Boycott Newsweek

[Dru]

Boycott this!

[JayB]

By the way, I've read somewhere that torture and humiliation are poor tools for extracting useful information because the "informant" tends to say whatever he thinks will make the abuse stop rather than to disclose what he would otherwise not reveal.

 

Could there be any truth to this?

 

At the risk of sounding like a fool, here are my thoughts concerning the real issue, which I see as not about media, but about our conduct during war:

 

The question is whether these actions were part of a concerted effort to humiliate and degrade in order to compel the prisoners to break down and yield. Or, were these actions simply a cruel and unusual punishment, sadistic in nature?

 

With regard to the former, the issue arises whether the means was justified by the end goal. I personally don’t know the value of the information obtained under mental and physical duress, but it seems the larger repercussion of a negative global image is of a greater consequence to the security of our nation and to our interests around the world. I’m sure there are some who would argue this is really an issue of the control of information.

 

However, if it is the latter case, which has been provided as the official line, then it appears that the ‘dogs’ just got out of control. Lower level soldiers were the only ones convicted of unlawful conduct with the lone exception of a commissioned National Guard officer who was reprimanded for not being fully aware of the situation.

 

.....

 

Is this what Sun Tzu (The Art of War) refers to when he discusses the importance of moral influence in overcoming an adversary, which I actually believe, in this case to be a war between elements of ‘Progressive Modernity’ and ‘Regressive Religious Fundamentalism’?

 

Good post. My own take is that the information that you get from forced confessions and/or detention centers isn't worth the PR hit that the US takes in the process of doing so, which in turn makes it more difficult to accomplish the larger strategic goal, which is containing and neutralizing a regressive religious fundamentalism which has the anhillation of the West in general and the US in particular as one of its stated purposes.

[Cobra_Commander]

I think finding Osama bin Laden (no matter what the strategic advantage that would be at this point), the power of those images of him in handcuffs under a US flag, is so valuable to the US at this point that perhaps anything can be justified within the machine created to find him. I believe the political shift in what has become a war w/o conclusion would be significant, even though it is probably the strategic equivalent to arresting a homeless guy outside Karachi at this point. I could see being convinced that not finding him means the continued deaths of Americans, therefore, the harshest of punishments could be justified in the prisons.

[catbirdseat]

This thread is getting off track onto terrain that has already been covered, ad nauseum on this board. The questions are these: 1) was Newsweeks information correct or not, 2) regardless of whether it was correct or not, did they have a right and/or a duty to publish it.

 

I think the information WAS correct and that all the backpedaling they have been doing is entirely because of severe government pressure. I believe that the media should bring out the truth. Let the government worry about the consequences. If the truth were always revealed, maybe the government wouldn't do things like start unjustified wars.

[Cobra_Commander]

Do you really think a totally transparent white house would be a good thing? Do you believe in small, undetectable bads for a greater good?

[ChrisT]

This thread is getting off track onto terrain that has already been covered, ad nauseum on this board. The questions are these: 1) was Newsweeks information correct or not, 2) regardless of whether it was correct or not, did they have a right and/or a duty to publish it.

 

I think the information WAS correct and that all the backpedaling they have been doing is entirely because of severe government pressure. I believe that the media should bring out the truth. Let the government worry about the consequences. If the truth were always revealed, maybe the government wouldn't do things like start unjustified wars.

 

good point. I also understand that the reporter, Michael Isikoff, was not prone to throwing facts around:

 

An article in the current Newsweek said the original report, written by a veteran investigative reporter, Michael Isikoff, and the magazine's national security correspondent, John Barry, relied on a "longtime reliable source" who told Mr. Isikoff that a new report on prisoner abuses at Guantánamo would include a mention of a Koran being flushed down a toilet. The magazine said it showed the original article to a Pentagon official who challenged one aspect of the story but not the report about the desecration of the Koran.

[Dave_Schuldt]

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/...5googlecampaign

 

Scroll down to the bottom, well worth watching.

[Dave_Schuldt]

Note that 4 British Guantanimo detainees were sent back to England, held overnight and then set free.

[JayB]

Also note that...

