Inside the Wire: A Military Intelligence Soldier's Eyewitness Account of Life at Guantanamo

It is a soldier inside story on the abuse treatment of the religious extreme terrorists on 9/11 Twin Towers. The captor ill treated them by violating their religious taboo. The captives lost freedom and dignity. This promoted more hatred against America and Americans. Do not do onto others what you don't want yourself is an ancient wisdom. President Obama declared the prison be close as a presidential candidate and now it is still there with not many captives left. Hope they will be treated in a humane way for world peace, AMEN.

Anybody with any interest at all in the war on terror needs to read this book. 9/11 was indeed a horrific tragedy but it is not a license to unlimited barbarity in response, as is happening in places like Abu Gharib and Guantanamo. The sad thing is that 90% of us patriotic Americans will never even know of this dark underbelly of our nation's completely justified efforts to defend itself against terrorism, because they are so hopelessly brainwashed by our rightwing-manipulated corporate mass media, from Faux News to CNN and yes even The New York Times. How sad that today the only decent source for truthful reporting on our own national policies and military actions is through the British and other foreign press sources, or through rare books like this one which predictably get smeared by online wingnuts and neofascist bloggers.

First of all, I'm glad I read the book, as I was interested to find out more about the subject of the Army interrogations with the potential terrorist prisoners detained since 9/11. Evidently I read slower than those people who immediately posted their opinion, er, "review", the afternoon of Monday, May 02 -- the day this book came out. This is not a bulletin board discussion or open forum, where people write "Yankees suck", or "Sgt. So-and-so is this or that." It is a place for people to present a BOOK REVIEW. Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but one of the prerequisites for this sort of thing might be, oh say, reading the book. Sure, the internet allows people to present their ideas on almost anything imaginable, but it certainly seems that certain previous biased "reviewers" didn't let little things like reading, or the facts, stand in their way of their 1st amendment rights. I was pleased with the author's first-person account of his experiences, which quickly brought me into the fold. It is a worthwhile read, and one for which I invite you to develop your own opinion, as well. Despite what certain people may fear is written (again, without reading the book), Mr. Saar does not advocate the prosecution of those who participated in these events, as they were only performing their duty under the guidelines (or lack thereof) provided; nor is he saying that what transpired is the "worst of the worst" itself, for example as compared to other interrogation proceedings in the armed forces and government agencies that have recently made the headlines. It was simply his experience. As with many things in life, we need to be cautious of those with agendas, whether hidden, or plainly visible, such as certain early reviews here. However, it is clear from the book that Mr. Saar did not have an agenda, and in fact, the outcome and reality of the author's experiences at Gitmo were often in stark contrast to those publicized by the government and what was originally anticipated by the author. Mr. Saar wrote about his truth, and that is all that can be asked of anyone. To those who previously questioned "why didn't he come out with this earlier?", or "why didn't he approach his seniors in command?", I simply say, "read the book." It has been less than two years since Saar emerged from Gitmo, and in that relatively short time he had (a) come to the decision to write about his experiences, (b) applied for -- and received -- approval to write the book, directly from the Pentagon (this was absolutely legally necessary, and thus he could not have breached any disclosure agreements), (c) secured a publisher, which can often take even established writers several years, and (d) last but not least, actually written the near 300 pages I have in front of me. A few other informed reviewers have written accurate descriptions of this book, so I will not bother to repeat essentially the same synopsis here. The bottom line is that you will not know whether y

