Definining Human Rights Abuses Down
Dean
More reactions to Newsweek's traitorous shame here.
Most sickening to read was the always-vile, always hate-mongering Daily Kos reaction. White Supremacists, Holocaust Denialists, Michael Moore apologists, Daily Kos fans: is there any moral difference between any of these people? If so I can't think of one.
On a far more rational note, John Henke wonders if the story of the flushed Koran isn't part of a pattern of abuse by U.S. service members.
Jon, I'm sorry, but when you bring in stories of how a detainee had his crotch grabbed, or had lotion rubbed on him, and juxtapose that with stories of what may be very real and upsetting abuses like putting someone in solitary confinement with a light burning 24 hours a day, you weaken your argument considerably. And, to be blunt, while I've long been one of Andrew Sullivan's defenders, quoting him these days on the subject of the war is just laughable. The man is no longer rational on anything involving the war or the Bush administration. He simply isn't.
That said, am I the only one who remembers the arguments that have raged throughout both left and right wings of the blogosphere since 9/11? One of the very first things I ever wrote on Dean's World was firmly against the use of torture against suspected terrorists--a view that has had people on the right and on the left calling me weak and a pansy (see also here and here here). I utterly oppose torture. It's worthless, it's stupid, it reduces us to the level of the monsters we oppose.
That said: Rubbing lotion on a guy? Rubbing lotion on a guy? Dude, give me the freaking bottle of Jergen's and I'll do it myself. Or I'll have my wife do it. I don't care how offensive it is to the prisoner's sensibilities. I also have no problem with yelling at a guy (so long as it doesn't puncture his eardrums or something), poking him with a finger, scaring him with a barking dog who never actually bites him, or anything like that.
And let's not invoke the slippery slope fallacy here, please. If there is any "slippery slope" in action, it is that we have become so self-loathing and fearful that we are actually defining grabbing a guy's crotch and rubbing lotion on him as human rights violations.
A lot of the defenses of Newsweek I've seen tend do be of the "well given the other abuses like Abu Ghraib we've seen, the flushed-Koran story believable." Screw that. Prisoner abuses happen in all prisons, in all wars, under all administrations. They aren't acceptable, but the very fact that they happen so rarely that we can name every incident, and publicize them--and put people in jail for the most extreme abuses--speaks volumes.
But most of this is beside the point: the issue isn't whether flushing a Koran is forgivable. The issue is that Newsweek, and American journalists in general, are so utterly unpatriotic, so utterly careless, so completely quisling in nature, that they would not even think about whether releasing a story with so little proof was responsible. They used a single, unnamed source to repeat a story they knew for a fact would harm American interests and endanger American lives.
Indeed, if it did damage our efforts to bring freedom and friendship to the Muslim world, they would undoubtedly think of that as a bonus. Hell, they probably believed that if it did harm America's peace efforts, that would make them "brave."
If there was a list of considerations for Isikoff and Newsweek in this story, "proper punctuation" and "good grammar" would be much higher in priority than "might harm America's peace efforts" or "might cost American service members' lives." They have the sick and twisted "journalistic ethic" that "the truth"--defined by them as "whatever makes America and the current administration look bad"--is more important than common sense.
Screw Michael Isikoff and Newsweek. Quislings that they are.
I know you're a good guy, Jon Henke. I know you are. But rubbing lotion on a guy? Dude, where did your common sense disappear to?
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
I find myself oddly in mild disagreement on point 1 - I cannot say with any authority whether the people in Gitmo are indeed actually violent fanatics, or whether they are just the poor victims of a roundup paid for in cash to the Afghan warlords, but if I had in front of me a prisoner of the actual murderous Islamic fanatic kind, I would in fact support the use of such tactics to destroy his pride, because that person has defiled my faith by using it as a justification for his actions. It is neccessary to break them down before you can build them back up:
Note that I personally would not ever flush teh Qur'an, under ANY circumstances, but I can make an allowance for a non-muslim for the tactic if they are using it on a (PROVEN) fanatic murderous thug. If its just a detainee, whose complicity in murder is still unknown as a fact of law, then I am emphatically against it. I would prefer that Qur'ans never be flushed; I would also prefer that Qur'ans never be used to justify the murder of innocent children.
With regards to point 2, I think that the preponderance of reports of use of the tactic of flushing teh Qur'an make Newsweek's allegation not only reasonable, but probable - and note that Newsweek has retracted teh story, but they have still stood by the fact of the Qur'an flushing:
A preponderance of reports could have multiple explanations.