 

Released Detainees Rejoining The Fight

 

By John Mintz

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, October 22, 2004; Page A01

 

At least 10 detainees released from the Guantanamo Bay prison after U.S. officials concluded they posed little threat have been recaptured or killed fighting U.S. or coalition forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan, according to Pentagon officials.

 

One of the repatriated prisoners is still at large after taking leadership of a militant faction in Pakistan and aligning himself with al Qaeda, Pakistani officials said....... In telephone calls to Pakistani reporters, he has bragged that he tricked his U.S. interrogators into believing he was someone else.

 

Abdullah Mehsud told reporters he fooled authorities at Guantanamo Bay for two years before his release. (AP File Photo)

 

 

Another returned captive is an Afghan teenager who had spent two years at a special compound for young detainees at the military prison in Cuba, where he learned English, played sports and watched videos, informed sources said. U.S. officials believed they had persuaded him to abandon his life with the Taliban, but recently the young man, now 18, was recaptured with other Taliban fighters near Kandahar, Afghanistan, according to the sources, who asked for anonymity because they were discussing sensitive military information.

 

The cases demonstrate the difficulty Washington faces in deciding when alleged al Qaeda and Taliban detainees should be freed, amid pressure from foreign governments and human rights groups that have denounced U.S. officials for detaining the Guantanamo Bay captives for years without due-process rights, military officials said.

 

"Reports that former detainees have rejoined al Qaeda and the Taliban are evidence that these individuals are fanatical and particularly deceptive," said a Pentagon spokesman, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico. "From the beginning, we have recognized that there are inherent risks in determining when an individual detainee no longer had to be held at Guantanamo Bay."

 

The latest case emerged two weeks ago when two Chinese engineers working on a dam project in Pakistan's lawless Waziristan region were kidnapped. The commander of a tribal militant group, Abdullah Mehsud, 29, told reporters by satellite phone that his followers were responsible for the abductions.

 

Mehsud said he spent two years at Guantanamo Bay after being captured in 2002 in Afghanistan fighting alongside the Taliban. At the time he was carrying a false Afghan identity card, and while in custody he maintained the fiction that he was an innocent Afghan tribesman, he said. U.S. officials never realized he was a Pakistani with deep ties to militants in both countries, he added.

 

"I managed to keep my Pakistani identity hidden all these years," he told Gulf News in a recent interview. Since his return to Pakistan in March, Pakistani newspapers have written lengthy accounts of Mehsud's hair and looks, and the powerful appeal to militants of his fiery denunciations of the United States. "We would fight America and its allies," he said in one interview, "until the very end."

 

Last week Pakistani commandos freed one of the abducted Chinese engineers in a raid on a mud-walled compound in which five militants and the other hostage were killed.

 

The 10 or more returning militants are but a fraction of the 202 Guantanamo Bay detainees who have been returned to their homelands. Of that group, 146 were freed outright, and 56 were transferred to the custody of their home governments. Many of those men have since been freed.

 

Mark Jacobson, a former special assistant for detainee policy in the Defense Department who now teaches at Ohio State University, estimated that as many as 25 former detainees have taken up arms again. "You can't trust them when they say they're not terrorists," he said.

 

A U.S. defense official who helps oversee the prisoners added: "We could have said we'll accept no risks and refused to release anyone. But we've regarded that option as not humane, and not practical, and one that makes the U.S. government appear unreasonable."

 

Another former Guantanamo Bay prisoner was killed in southern Afghanistan last month after a shootout with Afghan forces. Maulvi Ghafar was a senior Taliban commander when he was captured in late 2001. No information has emerged about what he told interrogators in Guantanamo Bay, but in several cases U.S. officials have released detainees they knew to have served with the Taliban if they swore off violence in written agreements.

 

Returned to Afghanistan in February, Ghafar resumed his post as a top Taliban commander, and his forces ambushed and killed a U.N. engineer and three Afghan soldiers, Afghan officials said, according to news accounts.

 

A third released Taliban commander died in an ambush this summer. Mullah Shahzada, who apparently convinced U.S. officials that he had sworn off violence, rejoined the Taliban as soon as he was freed in mid-2003, sources with knowledge of his situation said.

