# Newsweek lied, people died - or - 16 and counting.



## MisterMike (May 18, 2005)

Newsweek, here forward to be referred to as Newsweak, published a false newsitem that lead to riots, destruction of property and at least 16 deaths.

In light of this, it seems very probable that the anti-war movement and the left leaning media are in fact quite responsible for negative attitude and aggression towards our allies and troops around the world.

At this point, the White House is seeking more than a retraction from Newsweak (which still claims it did nothing wrong), but also to help repair damages that were done to the military's image.

So, do you think they did something wrong?
Are they responsible for more than a retraction?


----------



## Andrew Green (May 18, 2005)

Why not a link to the article and the dismissal?

 I do know what you are talking about though, they published an article that stated that the Koran had been flushed down a toilet to scare hostages.

 Further investigation revealed that they where not entirely sure it was at the camp they said it was, but that the source had seen it in official documents.

 There have been many reports of using the Koran in a disrespectful way to intimidate prisoners, as well as a good many other things that use there religion against them.  Shaving their beards, forcing them to eat pig, Using there beliefs about sexuality and female interegators, kicking around the Koran, throwing it in toilets, etc.

 This is not one isolated story, this is a common theme.

 Spin gets applied both ways, and right now it is trying to cover up the rest of the claims by pointing out that one was in error, without even saying how much in error it was.

 However there is very little doubt that a good deal of disrespect to the religious beliefs has been going on.  And the Muslim people are very understandably growing more and more annoyed about this.


----------



## rutherford (May 18, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> In light of this, it seems very probable that the anti-war movement and the left leaning media are in fact quite responsible for negative attitude and aggression towards our allies and troops around the world.


  

That's quite a jump.  Care to fill us in on your reasoning?

Personally, I was unsurprised by the story about how prisoners were wrapped in American and Isreali flags and told "There is a Holy War going on between The Cross and the Star of David on one hand and the Crescent on the other."  Or about other allegations of religion being used as an interrogation tool.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4654000 (You have to listen to the audio link)


----------



## Brother John (May 18, 2005)

Riots? Deaths?

Wow...
In America a crucifix in a jar of urine or a "mother Marry" done all in human feces is art and people sell tickets.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Andrew Green (May 18, 2005)

rutherford said:
			
		

> That's quite a jump.  Care to fill us in on your reasoning?


 I think the logic can basically be summed up by the word "Scapegoat"


----------



## arnisador (May 18, 2005)

It was a mistake. It weakens my confidence in their reporting, but it's not a moral failing. They can't be held responsible for the ensuing riots.


----------



## OUMoose (May 18, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> In America a crucifix in a jar of urine or a "mother Marry" done all in human feces is art and people sell tickets.


America also isn't a Theocracy, much to many fundamentalist right-winger's dismay.  Don't like it?  Does that disgust you?  Don't go.  Find something else to do.  I'm sure there's 10 billion other things around...



			
				Arnisador said:
			
		

> It was a mistake. It weakens my confidence in their reporting, but it's not a moral failing. They can't be held responsible for the ensuing riots.


I have to disagree here.  If it were a mistake, they should be held accountable and have to make a formal retraction and apology.  I'm not sure what sort of reparations could be made, but at least a token should be offered.  I mean, c'mon.  It's newsweek... not the CIA...


----------



## michaeledward (May 18, 2005)

The Pentagon saw the article prior to it being published. They did not deny the story.

General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that unrest in Afghanistan was due more to "on-going political reconciliation" than it was to the Newsweek story. 

Boy, it would be nice if the Administration could get their fantasy straight. 

Weapons of Mass Destruction anyone?


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 18, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> It was a mistake. It weakens my confidence in their reporting, but it's not a moral failing. They can't be held responsible for the ensuing riots.




FIRE!


Oh sorry, guess I am not responsible for . . .

The people running out of the theatre

The people pulling their guns and firing at each other.


I agree that people have to take responsibilities for their own actions, but I do not think their hands are clean either. That is asumming, they truly lied, or falsely reported. I am not able to listen at work.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 18, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The Pentagon saw the article prior to it being published. They did not deny the story.
> 
> General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that unrest in Afghanistan was due more to "on-going political reconciliation" than it was to the Newsweek story.
> 
> ...




While I am not arguing about the WMD's.

I do not think I would want to be the general in today's climate to agree disagree, or to tell the media not to do something, until I knew for myself what the military investigations had uncovered. 

I personally would not read more into the Military not wanting to censor the media, by telling them it was true or false. That is like I come up to you with a camara and say, there are reports that people in this neighborhood abuse their wives. What do youhave to day sir? No matter how you answer, the media can spin it for the numbers. I would reply with no comment, until I could see the proof, and the reports myself.


----------



## michaeledward (May 18, 2005)

The Chairman's quote was made before the White House unleashed their Fox-News-Like rant against Newsweek.

And ... in case anyone bothered to notice ... has anyone refuted that interrogators are using religious degredation tactics with detainees? Are we rendering detainees to some of the most brutal countries on the planet (uzbekistan anyone?) Where was the President for those missing months in the Alabama National Guard? 

By allowing McClellan and company to frame the argument, are we giving up our most precious civil liberties? ... ... a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.


----------



## PeachMonkey (May 18, 2005)

Any links between the Newsweek article and the rioting are being blown out of proportion as part of a deliberate campaign to reduce the legitimacy of all torture allegations. You can guarantee that any time the discussion of the ongoing torture at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and other facilities comes up, the Fox News-style response will be: "It's all made up! Look at Newsweek, and the riots!"

   Never mind the actual facts, as stated by Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers (emphasis mine):



			
				 Defense Department News Briefing from May 15 2005 said:
			
		

> *  Q:* Do either one of you have anything about the demonstrations in Afghanistan, which were apparently sparked by reports that there was a lack of respect by some interrogators at Guantanamo for the Koran. Do either one of you have anything to say about that?
> 
> *  GEN. MYERS:* It's the -- it's a judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eikenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran -- and I'll get to that in just a minute -- _*but more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President Karzai and his Cabinet is conducting in Afghanistan.*_  So that's -- that was his judgment today in an after- action of that violence.  *He didn't -- he thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine.*


   (For the entire press conference, see: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050512-secdef2761.html.  The quote in question is near the bottom.)

   After this, of course, the White House began spinning the riots as having resulted from Isikoff's report in Newsweek.  

   For commentary on the whole thing, see:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7873141/#050516b


----------



## Andrew Green (May 18, 2005)

Remember, They admitted to getting part of the story wrong, but never which part.

 MANY stories about insulting the muslim faith as interegation reports have been published and there is a lot of evidence to back some of it.

 I don't think we can blame Newsweek for all of them.  This is also exactly why censorship of the press shouldn't be allowed.  If it was there would be nothing to prevent this and no one would be accountable.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 18, 2005)

I'm very skeptical about this whole thing.  Torture and other humiliation is well documented and abuse of the Koran is not that out of the questions.  Then, there is the fact that many human rights groups have been reporting that the Koran has been abused for months.

