoner either; he was simply a participant in a unit training exercise in how to deal with uncooperative prisoners.

After weeks in the hospital, and some more time on light duty on a burial detail at Fort Dix, SPC Baker was finally medically discharged for a traumatic brain injury.

A CENTCOM spokeswoman, MAJ Laurie Arellano, told reporters that SPC Baker's discharge was unrelated to the injuries he suffered that day.

The New York Times' Nick Kristof is calling 'bullshit,' and quotes the Physical Review Board:

"The TBI [traumatic brain injury] was due to soldier playing role of detainee who was non-cooperative and was being extracted from detention cell in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during a training exercise."

MAJ Arellano is now admitting the Army lied. She says she was misinformed. I don't know. I'd like to know who it was who misinformed her. And if I were the reporter on that beat I'd be climbing the walls to talk to that fucker. If my boss cynically used me to spread a lie like that, I would seriously consider resigning my commission rather than serving in such an environment.

The military says it found no misconduct in the events related to the soldier's injury.

Ok, this time it's me calling "Bullshit."

I personally worked for three years in a lockdown psychiatric ward. After that I worked in a level II detention facility for adolescents in Clarksville, TN.

I was involved in more physical takedowns of violent psychiatric patients and inmates than I can count. Sometimes several times a day. In the adolescent facility, where chemical and mechanical restraints were never authorized, it wasn't unusual for us to spend hours involved in a manual restraint, if the kid wouldn't deescalate.

I was involved in literally hundreds of physical takedowns. It was only in a handful of cases that the client suffered any injury at all, however slight. In no case was the injury permanent. And if any of us ever banged a client's head on the floor, we would have been fired on the spot.

And rightly so.

I've been certified multiple times in nonviolent restraint techniques.

And this time it's me calling "bullshit."

Each of those guards should have been trained the same way. There are multiple programs out there. CPI's the industry leader in certification in nonviolent restraint techniques. I was certified by CPI, and under something called P.A.R.T., although I'm not sure that one exists anymore.

I'm not saying there aren't times in a prison setting where guards have to be willing to match the prisoner's level of violence in order to ensure the safety of those around him.

But when a guy's not beating on anyone--when he's just hiding under his bunk--that ain't one of those times.

What's more, the Army says it 'can't find' a videotape of the incident that reportedly exists.

Well, I know why. Because the command erased it to cover up the incident, that's why.

As soon as the soldier's injuries became apparent, that tape was potentially evidence in a crime. Given that at least some witnesses must have reported that the incident was taped, then the tape's absence is, in itself, evidence of misconduct.

Reopen the investigation.

If the tape was, in fact, disappeared, it was probably disappeared at the company level or below. I'm not naive.

(Hint to reporters: someone, somewhere, filled out an accident investigation report on that incident, complete with sworn witness statements. It's probably 20-30 pages long. Eventually, that report finds its way to the US Army Safety Center at Fort Rucker, Alabama. They almost certainly have it by now. These are the same folks who publish "Countermeasures" magazine. Which all NCOs and junior officers should read regularly, by the way. There, I've told you where to look. Dust off that FOIA and get a copy of that report. You can also ask for any 15-6 investigation paperwork on the incident, but I can't guarantee a 15-6 was initiated. But an accident report had to be, by regulation.)

The possible coverup doesn't really reflect on anyone beyond the unit level. But a pattern is certainly emerging in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and in multiple detention centers in Iraq:

Our training of US Army MP prison guards is obviously a complete, total, miserable fucking failure.

Splash, out

Jason

Update: A 49 year-old California guardsman is alleging multiple and serious instances of abuse at another facility, near Samarra.

The Army is saying it investigated. The guardsman denies ever being interviewed.

Well, that's easy enough to check out. If he was in fact interviewed, there would be a sworn statement from him in a commander's inquiry or 15-6 file. The file will tell you the scope of the investigation, with the names, duty positions, and the social security numbers of everyone who was interviewed.

If the investigation was half-assed, it would only include the initiating soldier's sworn statement and those of the soldiers directly involved. If it was a good investigation, the medics would have been interviewed as well, and there would be some inclusion of medical reports. I'm slightly skeptical of the soldier, since cigarette burns would be easily verifiable and photographable. If I were in his shoes, and serious about making my charges stick, I would have procured a camera and taken some photos of the burns. I can't imagine why he wouldn't have done this.

But if the Army conducted an investigation, there's a file on it somewhere. It's possible for the Army to disappear a file. But they can't reliably produce a file of an investigation that never happened and include sworn witness statements. They'd have to forge them. But then you track down the soldiers and they'll tell you if their statements were forged.

I'm not saying we need to create a witch hunt environment here. But it's not unreasonable to expect that the Army would keep its files around.

Keep the Army honest. Dust off the FOIA and go after it.

Splash, out

Jason