In February 2004, U.S. troops brought a man named Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim al-Badry to Abu Ghraib in Iraq and assigned him serial number US9IZ-157911CI. The prison was about to become international news, but the prisoner would remain largely unknown for the next decade.
At the time the man was brought in, Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba was finalizing his report on allegations of abuse at Abu Ghraib’s Hard Site — a prison building used to house detainees singled out for their alleged violence or their perceived intelligence value. Just weeks later, the first pictures of detainee abuse were published on CBS News and in the New Yorker.
Today, detainee US9IZ-157911CI is better known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State. His presence at Abu Ghraib, a fact not previously made public, provides yet another possible key to the enigmatic leader’s biography and may shed new light on the role U.S. detention facilities played in the rise of the Islamic State.
Experts have long known that Baghdadi spent time in U.S. custody during the occupation of Iraq. Previous reports suggested he was at Camp Bucca, a sprawling detention facility in southern Iraq. But the U.S. Army confirmed to The Intercept that Baghdadi spent most of his time in U.S. custody at the notorious Abu Ghraib.
Baghdadi’s detainee records don’t mention Abu Ghraib by name. But the internment serial number that U.S. forces issued when they processed him came from the infamous prison, according to Army spokesperson Troy A. Rolan Sr.
“Former detainee al-Baghdadi’s internment serial number sequence number begins with ‘157,’” Rolan said, describing the first three digits of the second half of Baghdadi’s serial number. “This number range was assigned at the Abu Ghraib theater internment facility.”
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi at the Grand Mosque in Mosul, July 4, 2014.
Source: YouTube
Days later, the Pentagon confirmed that Baghdadi was only in U.S. custody for 10 months, from February to December 2004. The Department of Defense told the fact-checking website PunditFact in a statement that Baghdadi was held at Camp Bucca. “A Combined Review and Release Board recommended ‘unconditional release’ of this detainee and he was released from U.S. custody shortly thereafter. We have no record of him being held at any other time.”
In February 2015, the Army released Baghdadi’s detainee records to Business Insider, in response to a records request. They showed that coalition forces first captured Baghdadi on February 4, 2004, in Fallujah, Iraq, and held him at Camp Bucca. But a line on one of the documents also suggested that Baghdadi had been transferred to Bucca after being held elsewhere — a detail that was not widely reported.
It turns out that Baghdadi was held at Abu Ghraib, just a stone’s throw from where he was captured in Fallujah, for eight of the 10 months that he was in detention. He was only transferred to Camp Bucca, some 400 miles south of Baghdad, on October 13 — less than two months before his release on December 9.
In the occupation’s first few years, U.S. facilities like Abu Ghraib and Camp Bucca developed a reputation as “jihadi universities” where hard-line extremists indoctrinated and recruited less radical inmates. Analysts have long suspected that Baghdadi took full advantage of his time at Bucca to link up with the jihadis and former Iraqi military officials who would later fill out the Islamic State’s leadership.
In November 2014, the Soufan Group, a private intelligence firm, published a list of nine Islamic State leaders it said had been detained at Camp Bucca. The list included Baghdadi and Hajji Bakr, a former Iraqi military official who became head of the Islamic State’s military council and is widely reported to have spent time in Bucca.
However, when The Intercept requested their detainee files, the Army Corrections Command said it could not find records that any of the men besides Baghdadi were ever in U.S. custody. Richard Barrett, a senior adviser at the Soufan Group who authored the 2014 report, declined to share the source for his information about Camp Bucca but said that at the time the report was drafted, the U.S. government never denied holding the senior leaders.
“It may be that the Army Corrections Command were not very clear who they held, as numbers were large and the ability to check identities fairly limited,” Barrett said in an email. “Whatever the facts, it is clear that ex-Baathists and other opponents of the U.S. invasion of Iraq were able to make contact and develop plans.”
Camp Bucca prison near Basra, Iraq, Sept. 16, 2009.
Photo: Essam Al-Sudani/AFP/Getty Images
“There is no record of an external transfer to a Camp Adder,” Rolan, the Army spokesperson, wrote over email. “The Camp Adder reference likely refers to an internal movement within Abu Ghraib.”
