Centerfield

Amen, Brian. I blame Newsweek for bad practices and publishing falsehoods. They share reponsibility for the predictable results of their shoddy journalism. They screwed up. They've admitted it. But they sure don't have all (or even most) of the responsibility. They weren't the ones killing people.

What I have found disgusting are the attempts by some in the media and on the left to shift blame off of Newsweek and onto the administration. Anne Applebaum's op/ed piece Blaming the Messenger in the Washington Post yesterday is a prime example of such pompous self-righteousness, as was the badgering of McLellan during the news conference.

Now, it is possible that no interrogator at Guantanamo Bay ever flushed pages of the Koran down the toilet, as the now-retracted Newsweek story reported...It is also possible that Newsweek reporters relied too much on an uncertain source, or that the magazine confused the story with (confirmed) reports that prisoners themselves used Korans to block toilets as a form of protest. But surely the larger point is not the story itself but that it was so eminently plausible....

Uh huh. It's "possible" that it actually happened, eh? Why, the report could have been Fake but Accurate(tm)! But it's really all the administration's and the military's fault for making it believable to religious extremists on the other side of the world.

I note that Applebaum's column contains not one mention of the fact the Washington Post Co. owns Newsweek magazine. And they wonder why our trust in the media is so low.

Now Tully, you know it's all George Bush's fault. Hell, he was probably standing there with the plunger to make sure the pipes didn't get clogged.

Oh, so you're only constrained from flushing the words of Allah if you are an infidel? Ok. Got it. It's Ok to flush it as a protest against infidels, which is entirely different.

The reaction of some Muslims to the desecration of the Koran resembles the medieval Christian reaction to alleged crime of desecration of the host. The most extreme elements of the Religious Right in American call for violence to halt abortion, but not even they call for violence to protect communion wafers.

Nor did we see Christians rioting in the streets when Palestinian terrorists used Bible pages for toilet paper during the siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.

from Associated Press

May 19, 2005 | Geneva -- The international Red Cross told U.S. authorities about allegations that American personnel at the Guantanamo Bay detention center showed disrespect to Islam's holy book, the Quran, a spokesman said Thursday.
Delegates from the International Committee of the Red Cross informed U.S. authorities, who took action to stop the alleged abuse, said spokesman Simon Schorno. He declined to specify the nature of the incidents.
"We're basically referring in general terms to disrespect of the Quran, and that's where we leave it," Schorno told The Associated Press. "We believe that since, U.S. authorities have taken the corrective measures that we required in our interventions." ...
On Jan. 19, 2003, after the Geneva-based ICRC's reports, the Pentagon issued nearly three pages of guidelines for handling of the Quran. Since then, according to the Tribune, the Red Cross has not received any other complaints or documented similar incidents.

--which means there was a problem but solved.

A memo approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on December 2, 2002, authorized interrogation tactics at Guantanamo Bay that included techniques such as the removal of religious items, forced grooming such as shaving facial hair and removal of clothing.

from the Guardian - interview w/ Newsweek editor

But in an interview, the Newsweek editor, Mark Whitaker, mounted a robust defence of his staff, insisting the magazine would not make any retraction, that it did nothing "professionally wrong", and that nobody at the title would be disciplined over the report.

Mr Whitaker said the magazine had gone to unusual lengths to ensure the accuracy of the original article, including showing a pre-publication draft to a US official, who chose to neither confirm nor deny the essence of the story.

"We're not retracting anything. We don't know what the ultimate facts are. Everybody did what they were supposed to do. We were dealing with a credible source... we approached officials for comment... we fully disclosed the whole chain of events so the public could reach its own conclusions.

"I don't see what we did professionally wrong in this case."

The source of the story had been reliable in the past, the editor said, and was in a position to know about the report he was describing.

"There are certain sources who will only talk to us on a not-for-attribution basis, particularly when it involves sensitive information, and who would be worried about retribution or other consequences if their identities were known."

methinks Newsweek was set up to take a fall.
Nor does it look like they got the story wrong.
The timing of the memo about handling the Quran indicates first grade ass covering.

btw Tully "falsehoods" as in plural?
and is this really a falsehood?

