Oct 17 - 46/45 - McCain +01
Where is their Retraction?
Last week, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai absovled Newsweek of blame for causing deadly riots. Remember, this is the same Newsweek that was screamed at by Republicans. Republicans in Congress and the White House connected Newsweek to deaths. Now that Karzai said it was not Newsweek's fault, where is the right-wing retraction?See, we just are not good at that game. They yell and scream, until they get what they want. We don't. We should be yelling and screaming about their false blame on Newsweek. Instead, the "liberal" media barely reported Karzai absolving the Newsweek story.
Somewhat Related: Sunday, on Face the Nation, General Myers was asked if, in hindsight, we should have sent more troops into Iraq to secure the peace. He said NO! Who knew, our military leaders can be big time political hacks, just like Bill Frist and Company.
Unrelated: I read recently that actor James Woods reported the 9/11 hijackers as potential terrorists months before 9/11. Why does this guy not have a job doing something to save us? Also, maybe I am too negative, but that sure seems like proof that 9/11 could have been stopped with some better management.
By Chuck - 5/31/2005
19 Comments:
i believe I initially blamed Newsweek for death. Consider this my retraction of blame on Newsweek. See, its easy. While I'm at it, I retract my prediction of a Kerry victory and a Celtics title.
I still don't understand why the Muslim world reacted so strongly to the Newsweek story when there have been previous accounts of flushing the Koran down the toilet, not to mention the allegations of abuse and torture. Maybe it's just the atheist in me but aren't the reports of 100+ deaths in US custody more serious than flushing a book down the toilet? And I also don't understand why the some Muslim protesters blamed Newsweek too. I just really can't comprehend why this story was so explosive compared to the thousands of other stories and documents of prisoner abuse.
well, evidently it wasnt. The power of the Newsweek story seems to have been a myth. (at least that's what Karzai says)
Newsweek broke a story based on a source who “wasn’t sure his information was correct.” A story they knew would create a stir- all in the name of selling more magazines. Newsweek has the right and should break these stories when they’re true, but dealing with such a sensitive subject... they need to be certain of what they print.
As far as the violence, Karzai stated “other factors were involved in the rioting” that occurred in his country last week. This doesn’t absolve Newsweek, it just shares the blame (concerning one specific incident in ones man’s opinion). The magazine fucked up, and as much as you want to make the right look bad, a republican retraction will not and should not happen.
How the hell do you flush a book down a toilet anyway?
I read Newsweek's initial retraction and it wasn't that they were saying the report was unverified or incorrect but that the source wasn't sure the document he said he read it in was the correct document. But I don't think he ever said that he hadn't read the account. Besides, in terms of major fuck-ups based on faulty data, I'm not sure the Bush Administration is one to point fingers. They're just mad because usually when newspapers report unsupported stories, they are fed them by the administration.
i don't see how you flush a book down the toilet either, but all this is kinda pointless debate when we do know that religion has been used against detaines at the prison. and we have some solid american sources who say red ink was rubbed on faces(they were told it was from girls' periods) and women cia interorgators rubbed there breasts and such on prisoners as well. i'm in a hurry now but i'll post a link to the npr story that has all the info tonight....
we went to war based on a source who “wasn’t sure his information was correct.”
Is James Wood's girlfriend grand-daughter age or is it just me?
Touche anonymous
Im not arguing against political hypocrisy.
The way I see it is: Republicans lash out at Newsweek because they are insecure about prisoner treatment, which is fueled by liberal sources nitpicking any abuse they can find, which is caused by the desire for power and or money. And everyone cites the geneva convention and the repercussions on humanity as the issue.
The real issue should be whether these prisoners are being mistreated to the point where the suffering is above and beyond what a human being should have to face, not 100 indirect consequences. And personally I don’t see excessive treatment. The sexual abuse thing was bad and it was exposed and taken care of. But everything else seems to be a means for people to justify their protest
Remember these prisoners made the conscious decision to take up arms against the US, whether they are justified in doing so, they should not expect club med when they are captured and proceed to withhold information. What do you expect the military to do? Ask politely “where is Bin Laden?’ and when they say “I don’t know” let them go lounge around the pool. This is a conflict between two sides and some coercion is necessary.