It’s impossible to know what effect Baghdadi’s detention at Abu Ghraib had on his trajectory.
In late April 2004, while Baghdadi was held at the facility, CBS News published photos that showed U.S. soldiers smiling next to piles of naked prisoners and a hooded detainee standing on a narrow box with electrical wires attached to his outstretched hands. An independent panel appointed by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called the abuse “acts of brutality and purposeless sadism.”
Officials blamed the photos on a few bad apples. But some U.S. interrogators in Iraq continued to use abusive techniques like stress positions after the photos were taken, according to Eric Fair, who has written a memoir about the time he spent as a civilian interrogator with the defense contractor CACI International at Abu Ghraib and in Fallujah in early 2004.
Fair does not believe that Baghdadi’s time in Abu Ghraib and Camp Bucca was a defining moment in the rise of the Islamic State. But, he says, the conditions inside U.S. detention facilities and the policy, early in the war, of housing extremists and former Iraqi military officials side by side contributed to the chaos that has engulfed Iraq and Syria.
“It’s the perfect playbook for how not to deconstruct an insurgency,” Fair said.
Top photo: Prisoners at Abu Ghraib, July 15, 2004.
We know that the first reports of abuse at Abu Ghraib (reported by Amnesty International) were released in June 2003. Knowledge of the abuse became more widespread in April 2004, with the publication of the now-notorious photographs. According to the new documents, Baghdadi was held at Abu Ghraib from February to October of that year. Afterwards he was transferred to Bucca.
We still don’t know if Baghdadi was one of the detainees subjected to these gruesome abuses. Just that he was there when they occurred.
“OMG, guys! PROOF that the US is responsible for the genesis of ISIS!!”
Oh, wait, never mind. I just got around to reading the actual article under the headline.
Whoops.
Gotta love that Rumsfeldian distinction of “purposeless” sadism…
The U.S military should have shot Bagadadi dead back when they had the chance.
Are you saying supposed CIA funding is the on thing that made these groups into what they are today?
The origin of the claim that the US created ISIS seems to originate with Iran’s Hassan Firouzabadi. Likewise, the story of the Snowden docs “proving” this conspiracy theory seems to have originated with this post:
http://www.shababek.de/pw3/?p=3332
The last post, of course, led to rather large number of articles repeating this claim. None of these articles explained their sources.
(https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statuses/497058967026429953)
Likewise, the Iranians often spread the claim that ISIS is a US creation.When American leaders suggested that al-Maliki’s Shi‘ite chauvinism may have played a role in rallying Sunni support for the ISIS advance into Iraq, and suggested he step down, Iranians saw it as a direct threat to their influence. And again, it appears that Baghdadi was already a senior terrorist by the time the US detained him.
I admit that debunking these conspiracy theories is an uphill battle. But let’s look at some other context. During the 2011 US withdrawal, who CIA director? David Petraeus. Do you guys seriously believe that he would defy orders and destroy his lifetime achievement.
These conspiracy theories come from a couple places:
1)When people live in a culture in which, how the next leaders are chosen is not transparent, rumors and speculation are a natural part of politics-hence conspiracy theories.
2) I think people in the Middle East are honestly baffled by why the U.S. often chooses between bad and worse leaders, when maybe in their opinion we shouldn’t be making a choice here at all (with our support that is.)
3) Our policies during the course of the war in Syria: playing the middle ground for a long time leads to speculation and distrust by all sides-we helped the rebels or we didn’t help them enough; we intervened in Syria quickly or we didn’t intervene enough; the U.S. took sides in Syria but because of the U.S. government antipathy towards Iran and Syria these motives were suspect.
4) The idea that a super power like the U.S. can’t exert more beneficial concerted action leads to speculation–why can’t we stop the chaos?
5) Because the U.S. helped rebels(albeit not as much as they would have liked ) who later switched sides to Al Nusra has led to speculation that we were behind the rise of other militant groups like ISIS.
All of the above is an excellent recipe for speculation and conspiracy theorizing.
Likewise, when people say the West “created” ISIS, what do they mean exactly? And why would you trust any message disseminated by ISIS? They are masters of propaganda as you can see by their success in recruiting people to join their cause from all over the world.
