This post is in response to this recent post by Sheryl O. Sheryl is passing along this story by Amanda Kloer at change.org, which makes serious allegations against DynCorp, an American company that trains policemen in Afghanistan.
Let me begin by saying that I understand Sheryl's fury and disgust with what is portrayed in this article. These allegations describe behavior that should result in criminal prosecution as well as decertification as a contractor and fines against the company -- IF the allegations are true.
Are they true? Sheryl is apparently convinced by them, but I am not convinced. Why not?
First, there is a contrary account of what happened, which can be found in this story at the Talking Points Memo blog. (As soon as I saw Sheryl's post, I googled to see what other details were available, and this came to my attention.)
So, we have a classic he-says / she-says situation here -- two accounts of the same incident, without any evidence on either side.
Oh, I forgot. Supposedly there IS some evidence, a cable released as part of the recent wikileaks documents. But the cable does not include the allegations made in the change.org article; in fact, the cable reports that "Amb. Mussomeli responded that going to the journalist would give her the sense that there is a more terrible story to report." It's kind of hard to understand how the story can be more terrible than what was reported by Ms. Kloer, wouldn't you say? But if something closer to DynCorp's story happened, that remark makes sense.
Since I do not know Ms. Kloer, I cannot judge her credibility directly. However, there are several things that make me doubt her version.
First, her case is made up of generalities rather than specifics. In fact, she strings together suppositions with innuendo. "Apparently" this is what happened. "So far, no one is being held accountable." She puts up a picture of an unidentified boy, apparently on the theory that a picture is worth a thousand overheated adjectives. Other than the cable, she offers no indication that she has a source for her allegations. Since her most serious allegations are not IN the cable, she either has a source she is not revealing, or she is just guessing.
Second, there are a number of stories on the web telling the same story as Ms. Kloer. I looked at all the ones I could find, and they look like copies of the same breathless suppositions. I'm always suspicious of this kind of "spread by copying". It doesn't add to the credibility of a story, any more than a stack of xerox copies does. For whatever it's worth, the more reputable sources are a lot more careful about their wording (for instance, in Slate.)
Finally, I have checked actual, realiable journalistic sources and there is no coverage. Not at CNN.com. Not at NPR.org. Not at MSNBC.com. (I included MSNBC because there was an allegation in the original comment stream that the Washington Post is too conservative to be credible.)
Now, if you want to spin conspiracy theories, go ahead. You can believe that someone "got to" the mainstream media.
Or, you can believe that the organizations whose websites I checked actually try to get their facts straight before reporting things.
I'm not saying that the company's account of what happened is absolutely true. I would, in fact, like this issue to be investigated seriously, both by the legitimate press and perhaps by Congress as well. But in the meantime, it's irresponsible to pass along one version of the story as established fact.
Consider for one moment: if these allegations had been made against someone on YOUR side of the political divide, would you consider the sources on the web reliable? Does anyone remember Shirley Sherrod?
What if such allegations were made about you, or someone close to you? Would you be willing to settle for the fabric of innuendos that Ms. Kloer has created? Or would you want a thorough and impartial investigation?
There can be only one standard for truth, and for seeking truth.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 30
falls by the wayside
At this point, considering the information available, I would say there is a probability the speculation about sex trade is just that, speculation, and exaggeration.
In the meantime, I cannot support the passing along of rumor. Anyone can be the victim of a smear campaign. Today the rumor mill is trashing a company that probably is not a bastion of goodness and light. But tomorrow, the same rumor mill may be churning out smears against you or me.
The Cherry picking of the cables is part of the "mystique" surrounding the revelations.
All this is a lesson in how to lend credibility to a speculative rumor. A few "facts" to back up the speculation, and you have the start of a "conspiracy theory" that smears the credibility of Wikileaks, Fox News, and the Saudis.
Just another tool in the propaganda paintbox.
This is gone past ridiculous, It's Sublime.