The lemonade flavor today, Marcus? Please provide one piece of definitive evidence showing that US personnel flushed a Koran down a toilet at Gitmo n front of a detainee. Please show how the use of an anonymous government official citing a report appendix that didn't exist is a "credible source." Please demonstrate how "showing a pre-publication draft to a US official, who chose to neither confirm nor deny the essence of the story" constitutes in any way, shape, or form a "confirmation". Particularly when the official shown the draft had not seen the report in question, or (obviously) the non-existent appendix. Explain how the above constitutes proper journalistic practice (outside of The Weekly World News).

Marcus is using the "It could be true!" line of defense, wherein it is legitimate and sound practice to claim (and print) absolutely anything as "truth" that cannot be instantly disproven without instantaneous documented detailed knowledge of of all events in the entire universe.

Marcus, claims require proofs. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. And the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the claim.

I state that because wingers seem to have real trouble with the concept.

Marcus, are you dumb, or just contentious?

The international Red Cross told U.S. authorities about allegations

Newsweek has been around long enough to know what "allegations' means, and they should be able to cite chapter and verse on the risks of using sources without attribution as well as reporting allegations. It's tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff to say Newsweek was "set up." They're big boys who know the game and the rules when it comes to journalism.

Could the story be true? Obviously yes. But has it been substantiated on the record? No. You can blather all you want, but everyone that knows journalism knows that "off the record" = unsubstantiated. Over the years, lots of people have tried this off the record verification stuff, and it JUST. DOESN'T. WASH. Here's the thing: you're left relying entirely on the word of the reporter.

There has to be a safeguard against people just making stuff up. This is NOT a partisan issue. It's basic, core, journalistic ethics. And Newsweek has acknowledged this.

I think the President would equate this to what he called the "soft bigotry of low expectations" in education policy. It's that lower double-standard we apply to other cultural or ethnic groups, because we don't want to make the hard call and hold them to the same standard as the rest of us. We think we're being nice or respectful of their norms; but we're really just perpetuating their current condition.

no, I'm using the where there's big billowing clouds of smoke there's fire offense. There are way too many confirmed and unconfirmed reports of prisoner abuse by us and our proxies.

Let's see - Interrogation tactics approved by Rummy that include a basic disrespect for the religion of the detainees. Red Cross passes complaints bout desecration of the Quran to the Pentagon. Pentagon issues 3 page memo in 2003 regarding handling of Quran. Complaints stop. . Comment? none?

as for Newswek's handling of the story - you're looking at how hot stories are usually handled, by everyone from Fox News to the Washington time and the Houston Chronicle. If you have a reliable source then you are usually going to use it. Especially on a story this important. After all if we're capable of doing the below, then a mere tearing of pages of the Quran and flushing them down the toilet is child's play.

Read this morning's NY Times.

Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.

The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.

Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face.

"Come on, drink!" the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. "Drink!"

At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.

"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.
end of excerpt

I'm proud to be an American?

There is an excellent opinion column (registration required) in today's WSJ called "Hypocrisy Most Holy" which describes the hypocrisy of certain Muslim leaders (notably Saudis) in condemning the desecration of the Quran. He notes that, in fact, the Bible is considered by Islam to be a holy book and is mentioned in the Quran "dozens of times".

In Saudia Arabia, possession of a Bible can get one killed, arrested, or deported. Al-Ahmed also cites the case of Sadeq Mallallah, who was beheaded in 1993 in Saudia Arabia on a charge of apostasy because he owned a Bible.

Note, the Voice of Bahrain claims Malallah was beheaded because he was a Shiite, not a Sunni, and opposed the Wahhabi extremism of Saudia Arabia. Another site (search in the page for "Sadeq"), which is clearly opposed to Islam, quotes at length from a Washington Post story, which suggests multiple reasons - none of them good - for the execution, including possessing a Bible and calling Mohammed a witch.

All in all, the column by Mr. al-Ahmed, a Muslim, shows the vast differences in the value of tolerance between Christianity, as it is widely practiced, and Islam, as it is practiced in several prominent countries (most notably Saudia Arabia). As Mr. al-Ahmed concludes, "If Muslims wish other religions to respect their beliefs and their Holy book, they should lead by example."

Marcus, that's a pretty long-winded way of saying "geez, no, actually I can't confirm it."

There are no confirming reports. What you have is suspicions. The allegations ARE plausible. To my knowledge, no one here has denied that. What they are not is "confirmed."