If you wanted to argue that the US invasion of Iraq screwed up the region, well, you wouldn’t be wrong.
Conspiracy theories are nothing new in the Middle East. But go ahead and believe them if you want.
Interesting article thanks. where’s Coram Noobis and Craig?
It’s not just US crimes, but the refusal to hold anyone properly accountable for those crimes, that is provoking such rage against the West. Seeing such a gross double-standard, and US atrocities committed with impunity, must really rankle. One of the quickest roads to peace, on the other hand, would be to start prosecuting those responsible, up to the highest level.
The US currently has no moral ground from which to fight the war of “hearts and minds”; and the war of bombs and bullets doesn’t seem to be working.
Very well stated.
*Gasp*
“al-Baghdadi was held at Abu Ghraib for less than a year? Undeniable PROOF that the barbarism of ISIS is all America’s fault! If only we hadn’t imprisoned Baghdadi! Then ISIS would never have happened!”
Yeah, not really. Baghdadi made his own choices. Assuming leadership of a brutal army of barbarians and making it into the force it is today was one of those choices.
It is unfortunate that people ignore these facts in favor of simplistic, purely reductionist thinking.
“Yeah, not really. Baghdadi made his own choices. Assuming leadership of a brutal army of barbarians and making it into the force it is today was one of those choices.”
I find it funny that you follow that up with this:
“It is unfortunate that people ignore these facts in favor of simplistic, purely reductionist thinking.”
You are literally reducing the rise of al-Baghdadi and ISIS into them being savages. You’re choosing to ignore things that are very likely to have formed the basis for their radicalism. Of course al-Baghdadi is responsible for his actions. Of course ISIS isn’t “all America’s fault” as you so idiotically assume this article is suggesting, even though it literally states the opposite of that in the second to last paragraph.
Understanding how US policy is sometimes detrimental to our own self-interest is the very opposite of “purely reductionist thinking”. Understanding that places like Abu Ghraib aren’t just blights on our country, but have played an active role in violence directed back at us by terrorist groups is the very opposite of “purely reductionist thinking”. Ignoring those issues so that you can label terrorists like al-Baghdadi as barbarians and savages is the very definition of “purely reductionist thinking”.
Idiotically, huh?
I was pointing out the click-bait nature of the article, and the observation that many people tend to think in such a simplistic way.
Likewise, the article only SUGGESTS that Baghdadi’s brief detention at Abu Ghraib played some sort of role in radicalizing him. I never “reduced” this to be the article’s message.
If you have any harder evidence, please share it.
You think 10 months is brief? Try staying in your house for a few weeks continuously and you already get mad. Being detained for 10 months might be short in the respect to the age of earth, but not for the lifetime of a human being.
Do you know why he was detained? I don’t. And it wouldn’t be the first time that the USA detained someone without a cause. I know that that would make me angry, let alone someone who had to see first hand how the same people attacked my country and bombed everything that I knew to high heavens.
But you still think his detention is what turned him into a terrorist kingpin? Hey, go ahead and believe it if you want.
Also, America intervened in Iraq; this provides a convenient argument for those wishing to blame ISIS on the US. How do these know-it-alls explain the rise of ISIS in Syria?
Last time I checked, the US never intervened in Syria until after ISIS gained power.
Read this article, it may help enlighten you..
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-us-created-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad
“Last time I checked, the US never intervened in Syria” don’t know whether to laugh or cry at such a statement. The US financially, politically and militarily supported the ‘Free Syrian Army’ who then lost most of their fighters to IS…
Um, US support for Syrian rebels only began in 2012, a program that was heavily scaled back last fall. And what I meant was that the US did not intervene on a large scale until the actual rise of ISIS.
Now, I’m sure some of you believe that the arming of these rebels somehow resulted in the radicalization of some of these rebels. Uh, could you explain exactly how such a process actually worked?