Shira, the CIA is NOT interested in what you are thinking, they are worried about what Canadians are.
The same Cass Sunstein that serves as Obama’s Regulatory Czar. He favors internet free speech limits. Odd that a guy in favor of limiting speech on the internet helps to introduce Wikileaks to the U.S. via mainstream media.
He has suggested a “Fairness Doctrine” for the Internet in which any opinion or view should be linked to an opposing one via required “electronic sidewalks”, and furthermore that technology should require a 24 hour cooling off period to prevent angry emails.
Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups."
{Oooo, tin-foil underwear sounds terribly uncomfortable!!}
If not, I say we ought to go back to insisting that the government not fob off military functions on private companies.
I will stand in your shoes for a second, may I? And examine your assumptions:
1. Since this was reported by one paper, the Washington Post, in the past then it must have been fully vetted and discarded as a non-story.
2. Since the Washington Post investigated the story by going to two credible sources, the State Dept and DynCorp, and asking them for the truth, then they did a great job investigating and absolutely go to the truth. For, who should know better what happened at that particular party than DynCorp? And since Hillary Clinton was in charge of the State Dept at the time of the investigation, and we totally trust that she would never lie or cover anything up, then what the State Dept says must be the total truth.
3. Since there is simply a blurred picture of a dancing boy to go by, we cannot tell how old this boy is and since DynCorp has said he was 17 yr old, then he must be 17 yrs old.
4. DynCorp said that there was absolutely no sexual engagement with the boy during or after the party, so that must be true as well.
5. DynCorp said that there was only one boy at the party, so that must be true.
6. DynCorp said that this was an unfortunate arrangement for entertainment made by a couple of their managers who were not at all aware of the custom of enslaving young boys (usually under the age of puberty themselves) for dancing in girls' clothes and providing sex to grown men and that it was strictly against Afghan laws. Simply poor judgement made by a few innocent managers, totally ignorant of local laws and customs. And they have since been fired.
Case closed. All the loose ends sewn up. No further investigation required. No scandal here - turn away. Take our word for it, although past history indicated that DynCorp has used these same sexual favors practices with minors a number of times in the past in other countries while working for the UN and the American government. As we say in the financial industry, 'past performance is no indication of future returns'. We can certainly discard the cable information of trying to hush this entire situation up, which is kind of silly since it was already fully investigated and everybody was found to be totally innocent, right?
Yes, I can definitely see your point. You need to see hard facts before making a decision here, before making any judgements about DynCorp.
Okay. So let's say that everything the State Dept and DynCorp say is true about this one incident.
Then, please tell me this. How is it that American forces and personnel in Afghanistan are not shutting down this entire network of slavery and child prostitution? Why are they standing back and allowing this not only to exist, but to thrive and grow? Frontline did a full report on it. They know about it, yet they do nothing while these young boys are sold and raped and sodomized continuously, then cast aside to die in the streets after they grow too old, unless they are murdered by their masters. Tell me - even if you think we do not have any culpability for this one dance party, do you not think we have a moral responsibility to shut this entire hell network down immediately? And why are we not doing it?
That being said, I'm always being told that we should interfere with the affairs of other countries. We have no business being there. We are not/should not be the police of the world.
We entered Iraq with the lie that we had a moral responsibility to shut down Saddam. His sons, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum had rape rooms and torture chambers. Saddam was gassing the Kurds, men, women, children, animals (with weapons that we provided and we knew this was happening while we turned our backs).
If we are training Afghan police (and they have so many problems on their own), should the Afghan police have a "moral responsibility to shut this entire hell network down immediately?" Is there globalization already? Are we there to train ANA and ANP or take the place of them?
Why now should we take over when we shouldn't even be there in the first place? I DO understand how you feel and the plight of these boys AND girls AND women in Afghanistan. But either there is a procedure to follow (that doesn't usually do anything, like writing to congresspeople or signing petitions) or we are there to take over the country.