Newsweek probably had it right...but unfortunately they stirred up a ****-storm.

Their retraction probably has more to do with draconian White House pressure then any problems with their facts.  

Got free society?


----------



## Ray (May 18, 2005)

If Newsweek has a standard that it normall adheres to and it didn't this time, then shame on them.  It doesn't mean the alleged disrespect did or didn't happen, it just means they don't know (to their own satisfaction) if it did or not.  Therefore they shouldn't have reported it.

I have heard news reports that said released prisoners have related similar stories, but without substantiation I'm not sure if it's propaganda or truth.

Some may think that Muslims "over react" to such stories of disrespect, but the culture (especially in countries where sharia {spelling} is in effect) must have a big impact in shaping how they will react to any "provocation."


----------



## Ender (May 18, 2005)

Newsweek, CBS' Dan Rathers' lies, questionable experts....it all points to the failings of the Media to get to the truth with accurate reporting. Whether it was done intentionally or not. The Media has failed us time and time again. The Media is longer "Keepers of the Truth", they have just become tabloid versions of thier former selves.

And shame on those Muslim extremists for exploiting the situation for thier own purposes. Where were they when three years ago when Islamic terrorists holed up in Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity reportedly used the Bible as toilet paper?


----------



## Tgace (May 18, 2005)

Ender said:
			
		

> And shame on those Muslim extremists for exploiting the situation for thier own purposes. Where were they when three years ago when Islamic terrorists holed up in Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity reportedly used the Bible as toilet paper?


Beat me to it...and since when is "Koran abuse" a legal term??

:idunno:


----------



## Andrew Green (May 18, 2005)

I wouldn't consider it an over reaction, this is there beliefs, their lives and their culture.  To say they are over reacting is too further dissrespect this and make the problem worse.

 They have a very different culture then the US, but the US is constantly trying to force western culture onto them.  We should learn from the past that forcing a culture onto a people DOES NOT WORK.  Even here in North America the Natives are a perfect example of this.

 For the west to insult there culture, over through governments on false claims, try to force a foriegn culture on them, yes I can see why they are annoyed.

 It would be like someone trying to force Communism on the US, just not going to work.


----------



## ginshun (May 18, 2005)

> I wouldn't consider it an over reaction, this is there beliefs, their lives and their culture. To say they are over reacting is too further dissrespect this and make the problem worse.


 I don't know about anyone else, but killing another human being because of what somebody they didn't even know did to a book is an overreaction in my opinion regardless of how your culture is linked to that book. How can anyone in thier right mind not think that is overreacting?

   If thinking that is disrespectful, then so be it, I plan to keep being disrespectful.

   How about this purely hypothetical scenario:

   I am a Christian living in the US.
   I here about a Muslim person in Afgahnastan flushing a bible down the toilet.
   I go next door and kill my neighbor who is a Muslim.

   Did I overreact?

  Apperently not if you ask Andrew Green. :|


----------



## michaeledward (May 18, 2005)

Ender said:
			
		

> Newsweek, CBS' Dan Rathers' lies, questionable experts....it all points to the failings of the Media to get to the truth with accurate reporting. Whether it was done intentionally or not. The Media has failed us time and time again. The Media is longer "Keepers of the Truth", they have just become tabloid versions of thier former selves.


I suppose it wouldn't just be that the Media were 'wrong'. 

What happens when the Administration is similarly 'wrong' about the reaction of liberated Iraqi's, the existance of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the accuracy of 'intelligence reports' ... etc, etc, etc? 

Oh yeah, you defend them ... and call those who question these inaccuracies traitors.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 18, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> I don't know about anyone else, but killing another human being because of what somebody they didn't even know did to a book is an overreaction in my opinion regardless of how your culture is linked to that book. How can anyone in thier right mind not think that is overreacting?


 Or, you can twist the facts....

 This is not an isolated incident.  

 US forces destroyed the country and are occupying it.

 People where killed when police opened fire on protestors.

 This is not someone going next door and killing thier neighbour because someone on the otherside of the world insulted their beliefs.

 This is a country that is a people that have their country being occupied by a foriegn army that shows no respect for their culture and beliefs fighting back.

 This is not a black and white issue like you are trying to paint it as.


----------



## psi_radar (May 18, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> .....
> In light of this, it seems very probable that the anti-war movement and the left leaning media are in fact quite responsible for negative attitude and aggression towards our allies and troops around the world....



Gee, and all this time I thought it was the misrepresented war of aggression on a sovereign nation that was getting those guys all riled up. And all this time it was the "liberal media." Silly me.

MisterMike, your statement above is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard. A report on misbehavior by our troops is more responsible than the actions depicted, or the war itself? Ever hear the term "shooting the messenger?" Come on.

The article was cleared by the Pentagon, NewsWeek met its due-diligence. We stacked naked muslims into pyramids and attached leashes to them. It's so hard to believe we flushed a Quran? 

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy of the White House witch hunt in this case? They say a poorly researched article that _may have_ incited a few deaths requires not just an apology and a retraction, but a resignation as well? 

Here's a parallel with a much different ending--George W. Bush and his staff poorly researched the motivation for this entire multi-billion dollar, deadly-thousands-of-times-over war, and instead of resigning when there are no WMDs ("our sources were wrong"), runs for re-election and changes the motivation of the war to Spreading Freedom.

What a smoke screen--probably to obfuscate any backlash the Downing Street memo and oil-for-food scandal might be having in the seven-second attention span of the american public.


----------



## psi_radar (May 18, 2005)

BTW, Michael Isikoff, the guy they want to send out to dry for this, was also the guy who rabidly went after Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal using sources like Linda Tripp. So before you start labeling people "liberal" you might want to confirm whether they have a bias at all or are just gung-ho newsmen that go after any juicy story.


----------



## MisterMike (May 18, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Gee, and all this time I thought it was the misrepresented war of aggression on a sovereign nation that was getting those guys all riled up. And all this time it was the "liberal media." Silly me.
> 
> MisterMike, your statement above is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard. A report on misbehavior by our troops is more responsible than the actions depicted, or the war itself? Ever hear the term "shooting the messenger?" Come on.



Short-term memory failing ya? No-one asked you to like it. But dem's the facts. I seriously doubt anyone in Afghanistan subscribes to Newsweak. But this was reported and was the spark to the powderkeg.

If you think irresponsible reporting has nothing to do with anti-American sentiment, then "dumb" is starring you right back in the mirror.

Also, who's calling who a liberal? Don't know if that was directed at me too but if I had to sift through all the garbage posted in the Study I'd have another full time job..   

Did more than 1 person answer my first 2 questions in post #1? Doubt it. How typical. Looks more like personal shots - glad there are no pies around.


----------



## arnisador (May 18, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> FIRE!


 But that's intentional. I don't believe Newsweek fabricated the story--I do believe they were lazy. Isn't it more comparable to my culpabilit if you tell me there's a fire, and I yell FIRE!, and something happens? I was relying on your information.