1. It actually happened.
2. Somebody lied about it once, and subsequent reports are merely echoes.
3. Terrorists are coached to make outrageous lies to discredit Coalition forces in Muslim eyes.
4. Gullible media outlets assume that any anti-US story must be credible.
We already know that number 3 and number 4 are true. What we don't know is whether either (or both) explains this particular incident.
Is that kosher for a Believer?
Is that, or the lies of the other inmates, a source for the report?
Newsweek provided legitimacy to a vicious, anti-American rumor. It's unfathomable that they'd choose to do so.
In my mind - he who breaks the Geneva agreement first - gets their collective arses kicked. All bets are off. Forget American niceties.
We play by the rules they set.
God does not live in the bible - he lives in my heart.
The whole report of the Quran being flushed is absurd - whether or not it is true. The fact that it is getting any attention solidifies my earlier point.
Write your congressman, senator and the White House today and demand change!!!
if you look at the sources I've compiled at City of Brass (from other blogsphere tips, no original reporting on my behalf in tracking down these citations), you'll see that the reports are culled form multiple and distinct sources, ranging from Iraq to Cuba. Its a pattern, and not an echo, IMHO. Of course, people are inherently selective about evidence in such cases and I am no differently flawed than everyone else.
I don't, for example, complain at all about the publication of what happened at Abu Ghraib. I would be complaining if a major media outlet had been publishing the allegations before they had firm proof that they'd happened.
That's the problem. And that's why, even if it turns out this story is true, I'll still condemn Newsweek and Isikoff. It's the mentality their action so clearly shows that bugs me, and is part of an overall pattern: Show America in a bad light wherever possible, and don't even hesitate or worry about the effect of that.
Unfortunately, both Isikoff and Newsweek editors turned a blind eye to the corrected information that was presented to them after publication. There is no way to tell whether the recent violence could have been prevented if Newsweek had paid attention to Isikoff’s sourcing sooner. This much is clear: poor journalism is a scourge that crosses all party lines, religious persuasions and international boundaries.
I guess it comes down to whether Newsweek had an accurate source for the flushing story. I think that the excerpt I posted above clearly suggests that Newsweek is standing by the claim that their source read about the flushing in a government report. However, teh source does not remember clearly anymore whether the report in which the event was read, was the SouthCom report.
As a result, I just don't see any evidence that the source was incorrect on the allegation that flushing ever happenned. Perhaps I am more inclined to believe it did happen and am horribly biased, but I did explain my theological position earlier which I think partially absolves me in that regard.
Newsweek retracted teh story indeed - but it smells more like they did so out of journalistic cowardice and political correctness rather than an admission of innaccuracy. The point of contention seems to be at what level the flushing was reported, not whether it ever took place.
And, I do find the claim credible on eth basis of a single source, because (as the evidence clearly demonstrates) Qur'anic abuse has been widely reported many times, in many other media outlets before, including the Washington Post, the Financial Times, The Independent (London), The Daily News (New York), The Denver Post, The Hartford Courant, and broadcast on CNN.
In other words, the claim is credible, since it is not new, and is not limited just to Gitmo.
BTW, General Myers, at a DoD briefing with Rumslefd at his side, says that the rioting in Afghanistan was probably not related to the newsweek story.
Here and now the media do not target the soldiery, who regard them with the scorn and contempt they deserve. We, the citizenry, are the target and the aim is to overwhelm us with fear, loathing, and disgust so that we turn against the war. Worked like a charm, once Vietnam became Nixon's war. Should work even better with the Bush-Cheney-Neocon-Falwell war. Unlike L'Humanité, they don't want to saddle us with a commie dictatorship, just with a government dominated by Democrats. Benign, even justifiable motivation. But ostensibly good intentions are no excuse for attacking the nation and seeking defeat in wartime.
Am I accusing them of being unpatriotic? Believe it, and show me where I'm wrong.
Too bad the MSM isn't on our side. I can only hope that Newsweek's staff gets the rewards it deserves from the jihaddies. Newsweek demonstrates that the media cannot learn from its errors and will sink ever lower in order to push its agenda regardless of the costs to the US. What does Newswekk care if the jihaddies use these lies to collect additional monies to commit more massacres and atrocities? It is just reporting what might have been possible in their view. No crime in that is there?