Putin tells everyone exactly who created Isis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQuceU3x2Ww&feature=youtu.be
Here’s another factor behind the Obama-Clinton era push to overthrow Assad by supporting Saudi-allied Islamic militants in Syria (who, by 2014, had turned into ISIS):
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/05/clinton-pushed-israel/
Choice Clinton email excerpts revealing some more reasons for fomenting civil war in Syria:
This one is nice, on Israel’s not-to-be-discussed nuclear weapons program:
And see Jeremey Sach’s comments:
I appreciate that those who fear Trump and would rather see Clinton in office (most of the liberal media outlets in the U.S.) are unwilling to discuss her role in the rise of ISIS in Syria, any more than right-wing establishment Republicans want to discuss how McCain and Graham coordinated with the Saudis in this effort at the same time, but facts are facts, and spin is spin.
But here’s a question the liberal pundits should address: Do you think that if Gaddafi had donated $32 million to the Clinton Foundation, as the Crown Prince of Bahrain did, that Clinton would have pushed so hard for military action to remove Gaddafi from power?
Nobody should need official reports or statements from attackers to confirm what common sense makes clear: If you go around the world for years proclaiming yourself “at war,” bombing and occupying and otherwise interfering in numerous countries for your own ends — as the U.S. and U.K. have been doing for decades……that’s part of a pentagon report…..
The Pentagon has lost 6 trillion dollars – taxpayers dollars – For George W. Bush’s WAR BASED ON LIES
It is a huge misdirection to call the war in Iraq “George W. Bush’s.”
Bush was the front man, but the war was very clearly a
bipartisan effort to lie and mislead the public and to destroy Iraq.
Joe Biden actually was one of the most crucial promoters when
he was chair of the Senate Foreign Relations and he
only allowed testimony from those who promoted the war.
That is probably why he was made the vice predator.
True, it is a huge misdirection to call the war in Iraq “George W. Bush’s.”
It is a deflection from US voters’ responsibility.
There are liars who use brainwashing
and there are people who are
for a variety of reasons
(much of it because of it fearfulness deliberately created by the liars)
willing to accept the lies as facts.
The bottom line is that
a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” has yet
to make substantial progress within the corporate capitalist
faking U$A.
“In Predatory Capitalism We Trust” is the real motto of the faking U$A
because predatory capitalism is God in the corporetum.
It’s Obama’s war now and he has opened a few new franchise operations. It will be the next president’s too. It will continue until the Moslem world is completely subjugated, until it breaks the USA or until the American people demand it be stopped.
Nice attempted cover-up – but try TRUTH
Bush Administration Convicted of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
Do you need a listing of the crimes????
You mean trillions of dollars transferred into the hands of the elites arms corporations who have profited from Americas fraudulent war on terror, and its other dirty wars of profit.
Oliver Stone’s Snowden movie coming soon :
https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/28/snowden-live-oliver-stone-movie/#confab-comment-34098528
Oliver Stone has done so much bizarre historical revisionism that I can’t help but view him as another element of the corporate media propaganda system. I’d guess this film will leave out anything truly embarrassing to the U.S. government in favor of a chase-the-shiny-ball focus on Snowden’s personal life. I’d be highly surprised if any of the following major issues make it into the film.
See James Bamford in Wired:
https://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/
1) Cooperation with foreign governments on domestic mass surveillance of American citizens that were clearly unConstitutional:
2) An obsession by Keith Alexander with Hoover-like political snooping for dirt collection:
3) The U.S. cyberwarfare targeting of civilian infrastructure in China for no good reason:
If you want a good Snowden movie, just look up “Chasing Snowden” on youtube (Anonymous Official channel). But I think this Stone production is going to be in line with the majority ‘liberal media’ response to the NSA/GCHQ/private contractor revelations – i.e. ignore those details in favor of a celebrity focus on Snowden’s personal life. This is how corporate media works – distraction propaganda. The debate is switched from Constitutionality of mass surveillance to an argument over Snowden’s character.
Keep in mind also that this film is scripted in part off the excoriable Luke Harding’s book on Snowden, which recieved rave reviews like this:
This would all make a good subject for a Noam Chomsky-style analysis of how the media manipulates of public opinion on behalf of the national security state, really.
Thank you photosymbiosis, and I fear that you will be right about the Oliver Stone production. I will watch Chasing Snowden, and I agree that it would be great to see a Noam Chomsky style analysis of the medias manipulation of public opinion and perception on behalf of the national security state.