   Addressing another poster, they've been apologizing constantly, haven't they? I've seen them on a few news shows already.



> I agree that people have to take responsibilities for their own actions, but I do not think their hands are clean either. That is asumming, they truly lied, or falsely reported.


 My understanding is that they placed too much reliance on a single unnamed source, plus the Pentagon's refusal to deny it. (Full agreement that they can't really read anything into the govt.'s declining to comment.) It was a sloppy process, not a case of malintent. But, if I am mistaken here I hope someone will correct me.


----------



## arnisador (May 18, 2005)

No 'cultural mores' exception for those who kill people because they learn that a book got wet. Yeah, I know it's more complicated than that, but if your culture calls for killing people physically near to you if you hear that someone somewhere desecrated your Holy Book, then that's not a case that cries for cultural tolerance.

Please, no one need point out that that cuts on both sides--the Crusades are just the best known example.


----------



## Ender (May 18, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I suppose it wouldn't just be that the Media were 'wrong'.
> 
> What happens when the Administration is similarly 'wrong' about the reaction of liberated Iraqi's, the existance of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the accuracy of 'intelligence reports' ... etc, etc, etc?
> 
> Oh yeah, you defend them ... and call those who question these inaccuracies traitors.




This is just more obfuscation, pure and simple. Bush didn't do anything to a Quran, WMD had nothing to do with this, nor intelligence reports. This was a magazine who printed a wrong story, whether intentional or not, and didn't get the facts right. Either way, it was incompetence, or them trying to push an agenda. Forget that this was ANOTHER bogus story, blame someone else.

The fact that this doesn't bother people as it should, is disturbing.


----------



## michaeledward (May 18, 2005)

Ender said:
			
		

> This is just more obfuscation, pure and simple. Bush didn't do anything to a Quran, WMD had nothing to do with this, nor intelligence reports. This was a magazine who printed a wrong story, whether intentional or not, and didn't get the facts right. Either way, it was incompetence, or them trying to push an agenda. Forget that this was ANOTHER bogus story, blame someone else.
> 
> The fact that this doesn't bother people as it should, is disturbing.


There is not substantiation that this is a 'bogus story'. What there is, is a poorly sourced story that an official government report will, or will not, include statements concerning abuse of the Koran.

Has the government stated that the interrogation techniques do not include using religious degredation? 

Has the government stated that interrogators are not using simulated menstrual blood on detainees? 

Don't confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence.


----------



## Brother John (May 18, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> America also isn't a Theocracy, much to many fundamentalist right-winger's dismay.  Don't like it?  Does that disgust you?  Don't go.  Find something else to do.  I'm sure there's 10 billion other things around...



Wow... relax Moose, it's okay.
I was just contrasting the difference there, a country with an over-reaction to profaning something that the popular religion deems holy or sacred COMPARED to America where it seems the level of 'moral outrage' is pretty shallow.

Of course I wouldn't want their level, but oh well...I was just contrasting.

Also: Their reactions weren't backed by a government, but they were the reaction of their people. The art exhibit I'm talking about was funded by tax payer dolars. It's not a matter of "Does it disgust you? don't go..." That's not the point, the point is that it was paid for with public money. I agree that the government and it's funds (tax dolars) shouldn't go toward promoting a religion, I also believe that it shouldn't go toward profaning it either.

BTW: There really aren't that many people who are "Fundamentalist-right winggers" who'd WANT a theocracy. I know I wouldn't.

Interesting discussion
Your Brother
John


----------



## Tgace (May 18, 2005)

Hey. I thought this happened in Afghanistan which was the "good war" on terrorism...ya know, the place that was run by the Taliban and Al Queda? Is that under the blanket of "US oppression" now too?

Or is it a bash fest on everything US now? 

Killing each other because the US was accused of flushing a Koran is odd enough (guess they taught us). How it's "well thats their way and thats OK" is odder still. 

Here we have to "tolerate" the "Piss Christ" as freedom of expression but in the same breath we have to worry about offending Religions of other nations? Sorry but it just seems out of whack.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 18, 2005)

Again... this is not people just deciding to go out and kill each other... this is protests.  Police opened fire on protestors in order to subdue them.

 People have been killed in North America at Protests before too.  And at these ones it wasn't a protest against a military that is occupying the country and insulting your culture, religion and entire belief structure.


----------



## Tgace (May 18, 2005)

Again..is Afghanistan a "wrong" war now too? As I recall, there was widespread support for operations there.....


----------



## Andrew Green (May 18, 2005)

Guess that depends on who you ask 

 I really doubt any country in the middle east would want to be invaded, occupied and forced into a democracy under American control


----------



## arnisador (May 18, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I really doubt any country in the middle east would want to be invaded, occupied and forced into a democracy under American control


 No govt. would...I wonder if the people of Afghanistan will be happier in the long run, though. I suspect so--at least, 50% of them will be.

 I have no problems with us being there, for a few reasons. Iraq...that's another kettle of fish.


----------



## ginshun (May 19, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There is not substantiation that this is a 'bogus story'. What there is, is a poorly sourced story that an official government report will, or will not, include statements concerning abuse of the Koran.
> 
> Has the government stated that the interrogation techniques do not include using religious degredation?
> 
> ...


 Your right, having no evidence of something doesn't prove that it didn't happen, but finding evidence that it did should be the burden of the accusers, not the other way around.  Your using backwards logic.  The burden of proof should be on the accusers, not the accused.  

 If somebody accuses me of robbing a bank, they have to prove that I did for me to get in trouble.  I don't have to prove that I didn't to stay out of trouble.

 Regardless of your opinions on the issue, this is just plain crappy journalism.  I don't know that there is an adgenda against the administation or not, but the story should never have been published.


----------



## michaeledward (May 19, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Regardless of your opinions on the issue, this is just plain crappy journalism. I don't know that there is an adgenda against the administation or not, but the story should never have been published.


There is evidence of an agenda by the administration against the media.

This from Elisabeth Bumiller and the New York Times.



> _Republicans close to the White House said that although President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were genuinely angered by the Newsweek article, West Wing officials were also exploiting it in an effort to put a check on the press. _
> 
> _"There's no expectation that they're going to bring down Newsweek, but there is a feeling that there is no check on what you guys do," said one outside Bush adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to be identified as talking about possible motives of the White House.
> 
> "In the course of any administration," he continued, "you have three or four opportunities, at most, with a high-profile press mistake. And if you're going to make a point - and no White House is ever going to love the way it's covered - you have to highlight those places where there is a screw-up." _


----------



## psi_radar (May 19, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Short-term memory failing ya? No-one asked you to like it. But dem's the facts. I seriously doubt anyone in Afghanistan subscribes to Newsweak. But this was reported and was the spark to the powderkeg.
> 
> If you think irresponsible reporting has nothing to do with anti-American sentiment, then "dumb" is starring you right back in the mirror.
> 
> ...



No, my short term memory is just great, as is my long term. It's others' I'm concerned about. You said:

"In light of this, it seems very probable that the anti-war movement and the left leaning media are in fact quite responsible for negative attitude and aggression towards our allies and troops around the world...."