You know there are temporary marriages in Sharia law, right? Families can accept money for men to acquire a temporary marriage with their daughters. Over here we call them one-night stands.
Check out this guy: Emmanuel Jal: The music of a war child and this group, War Child International. There are ways to fight.
The people initially accepted our troops, but as we stayed on, it became clear to everyone that we were not at all interested in helping these people make their lives better.
- We placed our puppets in control, allowing them to walk away with billions of US dollars and place them in their own bank accounts;
- we totally mismanaged funds going into the countries for reconstruction, and years after areas of Iraq still do not have any schools, any reliable water or sewage or electricity;
- we let rogue contractors like Halliburton and DynCorp do their own thing with our billions,
- we did not help establish a secure environment for the people, we did not help secure fresh water, stability or peace,
- we allow the poppy fields to florish again (and they pay for the support of the poeple who are killing our soldiers and innocent civilians),
- we allow this type of slavery to flourish in front of our eyes, and may very well use it for our own means of control and influence.
The entire thing is beyond FUBAR description. And the people, the innocents, are the ones who suffer the most. Why are we to step in and tell people how to enforce their own laws? Are you kidding? WE are the ones who forced our way into their countries and took on the responsibility of making them secure, or rebuilding what we ourselves had destroyed.
Are they really better off now than they were? Why are they demanding that US and other troops get out of their countries? Why are they demanding that we leave asap? I hear the reports - they certainly don't make the US news, but every so often, you'll see a snippet on page 10 about a demonstration of citizens demanding the US leave.
We cannot go in and destroy two countries, then step back and say, "We have no responsibility to fix what we have destroyed and unleashed." WE are responsible now for every young boy who is enslaved or raped. WE are responsible now for every young girl who is raped and murdered. WE are responsible now for every child who does not get to go to school, or whose mother is in the streets and homeless because the father was killed in a bombing by mistake. WE are responsible. And it makes me angry and sick to death that these things are continuing to flourish under our control and 'guidance'.
And we didn't go to these to countries to bring democracy. We went to control oil prices. We will never be able to bring our freedoms, form of democracy and rule of law to Afghanistan.
The people could care less who is there just as long as they can get on with their lives. They will work with Taliban OR coalition forces to get the food, money and supplies they need to survive.
The coalition wants them to stop growing opium and instead grow food. But we can' compete with the Taliban on this. The Taliban will pay well for the supply of opium and not only that, but they will come and pick it up. The normal Afghan farmer that doesn't work with the Taliban, and instead grows wheat or something else, he has to find a way to deliver it to market. That's assuming he has a vehicle or animals and a cart. Then he has to try to sell it. With the Taliban, it's a done deal.
We haven't tried to restore water and power? Have you heard of the Kajaki Dam? If you don't like Wikipedia as a source, I have others. It's also known as Operation “Oqab Tsukaâ€.
Or schools? Girl with no Future
There is an enormous amount of money and help going into Afghanistan. But we build, Taliban or al Qaeda tears down. It's not cut and dry.
And I really don't see how we can have absolute control or guidance. Karzai is going to do what he wants to do, and last I heard, he is siding with the Taliban.
from protection to infrastructure—at even the most basic levels.
Now I gotta go lay down. :(
So you want the US military to shut down the bacha bazi industry? OK. Are you prepared to let the armies of, say, Iraq come here and shut down the alcohol industry?
What we SHOULD be doing is using our military for defending our country, not on re-creating the rest of the world in our image. It used to be that young people from every part of the world came here to learn skills that would enable them to be good leaders in their own countries. We apparently decided that was too inefficient, so we've cut out the middlemen and just sent in the troops.
I agree that we should be using our military for one thing - defense. I don't support empire building, either.
A Must Read Regarding Wikileaks! - If We Lose our Internet Freedoms Because of Wikileaks, You Should At Least Know Why