Just saw “Chasing Snowden” on youtube (Anonymous Official channel) and most of the relevant parts were basically taken from “Citizenfour”, a much better and more informative Snowden movie in my humble opinion.
Snowden will rake in millions. Torturers and their data suppliers at the NSA will remain protected. The ‘man’ who calls himself ‘photosymbiosis’ will shill.
Sorry Stan, I’m actually a 12-foot tall purple alien from Betelgeuse:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/k4tiRvRq4Q8/maxresdefault.jpg
But really, the whole thing is strange. Sony grabbed the film rights to Greenwald’s “No Place to Hide”,(price unknown) and Oliver Stone grabbed the film rights to Luke Hardings “The Snowden Files,” (for $700,000). Then Sony got hacked and we find this curious Clooney email on the movie:
Now if the Snowden/NSA story had gotten a Syriana-style treatment, i.e. multiple interwoven narratives that focused as much on NSA insiders like Hayden and Alexander, foreign politicians like Merkel, NSA collaborators like Israel and Britains GCHQ, etc., as it did on Snowden’s personal life and background, that would have been another story.
But instead, we get this Oliver Stone business in coordination with Luke Harding, who comes across as a British intelligence PR operative more than anything else. Odd, isn’t it?
Haven’t seen “Ukraine on Fire” .hasn’t been released on YouTube yet though..nor Amazon , which reflects on Google and Amazon more so than Mr. Stone..or maybe not..
One of the most obnoxious aspects of this article is that it
quotes Donald Rumsfeld as if that sadistic asshole wouldn’t
use one horror to distract from another, larger horror.
Of course, the brutality and sadistic purposelessness Rumsfeld
liked to pin on the prison personnel was in slight contrast to
the brutality and deliberate sadism which Rumsfeld, Bush Cheney,
Wolfowitz, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry……. and so many
others of their ilk PURPOSELY unleashed
through their LIES
upon MILLIONS of Iraqis and others for their beloved
predatory capitalist privatized profits.
The horror of that prison and others may well have played a part in the
creation of more terrorists, but all of this is the creation of
the vile monstrosity known as the democrats and republicans.
Yeah, about that “independent panel” to review torture set up by Rumsfeld – it was set up merely to deflect blame onto low-level soldiers and hide the role of the CIA and the White House in promoting torture. Here are its members:
And what were their conclusions? Don’t spew your coffee all over the keyboard, now:
. . .The pictured abuses, unacceptable even in wartime, were not part of authorized interrogations nor were they even directed at intelligence targets. They represent deviant behavior. . .
This is utter bullshit; as the reveleations about torture and abuse in the CIA black sites from late 2001 onwards (justified by the legal opinions of Justice lawyer John Yoo and White House lawyer David Addington), this kind of torture was widespread and approved at the highest levels of government; it was deliberately imported to Iraq in 2004 in an effort to destroy the anti-occupation protest movement. The same goes for its use at Bagram in Afghanistan.
This was a top-down officially endorsed program of torture and abuse, and the Rumsfeld panel appears to have been specifically set up to hide that fact from the public. For example:
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2007/12/21/former-us-interrogator-damien-corsetti-recalls-the-torture-of-prisoners-in-bagram-and-abu-ghraib/
Notice also that many members of that Bush-era neocon cabal are moving into the Hillary Clinton orbit, like Paul Wolfowitz? So much for Bernie Sanders “exerting an influence” on the Clinton campaign – she’s the chosen war pig they’re eager to get behind.
There is no evidence that CIA was involved in the Abu Ghraib abuses. CIA’s role in the other RDI program (renditions, black sites, etc.) is well documented. However, I have found no evidence of any Agency involvement in Abu Ghraib, or that the soldiers there were ever connected to the other program.
I’m assuming this is supposed to be a sarcastic comment? Just look up
[ CIA contractors Abu Ghraib ]
and you can find dozens of reports on CIA’s involvement in the Abu Ghraib torture program; there’s no doubt that CIA black site torture programs from Gitmo and various black sites around the world were imported into Iraq in 2004 in an effort to disrupt the anti-occupation insurgency.
I meant that Abu Ghraib was not integrated into the Agency’s wider system of black sites.