You blame worldwide anti-american troop sentiment on left-leaning media. You're not specific to Afghanistan. I regret saying this was the dumbest statement I have ever heard, that's too personal, I should have said it's one of the most misinformed and illogical conclusions I have ever heard. 

The Afghanis supposedly rioted over this story, though it has been reported that the Quran flushing story was only one of several reasons for the unrest. The people responsible for the Afghani deaths are the Pakistani police who shot them, not NewsWeek. NewsWeek vetted the story with the Pentagon, and after publication, the Pentagon went back on its story. As a result, NewsWeek retracted the story. Who's a more reliable source than the Pentagon? At a certain point, reporters must trust their sources. We can't always have videotape or photos.

Do you think our media even holds a candle to the types of inflammatory pictures and stories that are broadcast all over the Muslim world? We don't see the burned babies and the bomb victims that are sanitized/censored from our media. Well, they see it all. I'd say their media is more likely a source of aggression than our vanilla reporting.

Don't act like the long-suffering rightie. You brought this up. 

They didn't do anything wrong, they followed protocol.
They shouldn't post anything more than a retraction.


----------



## MisterMike (May 19, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> No, my short term memory is just great, as is my long term. It's others' I'm concerned about. You said:
> 
> "In light of this, it seems very probable that the anti-war movement and the left leaning media are in fact quite responsible for negative attitude and aggression towards our allies and troops around the world...."
> 
> ...



Thanks for the answer, and finally supporting it with some backup.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2005)

Gosh, the smug editors of a mildly-conservative newsmagazine were sloppy about documenting their facts before they went forward with a story? Color me shocked into a frenzy.

Well, all I can say is the obvious: good thing my government hasn't been systematically lying in order to justify getting my country into an unnecessary war, or making up ridiculous stories about why it's OK to torture people, or twisting reality into all sorts of weird shapes in order to justify its ideological agenda with regard to minor issues like Social Security.

Good thing, too, that the Ollie Norths, Ann Coulters, Michael Savages, G. Gordon Liddys, and Jerry Falwells of the world haven't been running around lying through their teeth so they can make a ton of money for stirring up hatred of their fellow Americans. Why, that would be so very wrong.


----------



## arnisador (May 19, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, all I can say is the obvious: good thing my government hasn't been systematically lying in order to justify getting my country into an unnecessary war, or making up ridiculous stories about why it's OK to torture people



Well put, but...for better or worse, we've come to expect Watergate etc. from the govt., and truth and justice from the media. So, as a practical matter, the hypocrisy charge isn't as damning as it should be. 

Of course, that sucks.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2005)

In 1987, the Fairness Doctrine was removed from law.  This statute mandated equal time for both sides of an issue in the media.  I think that the slide into partisenship was accellerated by this move...and it was directly responsible for the creation of the New Media.


----------



## ginshun (May 19, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Gosh, the smug editors of a mildly-conservative newsmagazine were sloppy about documenting their facts before they went forward with a story? Color me shocked into a frenzy.
> 
> Well, all I can say is the obvious: good thing my government hasn't been systematically lying in order to justify getting my country into an unnecessary war, or making up ridiculous stories about why it's OK to torture people, or twisting reality into all sorts of weird shapes in order to justify its ideological agenda with regard to minor issues like Social Security.
> 
> Good thing, too, that the Ollie Norths, Ann Coulters, Michael Savages, G. Gordon Liddys, and Jerry Falwells of the world haven't been running around lying through their teeth so they can make a ton of money for stirring up hatred of their fellow Americans. Why, that would be so very wrong.


 Oh please.  Stop being so dramatic.

 There is just as many lies and just as much mud slung from left to right as there is from right to left.  Anybody that can't see these things going both ways is blind.

 And regardless of anything else, political or otherwise, it is poor journalism to report a story as fact if you can't prove it.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not even going so far as to say it didn't happen.  For all I know the interogators at GITMO might be burning Korans daily, and to tell you the truth I don't really care.  What I do know is that Newsweek is supposed to be a well respected source of *NEWS.  *Personally if I read soming in a magazine like that I expect it to be true, and I expect it to be able to be proven if questioned.

 Maybe I expect too much.


----------



## psi_radar (May 19, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Oh please.  Stop being so dramatic.
> 
> There is just as many lies and just as much mud slung from left to right as there is from right to left.  Anybody that can't see these things going both ways is blind.
> 
> ...



The source at the Pentagon approved the story before it went to print, then when things got ugly, went back on his statement.


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 19, 2005)

They never said "It didn't happen, or "It was false."  Newsweek retracted the story because their anonymous source balked, saying he couldn't vouch 100% for the accuracy of the story.  So the writers no longer felt 100% confident in the factual basis of the article--they retracted it.  They never said "It didn't happen, or "It was false."  It's certainly plausible, in light of what has gone on.


----------



## ginshun (May 19, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> The source at the Pentagon approved the story before it went to print, then when things got ugly, went back on his statement.


 Says Newsweek or says the Pentagon? "At the pentagon" could be a pretty wide range of people, isn't it like the worlds biggest office building?

 Edit: over 23,000 people work "at the Pentagon"


----------



## oldnewbie (May 19, 2005)

Here's the link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857154/site/newsweek/

Here's the retraction
I've underlined the part that describes the "Pentagon approved the story" remark....Two "officals", one wqas a no comment, the other was concerned about another aspect of the story...

How does this make it approved by the Pentagon?



The Editor's Desk

Newsweek


May 23 issue - Did a report in NEWSWEEK set off a wave of deadly anti-American riots in Afghanistan? That's what numerous news accounts suggested last week as angry Afghans took to the streets to protest reports, linked to us, that U.S. interrogators had desecrated the Qur'an while interrogating Muslim terror suspects. We were as alarmed as anyone to hear of the violence, which left at least 15 Afghans dead and scores injured. But I think it's important for the public to know exactly what we reported, why, and how subsequent events unfolded.

placeAd(2,'newsweek.livetalk/livetalk')http://ad.doubleclick.net/click;h=v...rspreferred.com/Apps/DCS/mcp?q=STLm0FTGDisF3n<atarget="_blank"href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/newsweek.livetalk;kw=livetalk;sz=300x250;tile=2;ord=16833?"><imgsrc="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/newsweek.livetalk;kw=livetalk;sz=300x250;tile=2;ord=16833?"border="0" height="250" width="300" /></a>Two weeks ago, in our issue dated May 9, Michael Isikoff and John Barry reported in a brief item in our Periscope section that U.S. military investigators had found evidence that American guards at the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had committed infractions in trying to get terror suspects to talk, including in one case flushing a Qur'an down a toilet. Their information came from a knowledgeable U.S. government source, and *before deciding whether to publish it we approached two separate Defense Department officials for comment. One declined to give us a response; the other challenged another aspect of the story but did not dispute the Qur'an charge.*

  RELATED STORY
The Islamic World: How a Fire Broke Out






Although other major news organizations had aired charges of Qur'an desecration based only on the testimony of detainees, we believed our story was newsworthy because a U.S. official said government investigators turned up this evidence. So we published the item. After several days, newspapers in Pakistan and Afghanistan began running accounts of our story. At that point, as *Evan Thomas, Ron Moreau *and *Sami Yousafzai* report this week, the riots started and spread across the country, fanned by extremists and unhappiness over the economy.