 

The Afghan teenager who was recaptured recently had been kidnapped and possibly abused by the Taliban before he was apprehended the first time in 2001. After almost three years living with other young detainees in a seaside house at Guantanamo Bay, he was returned in January of this year to his country, where he was to be monitored by Afghan officials and private contractors. But the program failed and he fell back in with the Taliban, one source said.

 

"Someone dropped the ball in Afghanistan," the source said.

 

One former detainee who has not yet been able to take up arms is Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane, a Dane who also signed a promise to renounce violence. But in recent months he has told Danish media that he considers the written oath "toilet paper," stated his plans to join the war in Chechnya and said Denmark's prime minister is a valid target for terrorists.

 

Human rights activists said the cases of unrepentant militants do not undercut their assertions that the United States is violating the rights of Guantanamo Bay inmates.

 

"This doesn't alter the injustice, or support the administration's argument that setting aside their rights is justified," said Alistair Hodgett, a spokesman for Amnesty International.

[JayB]

This thread is getting off track onto terrain that has already been covered, ad nauseum on this board. The questions are these: 1) was Newsweeks information correct or not, 2) regardless of whether it was correct or not, did they have a right and/or a duty to publish it.

 

I think the information WAS correct and that all the backpedaling they have been doing is entirely because of severe government pressure. I believe that the media should bring out the truth. Let the government worry about the consequences. If the truth were always revealed, maybe the government wouldn't do things like start unjustified wars.

 

I guess it all comes down to whether or not you consider personal belief or factual evidence the most compelling ground to base your convictions on in this particular matter. I don't know whether the allegations are true or not, but - going back to Stonehead's post - if we are going to bother interrogating detainees the fact of the matter is that some sort of coercion is going to be necessary. If we decide that we're against that as a nation - then we should modify our policies, or opt for a Machiavellian middle ground in which we simply send them back to their home countries for the full bore medieval treatment and record what their interrogators tell us - which is likely happening to some degree already.

 

For my part, as I said above - I think that we'd be better off strategically if we abandoned the millitary tribunals, swore to uphold the Geneva Accord in full even when dealing with the most despicable and demonstrably guilty terrorists, and generally played the international PR game - as the information obtained under duress is of limited value when compared to the larger strategic damage done by not at least pretending to abide by the same conventions that the rest of the world pretends to abide by - even though I suspect that any country that finds itself in the sights of suicide bombings that kill thousands of its citizens will take the gloves off in short order, no matter what standards they claim to abide by in public.

 

But back to the original topic. I think that if the allegations are true - the most disturbing part of the story to me is that flushing a Koran down the toilet is such a poor interrogation tactic in this case, as it would only strengthen the resolve of a Jihadi to resist to the end. If we really wanted to get these guys to talk, I think that setting up a mini-vegas down there and with unlimited alcohol, hookers, sunshine, and every comfort imaginable would be far more effective....

[Stonehead]

1) was Newsweeks information correct or not, 2) regardless of whether it was correct or not, did they have a right and/or a duty to publish it.

 

It seems that a lot hinges on the press tradition of using anonymous sources. The question arises, how do you verify a story and at the same time maintain the anonymity of your source? Because it is that confidentiality that provides the anonymous source with the assurance that the message will be passed on without the messenger being harmed.

 

Whistleblowing appears to be a necessary action at times to discourage the abuse of power. Insiders have come forth with their revelations due to their pangs of conscience or for lesser motives. Now, I don’t know if I’m naïve enough to believe in noble intentions. I would rather believe that the majority of these actions were informed by raw political calculation.

 

Today, I read about this George Galloway fellow, a Scotsman who also serves as a British MP and who was booted out of the Labour Party for his comments on Iraq. This fellow is accused by a U.S. Senate committee of conspiring with Saddam Hussein in the oil-for-food scandal. Seems Galloway really went into it today at a hearing before the Senate sub-committee for investigations. What I thought was interesting was the timing of the release of the British memo outlining the paucity of the case to go to war against Iraq. Maybe it’s nothing…

 

Think about it though. The information gained from the Pentagon Papers would not have come to light if 'Deep Throat' didn't pass along the information and we still don't know the identity of the source. This exposure of classified information led indirectly to the toppling of a Presidency. Powerful stuff.