Apparently there were CIA officers deployed at Abu Ghraib, and one Agency officer (Steve Stormoen) supervised some aspect. The Agency did have other black sites in eastern Europe, Afghanistan and elsewhere, but Abu Ghraib was not formally a part of this system, and the Agency’s EITs were prohibited at Abu Ghraib. Of course, the use of dogs and other “techniques” devised by the ABu Ghraib soldiers were never a part of the Agency’s program.
“I meant that Abu Ghraib was not integrated into the Agency’s wider system of black sites.”
How do you know that? There were definitely reports of segregated areas at Abu Ghraib and Bagram AFB in Afghanistan for “high-value detainees” that were run by CIA contractors. The torture program spread from there throughout the whole prison. And no, it was never about “collecting information” – it was about trying to terrify the Iraqi civilian population into submission, to get them to go along with the occupation.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2004/06/08/road-abu-ghraib
War crimes charges are appropriate for the architects of that program.
Um, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a fairly comprehensive report on the subject a little over a year ago. The Agency’s program consisted of several black sites in Poland, Romania, Morocco, Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Thailand.
And yes, there were documented instances of abuses by CIA contractors conducting the interrogations (Matthew Zirbel, for example).
You write that these interrogations were not even about collecting information but about terrorizing the Iraqi population. Um, really? The CIA was planning to eventually incarcerate the entire population and use the unauthorized techniques on each of them? That sounds pretty implausible.
That’s a pretty poor attempt at “mis-direction”, Nick Torrent.
You say:
” Um, really? The CIA was planning to eventually incarcerate the entire population and use the unauthorized techniques on each of them? That sounds pretty implausible.”
Is that your understanding of how terrorism “works”?
According to your logic, it wouldn’t be reasonable to label ISIL/Daesh as a terrorist group until they physically, in person, attack or bomb every single individual on the planet?
Yeah, sure.
But you still think interrogation is about terrorizing a population? Sure, go ahead.
There were some external factors involved in the rise of ISIS, without which the proto-ISIS groups would never have gained weapons, money and international recruits from 2011 onwards. For example:
“If US leaves Iraq we will arm Sunni militias, Saudis say, Guardian 14 Dec 2006″
and:
Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country, Independent, 12 July 2014
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html
And how did ISIS spread into Syria from about 2012 onwards?
A Veteran Saudi Power Player Works To Build Support to Topple Assad, Wall Street Journal, Aug 25 2013
So on the Democratic side, we have Clinton & Kerry at best looking away from, at worst assisting with, the Saudi effort at the State Department (see: Saudi donations to Clinton Founation), and on the Republican side, we have McCain & Graham serving as go-betweens for Congress and the Saudis (see:Saudi donations to McCain Foundation). Great plan – except that by 2014 ISIS seems to have escaped the control of its early supporters, is selling oil to Turkey in coordination with “moderate rebel groups,” and begins promoting global terror attacks.
Consider, what if Saddam had remained in power from 2003-present?
Yes, he was a dictator who abused human rights. . . like the House of Saud does, like the Israeli government does, like Assad does, like the military government in Egypt does, like Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE does, like Iran does. But, he did form a buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and Sunnis and Shias lived fairly peacefully side-by-side in Iraq before the 2003 invasion. Al Qaeda wouldn’t have moved to Iraq, no Abu Ghraib, no ISIS, no Syria civil war, no millions of refugees. . . but with much less military spending, no “Iraqi Reconstruction” projects and little hope of controlling Iraqi oil sales.
“War is a racket.” – Smedley Butler
Hardly surprising that the top brass came out from one of the notorious terrorist factories the US had set up there.
Tangential to this fine story is the story in this morning’s paper from the Miami Hearld;
about Gitmo; “33 Guards for each detainee”.
..”..In 2015, the White House estimated annual prison costs at. $455 million. Divide that figure by the 61 detainees there today and that works out to nearly $7,290,000 per prisoner.”
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/guantanamo/article97896012.html
wow. Whilst the money changers are busy gettin Hellary Clinton etal to create enemies, sell weapons, foment wars, wallstreet is busy robbing America and bankrupting the population with high price debt and destroying the country.
It’s what thieves do.