Last Friday, a top Pentagon spokesman told us that a review of the probe cited in our story showed that it was never meant to look into charges of Qur'an desecration. The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them "not credible." Our original source later said he couldn't be certain about reading of the alleged Qur'an incident in the report we cited, and said it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts. Top administration officials have promised to continue looking into the charges, and so will we. But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst.

_Mark Whitaker_

_Editor's Note:  On Monday afternoon, May 16, Whitaker issued the following statement: Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Qur'an abuse at Guantanamo Bay._

_© 2005 Newsweek, Inc._


----------



## Ray (May 19, 2005)

oldnewbie said:
			
		

> Here's the link
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857154/site/newsweek/
> 
> ...


It sounds like Newsweek is trying to avoid admitting culpability.  They, at the very least, are admitting that they didn't follow their own standards...if you don't follow your own standards then you don't have any.

I guess the magazine/newspaper biz is all about selling copies.


----------



## ginshun (May 19, 2005)

So basically, Newsweek talked to two anonymous sources "in the defense department" and since neither one of them denied that a Koran was flushed, that amounted to Pentagon approval of the story?

 Did I get that about right?

 Sounds pretty shady to me, but if that is proof enough for you guys, so be it.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 19, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> But that's intentional. I don't believe Newsweek fabricated the story--I do believe they were lazy. Isn't it more comparable to my culpabilit if you tell me there's a fire, and I yell FIRE!, and something happens? I was relying on your information.
> 
> Addressing another poster, they've been apologizing constantly, haven't they? I've seen them on a few news shows already.
> 
> My understanding is that they placed too much reliance on a single unnamed source, plus the Pentagon's refusal to deny it. (Full agreement that they can't really read anything into the govt.'s declining to comment.) It was a sloppy process, not a case of malintent. But, if I am mistaken here I hope someone will correct me.




Arni,

While I agree with your line of thought, I think it was more an issue of "I think I smell smoke." And then you or someone yelling FIRE!

Did they follow up with better quetions?

Or did they just run to the presses to be the first to report on something?

Not sure, as I was not behinds the scenes, but it does not look good, from my point of view. Yet to avoid making a similiar mistake I will hold off on the gallows, until I know more information. 

Peace


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2005)

It is drop-dead funny to see all the right-wing complaining that somebody got a story wrong and people died partly because of it.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 19, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It is drop-dead funny to see all the right-wing complaining that somebody got a story wrong and people died partly because of it.




Right wing in the media or on this site?


----------



## Ray (May 19, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It is drop-dead funny to see all the right-wing complaining that somebody got a story wrong and people died partly because of it.


I'm not sure if that's a serious statement or a sarcastic one.  But, if Newsweek has standards and didn't follow them, then they don't have any standards.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 19, 2005)

They researched it and presented it to 2 gov't officials at the Pentagon before publishing.  I'd say that is pretty good, and probably more then they "needed" to do.

 This whole thing can't be blamed on ONE story, there are lots of stories saying the same things, not to mention a occupying foriegn army.

 Newsweek attempted to verify their story before publishing.  How many of those that are crying fire about them have tried to go to the source rather then just buying the spin from one side?


----------



## psi_radar (May 19, 2005)

Maybe some of you don't understand how journalists deal with government agencies, but basically you don't get the entire agency to approve an article, that would take quite a bit of time. You get your story, then as a courtesy you could talk to a press secretary, public information officer, or supervisor to confirm the story, though that's not absolutely required, depending on how the information is presented. 

From what I've read, the reporter heard the story from one official, then sent the article based on this testimony to two others for confirmation. One didn't respond, another challenged another part of the story but not the Quran part. These two defense officials--why they're unnamed, I don't know, they weren't described as anonymous in the articles I've seen-- represent "the Pentagon." That's standard journalistic practice.  

Here's a pretty good opinion piece on the matter from Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2118826/


----------



## psi_radar (May 19, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It is drop-dead funny to see all the right-wing complaining that somebody got a story wrong and people died partly because of it.



It'd be more funny if the irony didn't have so much blood dripping from it.


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

The "Quran as toilet paper" sounds more urban legend than fact.....


----------



## ginshun (May 19, 2005)

> Newsweek attempted to verify their story before publishing. I'd say that is pretty good, and probably more then they "needed" to do.


  Never mind that nobody ever verified it, print it anyway!  LOL.

 What was the point of trying to verify it if they were going to print it either way?


----------



## psi_radar (May 19, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Never mind that nobody ever verified it, print it anyway!  LOL.



Nobody verified Deep Throats' testimony either. If you have a source that you know is credible provide a story, then that's usually enough, you just have to be careful how the article is wordsmithed. NewsWeek could have run a story that said "a source within the Pentagon stated that reports from Guantanamo Bay indicate the Quran has been desecrated in front of inmates to elicit information," and been totally within their rights. They couldn't say: "The Pentagon confirms reports that guards at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Quran," without specific approval from another Pentagon official or some sort of physical evidence. If they did, then retracting the story was the correct move.


----------



## michaeledward (May 19, 2005)

So the Newsweek story needed to be retracted ... keep your eye on the ball.


Is our government degrading religous beliefs of detainees? 
If they are, do you approve of this behavior? 

Is our government rendering detainees to countries to torture them?
If they are, do you approve of this behavior? 

Is our government hiding 'ghost detainees' from international agencies in accordance with ratified treaties?
If they are, do you approve of this behavior?

Is our government now taking information from the Iranian Terrorist organization, the MEK, concerning Iran's nuclear program and ambitions in an effort to build support for further aggression in the middle east?
If they are, do you approve of this behavior? 

The question should not be about the Newsweek story, but instead about what is our government doing in our name?


----------



## ginshun (May 19, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> So the Newsweek story needed to be retracted ... keep your eye on the ball.
> 
> 
> Is our government degrading religous beliefs of detainees?
> ...


 I suppose you are right, and this is really what it comes down to.  I suppose I am just an insensative jerk, but my thoughts on the whole situation are pretty much that even if they did flush a Koran, so what?  If it breaks down a prisoners will and gets them to tell the interogators what they want to know, then more power to them, flush a whole stack of them next time.

 It is unfortunate that people have to die over such trivial things as dropping a book in a toilet.  I guess though, trivial to me is obviously very impoertant to someone else.  Whatever.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2005)

Ah. So flushing a Bible, or burning the Flag--for you, no problem at all.


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

Other nations (many that get so twisted over this stuff) DO do things like that routinely. Dont see us rioting in the streets over it....


----------



## michaeledward (May 19, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> It is unfortunate that people have to die over such trivial things as dropping a book in a toilet. I guess though, trivial to me is obviously very impoertant to someone else. Whatever.