 

The Valerie Plame affair, the secret war memos, the digital photos out of Abu Grahib...Each one of these revelations had political repercussions. But what is really going on here?

[JayB]

Another thing that seems to defy logic is the argument that Newsweek is retracting the story due to political pressure. If the press were this pliable all of the reports that gave rise to major scandals involving the administration in power - like Watergate - would have been retracted by whoever reported them. In the case of Watergate, the capacity of the executive to influence news coverage and intimidate the press under Nixon was at least as great as it is today - if not more so - yet the story was anything but submarined. Ditto for the Iran-Contra scandal, the Lewinsky scanal, etc.

 

If Newsweek had solid information to back the story up with the odds that they would capitulate to pressure from the executive branch are very low indeed. Moreover, if the administration communicated threats to Newsweek concerning the story - they would probably use make them a major story in their own right and subsequently use them to further authenticate the claims that they advanced in the original story.

 

And finally, how - exactly - would the adminstration actually threaten a major publication? Seriously. What could they do? Have the Army discontinue their advertisements, which might constitute 1/1000th of Newsweeks advertising revenue - at most?

 

The claim that Newsweek is backing down in the face of some nefarious subterfuge by the sinister masterminds in the White House is a model of the paranoia that seems to has the contemporary Left taking making the black helicopter set on the right looking like models of judicious reasoning and restraint. I'm just waiting for someone to do the usual furtive whispering about Karl Rove planning the whole thing in advance. Bring on the paranoid delirium.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

But back to the original topic. I think that if the allegations are true - the most disturbing part of the story to me is that flushing a Koran down the toilet is such a poor interrogation tactic in this case, as it would only strengthen the resolve of a Jihadi to resist to the end.

 

It's interesting how everyone is ignoring a glaring aspect of this issue: that the "muslim street" is so whacked that the idea of flushing printed paper down a toilet incites them to riot. It's friggin' paper with ink on it - that's it. BFD.

[cj001f]

It's interesting how everyone is ignoring a glaring aspect of this issue: that the "muslim street" is so whacked that the idea of flushing printed paper down a toilet incites them to riot. It's friggin' paper with ink on it - that's it. BFD.

Poor people the world over die in riots every day. They riot over sports games, food, politics, religion. How exactly is this one different? How is this different than US riots over sports team victories?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/22/fan.death/

[mattp]

Give me a break, JayB.

 

Even the White House periodically acknowledges that they have the press on a shorter leash than have previous administrations. Almost nobody is saying that Newsweek's "mistake" resulted from a pre-engineered conspiracy (though your snide comments about our "conspiracy theories" vaguely suggest that we are arguing something like this), but the obvious fact here is that the White House saw a story they didn't like and decided to try to manipulate the situation for polictical advantage.

 

Newsweek had a reliable military source provide a story that seemed to confirm reports that have been published in numerous newspapers for the last year or two, and that was newsworthy. They sent it to the military before publishing it, asking for comment, and the Koran item was not corrected or commented on. Now they "retract" their story, but even the strongest denials coming from the White House and military sources fail to say that the basic facts are actually wrong.

 

This is just like the memo concerning Bush's being AWOL. The woman who was supposed to have written the memo said it was false in that the memo was a fake, and this was the story. But I seem to remember that she also confirmed that everything stated in the "fake memo" was true.

 

The White House is beating down a media powerhouse by deftly spinning a story away from the real issue: in this case, the undeniable and systematic American abuse of detainees in Guantanamo.

[mattp]

Actually, KK, Meyers and others have commented on the very aspect of the story that you point out quite adequately. It isn't getting a lot of discussion in this thread or, for that matter, in the press -- because that really isn't the issue here. Yes, people in Afghanistan and elsewhere have their own agenda and some of them will manipulate stories like this for thier own advantage. That's nothing new.

 

If you saw news stories about Afghan nationals in some rogue village using the American flag as toilet paper, you'd see some outrage that could be manipulated in the American press, right? Maybe we wouldn't riot over it, but we'd see all the right wingers demanding that our Air Force drop a couple of bombs into said village and you might well see attacks against visible Moslems here in the U.S. -- that in fact happened right here in Seattle two or three years ago.