“may shed new light on the role U.S. detention facilities played in the rise of the Islamic State”
Or it may shed new light on how foolhardy it is to not terminate even the most mild of Salafists when one has the chance.
Isn’t that cuuuute…you know how to use the scumword “terminate”.
There are innumerable “opportunities” available for people like you, who want to “terminate Salafists,” Interceptor.
First step: Book a flight to Damascus and contact Syrian forces.
wow…abu ghraib AND fallujah. this guy definitely saw the US military at its “best”. add him to the list that includes ayman al-zawahiri, sayyid qu?b and charles manson; that list being “went into prison relatively normal and came out a bit of a handful”.
also funny how a lot of the same people saying “abu ghraib was just a few bad apples” also say “ISIS = muslims”.
Putin Tells Everyone Exactly Who Created ISIS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQuceU3x2Ww&feature=youtu.be
They hate us for our freedoms.
When do I get corporate welfare money?
Regardless of which of the various conjectures presented below is true, one thing is obvious: the US military and the associated intelligence [sic] infrastructure are totally incompetent when it comes to determining who is or is not a threat to the United Snakes. Being incarcerated or not is no indication of guilt, for it is a stochastic process.
True. And this doesn’t the media, pundits, and government from citing “recidivism rates” from released GitMo prisoners. None of whom were convicted of anything, so really there’s nothing to recidivize to. No proven crime they’d ever previously committed that they’re now doing again. Legally and with known facts, any ex-Gitmo prisoners doing bad stuff are doing it for the first time in their lives.
Maybe “radicalization rates” would be more accurate. How many prisoners turned to terrorism due to being illegal locked up for a decade? I imagine there are control groups to test that against–common US prisoners later found to be innocent and released. Some who do illegal stuff after wouldn’t have “returned to crime”. And at least some of them would have become criminals due to the effects of incarceration.
Jesus H Christ, this is like reading Salon. Does you have any Fking idea what he’s done? This sympathy for the Devil sh|t makes me sick.
Doesn’t ring true to me. What version of facts to believe. The US Army has given out so many conflicting facts here.
Some people may believe that being held in prison by a foreign occupation force, while you and your fellow prisoners were systematically humiliated and tortured might install negative feelings towards the US. But some people also believe that actions have consequences. There is absolutely no evidence that anything the US has ever done has contributed to any of its subsequent problems.
This article doesn’t change that.
Stupidity on steroids.
Stick around. Benito’s the satire person here.
Michael McMichaels is way ahead of you.
If I didn’t know your satire…
:)
It’s too bad benito, you waste your satirical opinions here for free, when you could be earning a 6 digit income as an agent of the USG propaganda machine for the same lame crap you post.
Benny, don’t listen to general warrant over there. He is simply jealous of your fine taste and consummate abilities in entertaining an audience.
They’ve made offers but I tell them the money is better spent on new wars in the Middle East.
Al-Baghdadi may have been coerced into becoming a U.S. agent. That might explain the military’s reticence to reveal the details of his imprisonment.
Only one thing is certain, patriot heroes fucked up and have a good laugh with each deposit.
Only one thing is certain: patriots acted in the most heroic fashion with the best of intentions and they have the bank deposit slips to prove it.
Bingo, except:
Al-Baghdadi was coerced into becoming a U.S. agent. That might explain the military’s reticence to reveal the details of his imprisonment.
ISIS is just a tool of the Martians. Everyone knows that.
French Report ISIL Leader Mossad Agent
Simon Elliot, aka Al-Baghdadi, son of Jewish parents, Mossad agent
[“Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, so-called “Caliph,” the head of ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant is, according to sources reputed to originate from Edward Snowden, an actor named Elliot Shimon, a Mossad trained operative…”]
the full story @ http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/04/french-report-isil-leader-mossad/
He was a helpless pawn in the US’s secret plan to create more Islamic terrorism.
There is no way of knowing from the article if he was helpless or a pawn, but US plans to create more terrorism were never secret.
Very interesting.
Did anyone ask the military why was he detained?
Yes, for spitting on the sidewalk.
“It’s impossible to know what effect Baghdadi’s detention at Abu Ghraib had on his trajectory.”