When you're a pro reporter, you don't hear a juicy story and publish it because it's plausible. No matter how believable it is, the standard is "verifiable," not "believable." So you can stop spinning now.

And BTW, to my knowledge, none of the posters here has made a regular practice of defending torture, although some of the commenters may have said some forms don't trouble them. So you can spare us the lengthy accounts related to this story, since it's not the case that they're proving anything relevant.

Marcus,

Specialist Claus and others are currently facing charges. If they are in fact guilty (they are due the presumption of innocence just like any other accused) then they will be seeing the inside of a millitary prison from a detainees perspective. That is the difference between our millitary and most of the others around the world or throughout history...when our people do something wrong we actualy hold them accountable for it. In that light, you SHOULD be proud to be an American.

Just because there have been certain factualy documented incidents of wrong doing, does not automaticaly make every allegation of wrong-doing factualy accurate or credible. It does not excuse publication of undocumented rumor as fact.

Let me put to you this way. What is it that you do for a living? I'm fairly certain that we can find people who share your proffesion that are guilty of wrong-doing or abuse of power. Does that automaticaly mean that any allegation against a member of your proffesion should be assumed to be true? Does that mean that we can indict your entire proffesion because there have been a few examples of misconduct? Would that mean that undocumented rumors against a member of your proffesion should be considered factualy true for no other reason except that some other member of your proffesion was guilty in the past? After all, where there is smoke there is fire, no?

Bottom line, there are 1.3 million people in the U.S. millitary. We have operations going on all around the globe. We have been involved for the past 3+ years in a very difficult war against unconventional combatants, who themselves evince no respect for the Geneva Convention or the accepted rules of warfare. It should come as no surprise that there have been a number of incidents of abuse by members of our millitary which HAVE been factualy established. It should come as no surprise because such has been true of every other millitary in every other conflict in recorded history. It should also come as no surprise that our opponents are engaged in the promotion of false tales of attrocities and abuse by our troops. That use of propaganda is also something that has been true of every other millitary (including occasionaly our own) in every other conflict in recorded history.

What IS remarkable is the relative degree of restraint by our forces, our willingness to investigate and punish abuses by our our own troops....and the great degree of conceren we show for both non-combatants AND enemy combatants in the current conflict.

The degree of actual abuse by our forces IS an historical abberation.... it is abberation not because it exists...but because it is so MINIMAL when looked at in comparison with the rest of human history.

I had hoped that as a "liberal" you would be wary of the dangers of guilt by association and stereotyping. Apparently my hope was misplaced. "Where there is smoke there is fire"... I'll have to remember that, it'll make a great arguement the next time the issue of racial profiling comes up.

Marcus, that's a pretty long-winded way of saying "geez, no, actually I can't confirm it."

Bingo. See my previous post for the specifics of what he hasn't got.

Claims require proofs. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the claim.

When you think of the world in black, white, and all the varying shades of gray in between, those guys (interrogators) work in a very dark field. It's true that their work is invaluable, that we could not hope to defeat the terrorist networks without them, and that they serve the same noble cause as the rest of us in uniform. But what we ask them to do is very different, say, than clearing caves or conducting security patrols in Afghanistan.

They are, to me, like the narcs in Hollywood movies or television who go undercover and get addicted to drugs and become corrupt themselves: their downfall is all the more tragic because they didn't start out on the path of evil but were seduced by power and "because they could" do it.

I'm not justifying their behavior-- I had a little something to with the Bagram PUC facility detainee investigation in a previous life-- and I do believe that those who have committed crimes must be held to the standards of justice, previously honorable service notwithstanding. But I am saying that I was not surprised when I found out that some of them had stepped over the line.

I've been trying to verify some of these acccusations.

Anyone know a good plumber?

No, but the right-wing Aussie-blog SILENT RUNNING tried to replicate the incident....

I'm curious why no one has pointed out the very strong suggestion that the riots in Afghanistan and surrounding countries were unconnected to Newsweek's story other than the fact that some of the organizers waved the report around. If that's true, ie. if in the absence of Newsweek's report the rioters would have done the exact same thing other waving some other report in justification, then the meme of "Newsweek lied, people died" would be utter nonsense. To some degree, the rioters' motivation is speculation, but there is evidence in the riots of a degree of organization that would have required more than a week, starting before Newsweek ran the story.

Good point. Newsweek's article was the excuse, not the instigation.