FBI Records Cite Quran Abuse Allegations after all

[Redleg]

Lets see what a search shows - since I don't remember the news reports on that one - and its not in this report.
It is in the report you posted , enclosure 1 , page 2, section 1,a,5 .
Its another one where "We found no evidence of further investigation into the incident"
How can they call it a confirmed incident if they have no evidence from an investigation ? Likewise how can they call other incidents unconfirmed when they also have no evidence from an investigation ?
Are they just guessing or tossing a coin to decide if incidents count as confirmed or unconfirmed ?

Your reaching there Tribesman the report clearly describes the incident as a confirmed incident with sufficient information to confirm that it was an event that was considered abuse of the Koran. This investigation was not a criminal investigation where the information was going to be used for a criminal prosecution of the individuals involved. It was done to determine if the allegation of abuse of the koran happen or did not happen and is a report of the findings of the officer in charge of the investigation. It shows that in the investigation that the officer found a blotter entry that confirms that the event happen because the detainees reported to a guard.

(5) On 15 AUG 03, two detainees complained to the swing shift guards (1400-2200 hrs) that the detainees’ Korans were wet because the night shift guards had thrown water balloons on the block. The swing shift guards recorded the complaints in the block blotter log in accordance with normal procedures. We have not determined if the detainees made further complaints or if the Korans were replaced. There is no evidence that this incident was investigated. There is no evidence that the incident, although clearly inappropriate, caused any type of disturbance on the Block. We consider this a confirmed incident.

[Tribesman]

It shows that in the investigation that the officer found a blotter entry that confirms that the event happen because the detainees reported to a guard.
So if a detainee makes an allegation and the allegation is written down then it is a confirmed incident even if it wasn't investigated ?
Nope thats really lost me there , so if a detainee made an allegation over an incident that didn't happen it would still be a confirmed incident as long as a guard wrote it down , and if a detainee made an allegation over a real incident and the guard didn't write it down it would be unconfirmed incident ?

[Redleg]

It shows that in the investigation that the officer found a blotter entry that confirms that the event happen because the detainees reported to a guard.
So if a detainee makes an allegation and the allegation is written down then it is a confirmed incident even if it wasn't investigated ?

One might assume that when the guard wrote it into the blotter that he conducted an informal investigation to confirm that the event happened. Having filled out blotter records a few times myself - they are viewed as official records of events that happened.

Nope thats really lost me there , so if a detainee made an allegation over an incident that didn't happen it would still be a confirmed incident as long as a guard wrote it down , and if a detainee made an allegation over a real incident and the guard didn't write it down it would be unconfirmed incident ?

Thats not what it states at all - nor is it what I stated.

[Tribesman]

One might assume that when the guard wrote it into the blotter that he conducted an informal investigation to confirm that the event happened.

Yes , but should such accusations , which have had widespread ramifications , be investigated on the assumption that a guard may have conducted an informal investigation ?
Are guards in anyway qualified to conduct an impartial investigation , formal or informal ?
But as (if you recall) my post first stated "we found no evidence of further investigation into the incident".
Why was there no follow up investigations at the time into the alledged incidents (apart from those incidents where the allegations were brought up during interrogations) ?
There are plenty of mentions in the report of sworn contemporanious statements from the guards concerning detainees abusing the Koran , but they do seem to lack slightly when the shoe is on the other foot .

[Redleg]

One might assume that when the guard wrote it into the blotter that he conducted an informal investigation to confirm that the event happened.

Yes , but should such accusations , which have had widespread ramifications , be investigated on the assumption that a guard may have conducted an informal investigation ?

I think your trying to mix your arguements together. This instance of koran mis-handling or descration (SP) as confirmed by a blotter entry concerning the "water ballon" causing the Koran to become wet because of actions of guards - supports that American servicemembers functioning as guards did something that warranted a founded conclusion of abuse.

Are guards in anyway qualified to conduct an impartial investigation , formal or informal ?

Sure they are - I believe anyone that is not partial is able and qualified to conduct an informal investigation. Do you find it easier to believe baised views of news reporters as valid reports on items, verus a guard who simply performs his duty and annotates in the record that something happened?

But as (if you recall) my post first stated "we found no evidence of further investigation into the incident".

Are you now trying to state that the simple annotation in a journal is not enough to show or prove that the alledge abuse did indeed happen in the instance that your brought forth.? Because that is now what it seems to me that you are trying to state. So what is the deal - you find the simple truth of at least two duty bound soldiers to be unbelivable even though they state that the descration of the Koran happened in this instance?

Why was there no follow up investigations at the time into the alledged incidents (apart from those incidents where the allegations were brought up during interrogations) ?

Don't know the answer - nor do I pretend to know. What is known is that an investigation has been conducted and the findings posted for all to see - is that an action of an individual - ie the officer who did the report - who is attempting to hide information? Does an annotation of possible abuse of a document warrant a follow-up investigation if the guard annotated that it happened and was reported in an official document?

There are plenty of mentions in the report of sworn contemporanious statements from the guards concerning detainees abusing the Koran , but they do seem to lack slightly when the shoe is on the other foot .

Lets see so we are now suppose to discount the 9 confirmed cases of Koran abuse by American Guards? Because the investigation into the Alledged flushing of the Koran into the Toliet need the guards to have sworn statements. If the guards would of just stated that they did not flush the Koran would that statify you that they were stating the truth, or does a sworn statment carry more weight?