 
Oh, Please ... And how are going to connect 'dropping a book in a toilet' to people dying? 

The fact that the report of the first existed before the second?

Or that someone in the administration said so? 

The same adminstration that said there were 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' in Iraq.

The same adminstration that told us we would be greeted as liberators?

The same adminstration that told us the reconstruction of Iraq could be paid for by Iraqi oil profits?

Wanna buy a bridge?


----------



## Andrew Green (May 19, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Other nations (many that get so twisted over this stuff) DO do things like that routinely. Dont see us rioting in the streets over it....


 True, but there is a lot more going on then a book in the toilet.

 I bet there would be stronger objections if there was a occupying muslim army imposing a islamic style of government and using prisoners Christian beliefs against them....

 But to assume that the flushing of a book was responsible for the riots is a little... well... silly.   More likely I'd guess that there is a little "See, look what they are doing over a book!  They MUST be crazy and need to be 'civilized'!"

 But who knows, none of us are muslims living in that region.  We have a different set of morals, a different culture.


----------



## rutherford (May 19, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> This is a country that is a people that have their country being occupied by a foriegn army that shows no respect for their culture and beliefs fighting back.


You've said this a few times in this thread, and I have to say that I think you're misrepresenting our force in the region.  Unlike Iraq, there's really nothing we want in Afghanistan and never commited anything like an army to the region.

We really have a very small force there.  Many would say that it's an inadequate force for the tasks assigned them - they never did catch the bad guy.

To address Tgace's question, there was always an anti-war movement that decried a response against Afghanistan.  However, for the most part it concentrated on how the war was fought: cluster bombs and mines dropped on urban areas, farmers blown off of hillsides. . . basically a whole lot of collateral damage, civilian casualties, and general disregard for the populace.  

Current coverage mostly focuses on showing the false nature of the popular idea that we are improving the conditions of people (especially women) who live in that country.  In some urban areas and the few places where we have continuing aid missions, this is true.  In many places conditions worsened and we dropped pop tarts and peanut butter on people's houses - causing more collateral damage.

Eh. . . personally I'm not sure I would have done anything different.


----------



## Tgace (May 20, 2005)

True..there seems to be a little anti-war crossover going on here. People should remember most of this happened in Afghanistan...not Iraq.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 20, 2005)

Newsweek may have retracted their story, but they were on to something...

Posted on Fri, May. 20, 2005

*Red Cross told U.S. of alleged acts against Koran*


*COMPLAINTS CEASED AFTER PENTAGON TOOK ACTION, GROUP SAYS*

*By Sam Cage*

*Associated Press*


*GENEVA** - *The international Red Cross told U.S. authorities about allegations that U.S. personnel at the Guantánamo Bay detention center showed disrespect to Islam's holy book, the Koran, 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 Koran, 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.''



About 15 people died in clashes with security forces in Afghanistan last week after Newsweek reported that U.S. interrogators had flushed a Koran down a toilet at the prison camp for terrorist suspects at the U.S. military base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The magazine later retracted the story.



Red Cross delegates, who have visited Guantánamo regularly since the arrival in January 2002 of the first of about 600 detainees, did not personally witness any instances of disrespect toward the Koran. Instead, Schorno said, they received an unspecified number of reports from detainees that this had occurred. Schorno told the Chicago Tribune, which first reported the story Thursday, that the delegates gathered and corroborated enough similar, independent reports from detainees to raise the issue on numerous occasions with Guantánamo commanders and Pentagon officials. It was unclear what the Red Cross' corroboration process consisted of.



On Jan. 19, 2003, after the Geneva-based ICRC's reports, the Pentagon issued nearly three pages of guidelines for handling of the Koran. Since then, according to the Tribune, the Red Cross has not received any other complaints or documented similar incidents.



Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the ICRC's concerns about the handling of the Koran at Guantánamo were consistent with those the Pentagon has acknowledged, such as a Koran inadvertently dropping to the floor.



Whitman, however, declined to provide specifics on the ICRC's complaints. He refused to specifically say whether the ICRC had raised issues about a Koran being placed in a toilet. The Pentagon has said it has no evidence such an incident ever happened.



The basic instruction in the January 2003 guidelines, as described in the document, was to avoid touching a Koran whenever possible, and that when it is deemed a ``military necessity'' to do so, a chaplain or Muslim interpreter -- not a guard -- is to inspect the holy book.



``Handle the Koran as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art,'' the guidelines said.


----------



## Tgace (May 20, 2005)

Odd how we are being mandated to respect a specific book... I wonder what would happen if our country implimented laws affording the Bible the same protections?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Odd how we are being mandated to respect a specific book... I wonder what would happen if our country implimented laws affording the Bible the same protections?


It looks like our guidelines go out of the way to respect the culture of the detainees...

Yet, they are just rules on paper.

It is important to note that the ICRC reported no further complaints after the ICRC's report and the subsequent issuing of the guidelines by the Pentagon.


----------



## michaeledward (May 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Odd how we are being mandated to respect a specific book... I wonder what would happen if our country implimented laws affording the Bible the same protections?


Yeah, who needs that pesky first amendment anyhow.


----------



## ginshun (May 20, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ah. So flushing a Bible, or burning the Flag--for you, no problem at all.


  I am not a christian or a muslim, so I could really care less about either of those books.  Just paper and words.

 Desicration of the flag offends me, but not enough to kill somebody over. Personally I am proud to be an American, not ashamed. I am a follower of the logic that one of the freedoms that the flag represents has to be the right to burn it if that is your choice. If I see somebody burning a flag, I will think they are an ***, but I am not going to do anything.


----------



## ginshun (May 20, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Yeah, who needs that pesky first amendment anyhow.


 I am not really sure how:

 [qoute]The basic instruction in the January 2003 guidelines, as described in the document, was to avoid touching a Koran whenever possible, and that when it is deemed a ``military necessity'' to do so, a chaplain or Muslim interpreter -- not a guard -- is to inspect the holy book.

``Handle the Koran as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art,'' the guidelines said. [/quote] 

 is exactly an extension of the first amendment.  Last time I checked all the first amendment said was that Congress can't make a law establishing a national religion or prohibiting anyone from following their chosen religion.  I am not sure that equates with not being allowed to touch a Koran for fear it might offend a prisoner.


 Are the same rules in plave for the Bible when the guards are dealing with Chrisian inmates?


----------



## Andrew Green (May 20, 2005)

One more "isolated incident"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4566159.stm

 "One sergeant told investigators that detainees were considered terrorists until proven otherwise and that the Geneva Convention only applied to prisoners of war."


----------



## michaeledward (May 20, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> I am not really sure how:
> 
> The basic instruction in the January 2003 guidelines, as described in the document, was to avoid touching a Koran whenever possible, and that when it is deemed a ``military necessity'' to do so, a chaplain or Muslim interpreter -- not a guard -- is to inspect the holy book.
> 
> ...


Have you heard any stories about the guards using the Bible, Torah, or the Book of Mormon as a coercion / interrogation tool? 

