Rhuhel Ahmed, Asif Iqbal og Shafiq Rasul tager angiveligt til Pakistan for at deltage i et bryllup, under besøget får de en stærk lyst til at besøge taliban i Afghanistan, hvor de måske besøger Osama bin Laden.
Deres besøg falder tilfældigvis sammen med USA’s invasion og de tilbageholdes og overføres til Guantanamo, hvor de opholder sig i over 2 år.
Da de bliver løsladt, påstår de, at de er blevet tortureret.
DR-P1 interviewer en af dem her til morgen, og stiller sig til rådighed for påstandene med total ukritisk mikrofonholderi. Det er påfaldende, at engelske medier kalder dem for ‘unge mænd’, medens P1 konsekvent igennem interviewet kalder dem for ‘drenge’.
Der er mange spørgsmål P1 kunne have stillet (her fra Daily Ablution):
At this point, it’s worth recalling a Daily Telegraph piece from last year, which reminds us that:
“The men’s claim that they were tortured at Guantanamo should also be set in the context of the al-Qa’eda training manual discovered during a raid in Manchester a couple of years ago. Lesson 18 of that manual, whose authenticity has not been questioned, emphatically states, under the heading ‘Prison and Detention Centres’, that, when arrested, members of al-Qa’eda ‘must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security investigators. [They must] complain to the court of mistreatment while in prison’. That is not, of course, proof that the Britons were not tortured in Guantanamo. But it ought to encourage some doubts about uncritically accepting that they were – which seems to be the attitude adopted by most of the media.”
An attitude that, as we see, seems only to be strengthening – a fact which leads me to ask: Why is it that so many supposedly sophisticated, critical people simply accept these patently suspect claims of mistreatment without so much the hint of a question?
Jeg så desværre ikke TV-avisen 19.30 iaften, men P1’s amatørjournalistik gentog sig i TV-avisen klokken 21,hvor der heller ikke blev stillet et eneste kritisk spørgsmål til ‘drengene’, hvis alder iøvrigt blev opgivet til 29-25-24 år.
Uddrag fra kommentarerne til Scotts postings – her er der da noget at være kritisk journalist overfor:
“As for the Tipton Three I am sick of the soft treatment they get. If they were tortured that is entirely reprehensible. I suspect they were tortured. However, the focus in interveiws should be much more on what they were up to, did they support 9/11, 7/7 etc. I heard one asked today on the radio what his view of the Taliban regime was. But he was allowed to soft soap his way out of that. For instance he talked about how the Taliban had brought peace to the land after civil strife as though only Taliban regimes can ever create civil peace.”
“On Newsnight Review David Aaronovitch asked why, nowhere in the programme, was it mentioned that 1. the mosque these guys “visited” happens to be the centre of Jihadist recruitment in the region and 2. the 3 got involved a week after fighting had started ie they knew what they were getting into. An embarrassed silence followed.”
Det er også interessant, at en af ‘drengene’ tidligere har udtalt:
“An indignant Guardian account (redundantly headed “Camp Delta Briton claims racial abuse – Racial abuse claim by Briton“) notes that:
“According to his elder brother Habib, he wrote: ‘Everything’s OK in Guantanamo. It’s just that sometimes some of the guards are OK with us, and some are saying things to us, calling us names like camel-rider and raghead’.”
It would be interesting to hear the reactions of the likes of Mr. Sutcliffe to the assertion by one of the heroes of The Road to Guantanamo, apparently made just three or four months before his release, that, apart from some schoolyard name-calling, “everything’s OK in Guantanamo“.