I read Erik Saar's book, Inside the Wire, cover to cover, within 24 hours of purchasing it. I am surprised that many of the reviews that have been posted immediately after its release could truly reflect any of the content of the book. Did these people really read it, or were they reacting to media publicity or predetermined opinions? I found the book to be very readable, interesting, informative, and relevant to a situation that concerns many Americans and many people all over the world. Rather than condemning Mr. Saar for not speaking out earlier about his concerns, I believe that he should be congratulated for carefully gathering his facts, checking his sources, and compiling his information in a concise, well-written account that will serve to make the public aware of actions that are taking place in Guantanamo that are the antithesis of what we as Americans stand for. Erik Saar relates his experiences as he lived them, and he also very clearly explains how his perceptions and attitudes changed with each new development that took place. He obviously has a strong moral outlook forged by his personal religious faith and honorable character traits. He obviously believes that he is "doing the right thing" by exposing the improprieties of the system of interrogation at Gitmo. I agree. The only way wrong methods are corrected is by bringing them to public attention and having them discussed and evaluated. In several reviews Erik was attacked personally. In the book, if the attackers had taken the time to read it, they would have seen that he very clearly stated that the MPs, guards, interpreters, and interrogators all performed as well as could be expected under the difficult situations that they were in. He did not criticize the quality of work that these people produced. He questioned the appropriateness of the methods that were being used. The book is worthy of reading by anyone interested in current affairs, moral issues, human interest, and a soldier's memoir. I highly recommend the book.

Erik Saar's book is a very breezy, informative read, and seems to me to accurately reflect the duties, skill levels and personal attitudes of military linguists and interrogators and the atmosphere of two American prison facilities I have seen. The scenarios in the prologue brought many smiles to this reader, a former Army and Air Force linguist trained 30 years earlier than Saar. I had to chuckle when reading the reader reviews critical of Saar's Arabic language skills. An incredibly difficult language, much harder than the languages of Southeast Asia which fell to me and my generation. Saar tells us in his book that he had his fair share of trouble during language training. Who did not? I've had very brief and disappointing experiences inside one of our prisons in Iraq and another in Afghanistan, and never once saw an American who could interrogate at a professional level in Arabic or Pashto, not one. There must be a few out there, but they are rare creatures. We are doing the best we can in a war for which we were almost totally unprepared. I'm hoping that one of the brilliant Titan ethnic Iraqi or Afghan naturalized American citizens who carry the heavy interpreter burden will write his own memoirs about the trials and tribulations of assisting in these interrogations. These interpreters and native speakers have stories that will knock your socks off when compared to those told by young interrogators. The contract interpreters hold the true key insights into our by now well-recognized failures in the war on terror, and our failure to investigate their reactions disappoints me deeply. Saar does mention these contract linguists, and clearly has learned much from his association with them. I see nothing in Saar's story that rings untrue. The spotless reputation of the FBI in regard to prisoner handling and enlightened interrogation strategies is still intact, and I would hope that any American who reads the internal FBI complaints which came out of Guantanamo has come to accept by now that our efforts have fallen short of the mark. [They always do fall short in many ways; perhaps that is easier for us older and more jaded veterans to recognize and admit.] The appendix of "Inside the Wire" is a good collection of key policy documents which help us understand some of the origins of this debacle. Erik Saar leaves me with the impression that he is a fine young man with a good heart, naive in the best and most traditional American way, expecting our actions in an ugly environment to match our declared American ideals and way of life. Sad to say, wars are not humane endeavors, precisely why we should undertake them only as last resort, so as not to bring ourselves down to our enemies' level. My personal feelings are that we would serve the long term goals of the United States much more effectively by treating these prisons as political reorientation facilities, viewing any information obtained as secondary to our primary goal of demonstrating by

Political debate in our country has devolved to such an our-team vs. your-team level of discourse that it's dangerous to simply tell the truth. Anyone who does is likely to be subjected to ad hominem character assasinations based on fabrications of convenience. I just bought this book today, and Erik Saar reads extremely credibly to me. His background is not that of someone out to trash the military, but of someone whose strong religious training and family tradition of military service have left a deep sense of what's good and honorable in our nation and its military. For Sgt. Saar to tell this story has been an act of patriotic courage, and I am grateful for his willingness to speak up. One of the reviewers said the writing was like a tabloid-style. I don't find it so. Its first-person singular narrative voice is thankfully readable, but clear, clean, and certainly not trashy. Given how weirdly off-the-mark some of these reviews are (many from people who don't use their names), I have to wonder if there's some kind of campaign to trash the book. If so, and if its goal is obstructing the informed debate so crucial to our nation's democratic capacity to self-correct errant policies, it's a sorry show of pseudo-patriotism.