I agree, let's flush them all down the toilet. 

I wonder why we aren't hearing such reports.


----------



## ginshun (May 20, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Have you heard any stories about the guards using the Bible, Torah, or the Book of Mormon as a coercion / interrogation tool?


  I know I haven't.



> I agree, let's flush them all down the toilet.


  Wouldn't bother me any.



> I wonder why we aren't hearing such reports.


  I doubt that we ever will, regardless of whether or not it is happening.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 20, 2005)

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koran#Qur.27an_desecration
*





> *Qur'an desecration* means insulting the Qur'an by defiling or dismembering it. Most traditional schools of Islamic law dictate that a Muslim may not touch the Qur'an, which is regarded as the literal word of God in its untranslated Arabic form, unless he or she is in a state of ritual purity _(wudu)_. Muslims must always treat the book with reverence, and are forbidden, for instance, to pulp, recycle, or simply discard worn-out copies of the text. (Such books must be respectfully burned or buried.) [6] (_http://www.ourdialogue.com/q4.htm_)
> 
> Respect for the written text of the Qur'an is an important element of religious faith in Islam. Intentionally insulting the Qur'an is regarded as a form of blasphemy and, according to the laws of some Muslim countries, is punishable by lengthy imprisonment or the death penalty."


 Different culture, different beliefs.


----------



## Ray (May 20, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I agree, let's flush them all down the toilet.


and then call the plumber to unstop the toilet.


----------



## arnisador (May 20, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koran#Qur.27an_desecration*Different culture, different beliefs.


 But there has to be a limit on how far we go to respect them. Not letting the interrogators desecrate it is the right decision. Rioting because it's believed that they did desecrate anyway, isn't.


----------



## Tgace (May 20, 2005)

Thats my point exactly. From a military/PR aspect its not a good way to win the hearts and minds...but thats as far as Id take it.


----------



## rutherford (May 20, 2005)

So, today the news is all about the pictures of the former Iraq dictator in his undershorts.

Of course, George has this to say: "I don't think a photo inspires murders . . .  I think they are inspired by an ideology that is so barbaric and backwards that it's hard for many in the Western world to comprehend how they think."

It's a pretty small jump from photos don't inspire murders to news stories don't inspire murders.

However, I wonder if he's considered that maybe calling people barbaric and backwards like this DOES inspire murders.  


Ugh.  I tell you what, it's been a rough few years here.  WTF???

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1274&storyid=3159557


----------



## psi_radar (May 22, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> But there has to be a limit on how far we go to respect them. Not letting the interrogators desecrate it is the right decision. Rioting because it's believed that they did desecrate anyway, isn't.


That  depends upon their beliefs. To be devils' advote here, these same people destroyed ancient buddhist monuments that can never be restored. Are we talking about reporting creditiblity here, or crimes against religion? And is there such a thing as crimes against religion, if you live in a supposedly secular country?


----------



## Tgace (May 22, 2005)

Yes..can we or should we punish Americans for "abusing a religious document"? Unless they were in violation of military policy, which means its up to the military to deal with it, meaning a reduction in grade or discharge at the worst.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 22, 2005)

The media doesnt lie-it "exaggerates"!


----------



## Makalakumu (May 22, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> The media doesnt lie-it "exaggerates"!


Actually, they do lie, all of the time.

In Febuary 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifiying the news in the United States.

If you don't have time to check facts, then you probably shouldn't believe a word of what is said on TV these days.


----------



## michaeledward (May 22, 2005)

From a government report, as reported by the New York 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._
​


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 22, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Actually, they do lie, all of the time.
> 
> In Febuary 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifiying the news in the United States.
> 
> If you don't have time to check facts, then you probably shouldn't believe a word of what is said on TV these days.


Hey, I was being sarcastic. The media tends to want others to think they dont


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 22, 2005)

OK, fine. I expect to hear no more complaints about flag-burning.


----------



## michaeledward (May 22, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> That depends upon their beliefs. To be devils' advote here, these same people destroyed ancient buddhist monuments that can never be restored. Are we talking about reporting creditiblity here, or crimes against religion? And is there such a thing as crimes against religion, if you live in a supposedly secular country?


 
" These same people " ?

Can you define that pronoun a bit for me? Do you mean Afghani's? Pakistani's? I know the Taliban destroyed the Buddha. But, I thought the demonstrations were perhaps the citizens of Afghanistan & Pakistan.

It's a bit like referring to all Americans as 'These same people dragged Matthew Sheppard to his death.'

I'm pretty sure you don't think that way, psi .... but, the allegation is not playing devil's advocate; it's racist (or nationalist, if you prefer).


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 22, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> " These same people " ?
> 
> Can you define that pronoun a bit for me? Do you mean Afghani's? Pakistani's? I know the Taliban destroyed the Buddha. But, I thought the demonstrations were perhaps the citizens of Afghanistan & Pakistan.
> 
> ...


Hmmn....people have some astonishing behavior patterns


----------



## Andrew Green (May 22, 2005)

Another Isolated incident... Seems to be a weekly thing...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4570631.stm


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 22, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Another Isolated incident... Seems to be a weekly thing...
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4570631.stm


Of course it is going to be a weekly thing when daily there is tension.


----------



## psi_radar (May 23, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> " These same people " ?
> 
> Can you define that pronoun a bit for me? Do you mean Afghani's? Pakistani's? I know the Taliban destroyed the Buddha. But, I thought the demonstrations were perhaps the citizens of Afghanistan & Pakistan.
> 
> ...



You may have caught me in an overgeneralization there. I had read that those participating in the riots were Afghani muslim extremists, which I equated to people who had in the past tacitly supported the Taliban. Some Afghanis obviously supported the Taliban when they were in power, however, to say definitively that these people were among them would be a leap. We can safely say though, that some afghanis, perhaps not these specific afghanis, desecrated sacred artworks for no better reason than religious offense.


----------



## Ender (May 24, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There is not substantiation that this is a 'bogus story'. What there is, is a poorly sourced story that an official government report will, or will not, include statements concerning abuse of the Koran.
> 
> Has the government stated that the interrogation techniques do not include using religious degredation?
> 
> ...




And don't confuse rationalization with good journalism.

It doesn't matter if the government has stated any interrogation techniques were not being used. It doesn't mater if menstrual blood was used. That doesn't give Newswwek the moral right to print a false story.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 24, 2005)

1. Considering the Bush government's clear pattern of lies and exaggerations, it's somewhat remarkable to see anyone who supported our attack on Iraq arguing that "Newsweek," had no right to print a, "false story."

2. How do you know it was a false story? You know that they couldn't get the corroboration they needed; you know that they claimed their sources turned around and refused to confirm the story their sources had already told. You don;t know if it was true; you don;t know if it was false.