Lastly, Ill say that we are lucky to be afforded the situation in which the comfort of our enemy is such a high priority. If we were ever truly threatened- if someone had the means and the desire to wipe us out, then this conversation wouldn’t be taking place
Either way Newsweek printed a story they shouldn’t have and it had a negative effect, the republicans do not need to retract their blame on the publication. They should probably apologize for a laundry list of other things but this isn’t one of them.
i hope im that cool when im 58
Think about it. It's not that difficult. Do you flush a whole role of toilet paper at once? NO!!! If you want to flush a book, you do it a couple of pages at a time.
Nugent, Nugent, Nugent! You say:
"Remember these prisoners made the conscious decision to take up arms against the US..."
Are you so sure? Last time I checked these people hadn't had a trial, most hadn't even been charged with a crime. Guilty until proven innocent doesn't sound very American to me.
If you ask me, the problem with this situation is not that terrorists are being abused...it's that suspected terrorists are being abused.
Go ahead and pull their fingernails off AFTER they've been formerly charged with a crime, had an opportunity to defend themselves and been tried and convicted in some reasonable manner.
Until then, yes, we should treat them like they are at the club med.
first of all the US paid a bounty per person that the Afghanis turned over as Taliban fighters. 200 prisoners have been freed already. Second, this.
I can't believe that a bounty was offered.
yeah, Amy Goodman's book claims that they paid $5000/head (though I can't find it now for the life of me). Also US private prisons get paid $75-100 per day per immigrant detainee (more than rapists and murderers), hence them being in prison without charge since they were rounded up in the fall of 2001.
Bob,
Im not for trampling on civil rights and I firmly believe in the importance of due process. BUT this is an armed conflict where resolution comes from killing your opponent- this is a war, and it tends to trump the process of individual justice while the outcome is in question.
What do suggest we do, detain hostile forces briefly before sending them to trial complete with lawyers, judges, and juries? In the midst of a war this is a waste of resources. It is also a waste of time when the information that can be obtained is usually time sensitive. Winning needs to be priority one, humane treatment of prisoners needs to remain a priority but certainly kept in a secondary role.
I realize Iraq/Afghanistan is more a case of winning or not winning within a certain time frame- as opposed to utter defeat, and this fact can grey the issue of prisoner value. But remember that soldiers are being shot, bombed, and killed everyday.
And seriously what could be wrong with paying a bounty for someone who may have information on the location of Osama. I think you people want us to lose just to prove a greater point. This is the only rationale that can justify your positions. And its not all together wrong, but you should at least own up.
Call me crazy.... But if I were in an alien spaceship visiting earth, and I witnessed a bunch of people rioting in some 3rd world Country, killing each other barbarically over a koran flushed down the toilet, I doubt I'd be thinking: "Goddamn those stupid right wing pricks at guantanomo!!," or "Tree-huggin liberal bastards!!!"
I'd be wondering how such incredibly religious people get so upset because someone sinned 1000's of miles away, that they would then commit the ultimate sin of killing an innocent human being.
Are these people even ready for democracy???? Should we die trying to give it to them?
This defense of Gitmo ends if you read the "this" link on Michelle's comment. Its a fact that many of these men posed no threat, yet we detain them for YEARS!
We cannot do that, while still trying to claim we are the leaders of justice and freedom.
I am not saying I know the answer to the problem at Gitmo. I am just saying there is one. The fact that we detain people, when we are certain many people are innocent of anything IS A PROBLEM!
When there is a criminal upswing in some town in the US, does the government just arrest everyone in the neighborhood that they suspect to have committed the crime? Of course not, because that would be unjust. Yet that is essentially what we did to certain towns right after 9/11.
I think we should just go with Nugent's "winning needs to be priority one" theory and go back to settling every score with a good ol' fashioned duel. Who cares about human suffering when there's WINNING to be done?
part of me is angry I even dignified that comment with a response...
Post a Comment
<< Home