While the argument will inevitably be made somewhere here that Baghdadi’s detention played a role in creating ISIS, there doesn’t appear to be any indication that this was the case.
Apparently even The Intercept is not above posting click-bait.
“there doesn’t appear to be any indication that this was the case”
According to whose analysis?
According to a simple reading of the above article.
And some general research into ISIS’s orgins. The rise of ISIS is due to many factors:
-al-Maliki’s pressure for a US withdrawal
-Iraq military difficulties
-Shia-Sunni tensions
-Maliki’s curb-kicking of Sunnis
-ISIS propaganda, civic, and relief efforts
Just to name a few. ISIS could not have become what it was without backers from the Gulf states, from Turkey, or from Iraq and Syria. By 2008, al-Qaeda in Iraq had been bloodied in Iraq and was looking for a foothold in Syria. Then, in the aftermath of the US withdrawal, al-Maliki launched a sectarian campaign against Sunnis (arrests, exiles, etc.) When ISIS slipped over the Syrian border, it apparently found enough local support.
And some people like to claim that America’s detention of Baghdadi played some sort of definitive role in creating ISIS. Interestingly, even the above article doesn’t explicitly say so. Baghdadi was already a senior terrorist by the time he was detained. It is likely that he may have fought in Afghanistan or that he was associated with Zarqawi. His detention at Camp Bucca lasted only for a few months.
American power and influence has its limits.
“American power and influence has its limits.”
Dammit! More perception to reality alignment work to do. I am beginning to wonder if America’s Patriot Heroes lied to me.
” ISIS could not have become what it was without backers from the Gulf states” and the Gulf States’ backer.
If there was even a hint he was a senior terrorist, why would he have been unconditionally released in only 10 months? Keep in mind that we kept aid workers with no connection to terrorism in custody for over a decade with no charges…
Maybe the problem with the aid workers is that they simply do not display enough rage and terroristic tendencies to make them eligible for release. They resist training so the little goody-two-shoeses will be held FOREVER.
“Interestingly, even the above article doesn’t explicitly say so.”
I guess even The Intercept, naive tool of terror, Putin, and Satan that it is, couldn’t get an interview with al-Baghdadi to obtain a glimpse into his psyche. But whatever his psychological state, it has nothing to do with American power. This is quibbling.
Aside from that I think you are correct, but the article does not propose that he was “turned.” Leave that to the conspiracy rats. Lack of evidence of an effect is not evidence of no effect.
The supposition isn’t that he was turned at either camp, rather that both camps served as recruitment tools for his future plans. There are other articles that illustrated this before it was known he’d been kept at Abu Ghraib.
Certainly.
I mean, I suppose it’s possible that Baghdadi’s time at Bucca or Abu Ghraib was some sort of radicalizing experience. It’s just that I’d prefer some harder evidence.
We have no way to confirm if this was the case. If it was, I doubt it was the only factor.
Tell it to Trump:)!
I hope past supporters of Bush and all those who supported the Iraq War are proud of the mess they’ve created.
Apparently one of those who supported the war is now in a position to have millions of ignorant people of compromised ethics vote for her.
… or her opponent
Or Jill Stein
Or opponents. Personally I recommend Jill Stein
Jill Stein is awesome.
“His presence at Abu Ghraib, a fact not previously made public, provides yet another possible key to the enigmatic leader’s biography and may shed new light on the role U.S. detention facilities played in the rise of the Islamic State.”
and later…
“It’s impossible to know what effect Baghdadi’s detention at Abu Ghraib had on his trajectory.”
Did anybody else read that and laugh?
It is a proven fact well designed and frequently applied torture regimens have a calming effect on its subjects. If he were tortured he would have been completely pacified, and to suggest maltreatment at the hands of American Patriots would incite anyone is woolly headed conspiracy theory.
Lol.
So what you are saying is that guy was a pacifist up until the moment we attacked Iraq and it’s all our fault he turned out that way.
That was the exact emotion the author of this article wanted you to have.
“It’s the perfect playbook for how not to deconstruct an insurgency”
The US incubated both AQ and IS. I’m shocked. Shocked! Who could believe such a thing!? Once again, I must realign my propaganda shaped perceptions with reality. It’s a hassle.
Hmmmm