3. Regrettably, you do know--or you should--that it was a story very much in keeping with the pattern that we do know the Bush government has both endorsed and advanced...a pattern of a) denying that detainees have any rights whatsoever; b) of painting the conflict as Christians vs. Muslims; c) of officially-sanctioned physical and psychological coercion.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 24, 2005)

Duplicate post edited.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Considering the Bush government's clear pattern of lies and exaggerations, it's somewhat remarkable to see anyone who supported our attack on Iraq arguing that "Newsweek," had no right to print a, "false story."
> 
> 2. How do you know it was a false story? You know that they couldn't get the corroboration they needed; you know that they claimed their sources turned around and refused to confirm the story their sources had already told. You don;t know if it was true; you don;t know if it was false.
> 
> 3. Regrettably, you do know--or you should--that it was a story very much in keeping with the pattern that we do know the Bush government has both endorsed and advanced...a pattern of a) denying that detainees have any rights whatsoever; b) of painting the conflict as Christians vs. Muslims; c) of officially-sanctioned physical and psychological coercion.


So you're suggesting that the article might have been fake, but accurate? LMFAO.

So I guess there is going to be a new rule in journalism. We'll call it the Robertson's rule of journalism. 

That rule says:

If any story lacks any support, cannot be confirmed, has evidence of being fabricated BUT advances a leftwing, anti-Bush, anti-US agenda, it should be considered as if it were Gospel against ALL evidence. 

Example: "How do you Know it's a false story?" Written as if the burden of proof is on others to DISPROVE an article that supports his political agenda. In other words, if it's written, it's true until proven otherwise, and even THEN it's still true. Further, even if it IS proven untrue, it's still considered true because it "was a story very much in keeping with the pattern that we do know the Bush government has both endorsed and advanced." 

Wow, remarkeable. Did you sell your credibility and objectivity, robertson, or did you just give it away for free? 

The sad fact is, and you should pay attention to this robertson, this is why no one believes the left and their media anymore. Everything is considered true, no matter how absurd or baseless, because it fits an agenda. You're the proverbial kids that cry wolf. If you ever DO find damning evidence of anything, you've lied so much and reported things as evidence that were "Fake but accurate" so often, no one will believe you. 

That's why credibility is so important.  Integrity is a word that the leftists in the media might start researching again.

I'm sure the response to this post will be "Well, Bush should look up that word, he's the biggest lying pooh pooh head there is."  <sigh>


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 25, 2005)

As for what I actually said, you might wish to go back and re-read. I said that they can't provide corroboration (apparently because their original sources have now recanted), which means--I was explicit--"You don't know if it was true; you don't know if it was false."

In other words, I wrote that you have no rational or evidentiary basis for deciding one way or another. You simply don't know, and neither do I.

We do know that such an action is consistent with policies and procedures that our government has employed on many occasions; we do know that this explicitly contradicts the military's clear policy with regard to the Koran. Both our suspicions about whether or not this really happened, however, are politicized and therefore untrustworthy.

By the way, Hizzoner is an incompetent ideologue, whose actions as President we will come to regret. But you brought it up; I don't see what it has to do with this story.


----------



## psi_radar (May 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> <snip>
> 
> ...this is why no one believes the left and their media anymore. Everything is considered true, no matter how absurd or baseless, because it fits an agenda. You're the proverbial kids that cry wolf. If you ever DO find damning evidence of anything, you've lied so much and reported things as evidence that were "Fake but accurate" so often, no one will believe you.
> <snip>
> ...


Replace "left" with "right" in this quote and it accurately represents how at least 48 percent of the country feels.


----------



## Ender (May 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So you're suggesting that the article might have been fake, but accurate? LMFAO.
> 
> So I guess there is going to be a new rule in journalism. We'll call it the Robertson's rule of journalism.
> 
> ...



Exactly. This sort of thing happens when principles become flexible. This whole story is a "News" story, not "opinion", not "News Analysis", but a factual story. Their whole line of reasoning is "We believe this to be so, so it must be true"


----------



## Andrew Green (May 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So you're suggesting that the article might have been fake, but accurate? LMFAO.


 No...  I think what he is saying is that it may have been accurate and confirmed, but when the poo hit the fan the sources stopped wanting to confirm it.



> advances a leftwing, anti-Bush, anti-US agenda, it should be considered as if it were Gospel against ALL evidence.


 Left-wing is anti-US...  Wow...  Thats sure a good way of advancing a "us vs them" and "they are evil and want to destroy us mindset".

 Guess Canada is evil and anti-US, with our social programs, health care, lack of invading other countries and the fact that our right wing is further left then your left wing...  

 So just out of curiousity, when are we going to get bombed?


----------



## Andrew Green (May 25, 2005)

Another piece of the story...



 "About five months ago, the guards beat the detainees. They flushed a Koran in the toilet.  "The guards dance around when the detainees are trying to pray. The guards still do these things."



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4581383.stm


----------



## Flatlander (May 25, 2005)

======================================================
_*Moderator Note*._ 
  Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

  -Dan Bowman-
  -MT Moderator-
 ======================================================


----------



## Tgace (May 25, 2005)

Anybody ever try "flushing" any book down a toilet?


----------



## Andrew Green (May 25, 2005)

yeah... that kinda seemed odd to me too...

 maybe tossed it in and flushed... can't see it going down though...


----------



## arnisador (May 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So you're suggesting that the article might have been fake, but accurate?


 A common concept in science...accuracy vs. precision.


----------



## Tgace (May 25, 2005)

I believe the prisoners have chem toilets anyway...


----------



## psi_radar (May 26, 2005)

Back to the topic, NewsWeek Lied, People Died

The allegations have not been disproven. Did NewsWeek lie? Not to the best of their knowledge. What they stated, they believed to be true. People died, but they certainly didn't kill them.

Which raises the larger question. "People" seem to be upset that the Quran was defiled in defiance of US military law. Why not the same sort of reaction to the detention of individuals--without trial--in defiance of U.S. and international law? We are taking their freedom, their lives, in essence, depending on the length of detention, which is indeterminable at this point. I'd say that's a bigger infraction.

We've called this a war on terrorism. So shouldn't these prisoners be treated with the same priveleges, according to the Geneva Convention?

On a personal note, if my father, or brother, or son was put into some modern Devil's Island because he was supporting his beliefs, I'd likely pursue some sort of action to free him or get recompense of some sort or another. We're breeding terrorists rather than resolving the problem.

I love my country, but I'm not confident in our methods of reducing menace to our citizens here or overseas through our current actions.


----------



## michaeledward (May 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So you're suggesting that the article might have been fake, but accurate? LMFAO.


And last night, what do we see from the Associated Press ... 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7981839/



> *FBI records cite prisoner claims of Quran abuse*
> Declassified docs say desecration occurred in early 2002
> WASHINGTON - Terrorist suspects at the Guantanamo Bay prison told U.S. interrogators as early as April 2002, just four months after the first prisoners arrived, that military guards abused them and desecrated the Quran, declassified FBI records say.
> Their behavior is bad, one prisoner is quoted as saying of his guards during an interrogation by an FBI special agent in July 2002. About five months ago the guards beat the detainees. They flushed a Quran in the toilet.


The story that won't go away ... 
Does anyone else smell smoke?


----------