[Peter_Puget]

You guys miss the real story even while it surrounds you: the Left is now resorting to the cheapest tactics as defensive maneuvers. Evidence of weakness and a sheer love of power and position.

 

Newsweek

Read this exchange: link

 

Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?

 

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not telling them. I'm saying that we would encourage them to help --

 

Q You're pressuring them.

 

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm saying that we would encourage them --

 

Q It's not pressure?

 

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, this report caused serious damage to the image of the United States abroad. And Newsweek has said that they got it wrong. I think Newsweek recognizes the responsibility they have. We appreciate the step that they took by retracting the story. Now we would encourage them to move forward and do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done by this report. And that's all I'm saying. But, no, you're absolutely right, it's not my position to get into telling people what they can and cannot report....

 

Q Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is; is that what you're saying here?

 

MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth, let me finish my sentence. Our military --

 

Q You've already said what you're -- I know what -- how it ends.

 

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm coming to your question, and you're not letting me have a chance to respond. But our military goes out of their way to handle the Koran with care and respect. There are policies and practices that are in place. This report was wrong. Newsweek, itself, stated that it was wrong. And so now I think it's incumbent and -- incumbent upon Newsweek to do their part to help repair the damage. And they can do that through ways that they see best, but one way that would be good would be to point out what the policies and practices are in that part of the world, because it's in that region where this report has been exploited and used to cause lasting damage to the image of the United States of America. It has had serious consequences. And so that's all I'm saying, is that we would encourage them to take steps to help repair the damage. And I think that they recognize the importance of doing that. That's all I'm saying.

 

Q As far as the Newsweek article is concerned, first, how and where the story came from? And do you think somebody can investigate if it really happened at the base, and who told Newsweek? Because somebody wrote a story.

 

 

Galloway

It was wonderful theater, but read the transcripts (if you didn't see the show) they seem quite similar to the above. BTW - Why hasn't anyone brought up details of his last election....

 

Canada

Paul Martin's bending of the rules turned an unremarkable and narrow electoral triumph into a fundamental political divide.

 

 

Once the left had the likes of Jean Paul Sartres leading the charge now they have George Galloway, Michael Moore, J_B and Ward Churchill. How the mighty have fallen.

 

Once the left marched at the front in Civil Rights protests now they resort to rule bending and filibustering to deny the will of the electorate.

 

[Peter_Puget]

Give me a break, Mattp.

 

 

Newsweek had a reliable military source provide a story that seemed to confirm reports that have been published in numerous newspapers for the last year or two, and that was newsworthy. They sent it to the military before publishing it, asking for comment, and the Koran item was not corrected or commented on. Now they "retract" their story, but even the strongest denials coming from the White House and military sources fail to say that the basic facts are actually wrong.

 

What facts are we talking about Mattp. A short list would be helpful. Isn't Newseek owned by the same group as the Wash Post? I ask this, since you seem to know a bit about journalistic statndards, during Watergate did the Post get cooberating evidence supporting Deep Throats assertions/claims before publishing them even after DT proved to be "reliable"? Maybe DFA who can answer this one.

[mattp]

What are you saying in either one of these posts, PP?

 

(1) that the White house says this "wouldn't" happen because it is not our policy?

(2) that you think somewhere they have actually said that the "unnamed source" was incorrect?

 

Try again.

[JayB]

Matt:

 

I have no problem with the notion that any administration that occupies the Whitehouse will have the desire to squelch stories that are damaging to them. Where I see your argument falling short is in the ability of the administration to control such stories.

 

Firstly where, exactly, is the factual evidence that the administration has done this? Death threats? Lawsuits? Harsh language? To reiterate what I said above, it seems as though Newsweek would have a Pulitzer worthy story on their hands if they could document such coercion, which would dwarf the Koran in the crapper story in terms of significance. Why would they fail to disclose such pressure, especially if they had the evidence necessary to support the original claims.

 

Secondly - if this adminstration had somehow acquired an ability to coerce and manipulate the press in a manner that was hitherto impossible, even by the likes of Nixon and Kissinger, then why is it that possibly the single most damaging news story to emerge since the advent of their administration - the absence of WMD stockpiles in Iraq and the generally low quality of the intelligence available prior to the war - has received such universal coverage. It would seem to me that if there was a single story that they would squelch if they could - this would be the one.

