Praise for Stashiu
I recently got an e-mail from a fellow who is writing a book on Guantanamo. He is a published author and has been on Fox News, but I won’t identify him, since I’m not positive to what extent his project is publicly known. But he did tell me one thing I wanted to share with you:
Admiral Harry Harris suggested I contact you about your interview with Stashiu. . . . Adm Harris obviously thinks a lot
of Stashiu because he personally put me on to you and the interview.
It’s not every day that someone tells you that an Admiral has read a piece of yours — or, at least (to paraphrase Homer Simpson), had an aide give him the gist of it.
What a compliment to both Stashiu and to you, but it was a compliment you earned by your good works. Congratulations.
DRJ (51a774) — 1/19/2007 @ 8:25 amyou’re too modest. there’s a lot of admirals and generals out there. their press officers are two-way streets; they not only brief journalists and escort them around baghdad, they also read the papers and brief the higher-ups on what the chattering classes are saying about them.
besides, i’m the admiral of my own navy.
assistant devil's advocate (d0413b) — 1/19/2007 @ 9:31 amGood for Stashiu and for you too.
nk (d5dd10) — 1/19/2007 @ 10:12 am[The following comment is full of croche-style lies and B.S. I’ll give running commentary. — P]
Admiral Harry Harris said this of three suicides at Guantanamo:
“I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us.”
Patterico is proud to be praised by such a morally-bankrupt individual? Guess so.
[You betcha, buddy — because he was dead-on right about that, as an extensively researched New York Times Magazine article all but established to a certainty. Guess you missed that. But I didn’t. I discussed it here. Read, and learn. — P]
I’d further note that Stashiu’s tales about Guantanamo were followed by news which pretty much undercuts many of his claims:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/06/ap/politics/mainD8KJ8E1G6.shtml
“Guards at Guantanamo Bay bragged about beating detainees and described it as common practice, a Marine sergeant said in a sworn statement obtained by The Associated Press.”
“From the whole conversation, I understood that striking detainees was a common practice,” the sergeant wrote. “Everyone in the group laughed at the others stories of beating detainees.”
The paralegal and lawyer in question were promptly forbidden from talking further about the matter. Naturally, it wasn’t a story Patterico was much interested in pursuing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15271493/
[Naturally, you are full of it. I e-mailed Stashiu about it and got him to comment, in a comment thread that had been linked by Instapundit and got many more eyeballs than my usual posts. Here is his response:
What’s that? I e-mailed Stashiu about it? I guess I did follow up on it, and I guess you are full of it as usual. In your case, I’m willing to call it a willful lie because I know that it’s your hobby to research my site extensively to attempt to support your pathetic attempts at “gotchas” with links — so surely you must have known about the posts I link in this comment, including Stashiu’s response.
There follows in that comment thread a discussion of the story. Cassandra said:
Also, the Marine who overheard all this was a paralegal. I haven’t found a story that clearly states whether she was a paralegal working on behalf of any of the inmates. — P]
So there you have the state of things: “happy” stories about Guantanamo are encouraged by those who run things, the “unhappy” ones are suppressed.
Nota bene: “Stashiu” is anonymous. Vokey and the paralegal are not. They may have placed their careers in jeopardy by pursuing matters of detainee abuse at Guantanamo.
[Stashiu provided enough information that several people were able to figure out who he was. The only truly anonymous person out of you, Stashiu, or me, is . . . you. With your carping, dishonest criticisms of me. — P]
m.croche (2df8f8) — 1/20/2007 @ 7:39 amcroche… maybe you could re-read Part 1 about why I don’t want my identity in the public domain. They (the lawyer and paralegal) may have risked their careers, but only if they’re not telling the truth. If they are, they’re on pretty solid ground. I’m not saying they’re lying, just that it’s not consistent with my experience there. I am certain I haven’t read anything about their lives, or the lives of their family, being threatened. Also, as far as unhappy stories being suppressed, I would have to disagree. There are far more stories that are “unhappy” being told in the MSM. As far as I can see, the only morally bankrupt individual in this thread is you, as Patterico has clearly shown.
Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 1/20/2007 @ 8:54 pmHey, Stashiu3, welcome back. I don’t know how you feel about attracting the attention of an admiral 😉 but congratulations in any case.
As for the paralegal, she need not be lying. Her informants, simply, have no indicia of reliability and neither does the information itself. A police officer could not get a search warrant with such an affidavit.
nk (d5dd10) — 1/21/2007 @ 5:21 am