[Stonehead]

So what you’re really saying is that it’s all just simple ineptitude? And, to further generalize from a specific, that there are no conspiracies either? But rather, that it’s a normal function of the mind to look for patterns even if there isn’t one?

 

But then again...

 

In the parlance of 'conspiracy theorists' () this is similar to what might be referred to as a 'false flag operation'.

 

Definition: an "intelligence" term for a covert operation where agents provocateurs stage acts that are falsely blamed on their enemies. False flag operations can include fake radicals acting violent at a peaceful protest to discredit the organizers, a terror attack staged by an intelligence agency to blame on the nation's perceived or actual enemies, or fake dissidents who discredit government opponents by making illogical or easily disproved claims for their assertions of conspiracy and corruption.

 

 

 

"Curiouser and curiouser!" cried Alice

[j_b]

the difference between the watergate era press and today?

Alterman explains

 

PP sounds a bit ornery today. is it Galloway's punking of Coleman and other neocon windbags? GW's new low in approval ratings at 43% (with a 69% disapproval of SS privatization plans)? i wonder

[KaskadskyjKozak]

If you saw news stories about Afghan nationals in some rogue village using the American flag as toilet paper, you'd see some outrage that could be manipulated in the American press, right? Maybe we wouldn't riot over it,

 

Maybe? We would NOT riot over it. Iranians, Palestinians and others have been burning flags for 20+ years, and there have never been ANY riots in the US over that.

 

but we'd see all the right wingers demanding that our Air Force drop a couple of bombs into said village and you might well see attacks against visible Moslems here in the U.S.

 

What a crock of shit. That just isn't happening - nor will it.

 

Personally I'd rather they wiped their ass with old glory than riot and murder. Maybe we could subsidize their angst by providing flags to desecrate. They can even have at it and flush bibles down the toilet for all I care.

[JayB]

If one applies Occam's razor to these episodes and deals with the known facts, what seems to have happened is that both CBS and now Newsweek had generally sound stories concerning Bush's service in the National Guard, and the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo, but they jumped the gun and published the stories before taking time to validate the autheniticy of some of their principle sources. In the end, the failure to do so ended up getting more coverage than the episodes the original stories were intended to uncover. The administration naturally used these shortcomings to their advantage, but their doing so is hardly surprising, or uniquely malevolent. The lesson here is that if you want your story to stick, make sure that all of your evidence is unimpeachable before going to print.

[mattp]

The proof is in the pudding, JayB. In this morning's newspaper, a letter to the editor noted that this event is just like the Dan Rather memo, and the press obviously can't get it right. Our own Fairweather and PP seem confused by all of this, too. The fact is that the the White House has managed to make Newsweek's use of a single unnamed source into justification for condemning Newsweek for publishing a small statement that is in all probability true, and which they first asked the Military to correct for them if it was not true. Masterful.

 

Your second point is a red herring. You seem to be suggesting that if they could manipulate the press, we would never see in the newspaper that there were no weapons of mass destruction. It's a matter of degree. They haven't been able to squelch the story, but they have certainly spun public attention away from it and we see very little discussion of the Blair memo, either.

 

Many Americans are still bent out of shape over the fact that Clinton lied about a blow job, whereas the Bush administration has spun things so that people like you don't seem to care that we were lied to about everything that actually matters about this war.

 

Similarly, have you forgotten that the Vice President straight out lied in the election debate when he looked straight at the camera and said he never promoted the idea that Iraqi ability to attack the U.S. constituted an imminent threat? I couldn't believe my ears when I heard him say that -- because he had been the administration's "front man" on this point and had talked about how proof of the weapons might come in the form of a mushroom cloud over Manhattan and stuff like that. But the press hardly said "boo." Maybe you are right - maybe if they challenged the administration they could have won a pulitzer. But for some strange reason, we didn't seem much talk in the press about how this was a blatant lie.

 

In a similar fashion, Bush's team was not able to squelch the story that he was awol, but they certainly manipulated that story as a tool to take down Dan Rather and played the public to increase their ability to spin the news.