General Myers disagrees, remember? And he ought to know.
Could it be put thusly?
“Newsweek lied. People died.”
I’m sorry. I couldn’t resist.
To paraphrase an old engineering quote-- “For every issue, there’s a summary that’s short, simple, and wrong.”
To elaborate…
I find it ironic that the same people who want to draw and quarter GWB for relying on information that wasn’t perfect are turning somersaults trying to defend Newsweek for doing the same thing.
“But Bush had an agenda! He was planning to invade Iraq since he was in kindergarten!”
If you say so. GWB is using improperly sourced information and acting accordingly. I would argue that Newsweeks desire for negative information about the military and the Bush administration led them to use improperly sourced information. Why else would they do it?
Finally, I offer a paternal pat on the head to those who are shocked that people are being subjected to unpleasant acts in order to force them to provide information. I’m sure if talked nice, it wouldn’t be necessary.
I quite agree. The impression of simplicity and lack of intellectual effort is kind of annoying, isn’t it…
rjung: did you even read the article you posted?
Would that riot have occured of those students hadn’t been out already protesting the Gitmo reports of Koran desecration? Quite possibly, yes. And quite possibly, no; it may not have been as violent, or it may not have been violent at all. But those students were the nucleus of the protests, which turned ugly and grew violent, so saying that the Newsweek report wasn’t the cause is kind of like saying that the smoldering cigarette some idiot tosses into a dry-season forest isn’t the cause of the forest fire that jumps a ridge or a river and spreads.
The simple fact of the matter is that since Abu Ghraib, there is little in the minds of extremist Muslims (perhaps even ordinary Muslims?) that the U.S is not capable of doing; and while it really doesn’t take a story from Newsweek to give the radical leaders of Muslim extremists ammunition for their arsenal of hate, it doesn’t take a rocket scietist of a news magazine editor to know that when standing surrounded by dry wood soaked in gasoline, you don’t fucking flick your Bic.
The Newsweek article was certainly the match that sparked this conflagration, even if the elements for that five-alarm fire were already in place. Not that this excuses Newsweek for sloppy reporting, even if rumors of Koran abuse have been circulating for some time. “Unreliable sources” didn’t excuse Dan Rather, and it didn’t excuse the Swiftboat Vets.
Newsweek is fortunate; at worst, their circulation goes down a bit for a while, and then we Americans forget and go back to slurping up their drudge. The people in Afghanistan are less fortunate; there’s a bunch of dead people as a result of Newsweek’s professional negligence.
Just cuz one guy says so doesn’t make it true. I’ll believe the protesters over him (who communicated rationale through nicely-lettered signs *humorous story below), as the protestors should know better than Gen. Myers what their own motivation is.
Anyway, that’s beside the point that (some) Americans’ reactions to desicration of the flag is not in the same ballpark as (some) Muslims’ reactions to desicration of the Koran.
- A nice little ironic picture was on CNN.com’s main website, with two guys standing each with a protest sign. Each one was nicely written (in english) with different stylings and colors for different words, and both signs were obviously written by the same person. Paraphrased, they said:
So, which is it, guys? Get your story straight!
Astonishing, Eve, simply astonishing! Such an economy of effort, so much disinformation carried by so few words!
“Wasn’t perfect” World War II was noisy. Typhoid Mary was a poor choice for family cook. Vlad the Impaler was an unconventional dinner party host. When understatement reaches neutron density…
There is no such comparison. Not even wrong.
No doubt you would, this is part of what makes you so entertaining. So far as we know, the source was not any more “improper” than any number of other sources that move the news media. If you have superior information to prove otherwise, we would be obliged if you would share.
And “Why else would they do it?” You’re kidding, right? If the point of the excercise was to cause grief and dismay amongst the Bushiviks the story would have been a bit bigger than a brief excursion through the Periscope section. If they really wanted to yank GeeDubya’s chain and didn’t care about consequences, they would have revealed thier source!
Best count your fingers after. You are aware, of course, that a number of Gitmo detainees were released after it was determined that they didn’t know diddly squat. Pray, given the flexibility of your morality, what level of coercion will shock you, after you know that you may be applying said coercion to an innocent?
But thanks for the brisk bracer anyway, it is good to remind those of us who yet harbor naive notions of common decency that there are still persons among us who will try to sell ruthlessness and savagery as a mature and sober awareness of fact.
Call me when Newsweek has the authority and the ability to start a war, thankyewverymuch.
:dubious:
Just the freakin’ chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, what does he know about anything? Jeff Gannon, now there’s a reliable source…
Great! Then you believe them when they say:
Right? Or do you selectively believe and disbelieve them based on whatever suits your purpose?
This was, by the way, something I posted way back on page 2. I don’t need anybody else. When I think about you, I quote myself. I quote myself.
And I return the compliment. You, rjung and others of similar ilk bring a smile to my face with great regularity.
I worked in radio and TV news for almost twenty years. I am familiar with the inner workings of journalism. If you recall, Newsweek ran with the story because their source objected to another part of the report that was subsequently excluded and SAID NOTHING about the Koran allegation. In other words “the source did not specifically tell us it wasn’t true, so let’s run with it!” Given the current volitility of the situation, I think something more definitive might have been a good idea…but they were too busy searching for kleenex for their hands after thinking they had found something they could hit the administration over the head with.
How innocent are they? Let’s take a hypothetical. Intelligence points US forces to a house in Afghanistan or Iraq that is found to have evidence of terrorist activity. Ten people are inside. They are taken to be interrogated. One of them was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Two others agree with the cause, but have yet to act on it. Six are active, one other is the ringleader. Could you tell which was which while offering them a cup of tea? Given the fact that they will all be hostile, there will be a language barrier and that they are very likely to try to lie and mislead, coercion is necessary on all of them. Sleep deprivation, noise, uncomfortable postions, fear…whatever it takes until they all break and give up everything they know. The true innocent is let go and cautioned not to hang around with the wrong folks. The others are dealt with according to their level of culpability. Ruthless and savage? Perhaps. But I happen to think that saving innocent lives with the information gleaned is worth it. And please don’t tell me they don’t know anything. Neither you or I are invited to the National Security Council meetings to know for sure…but we have been safe domestically for nearly four years now. Would you like to send the ACLU into Gitmo and see how long that streak will continue?
I thought their source said that it was true, and that the Pentagon cleared the story without raising any concern about the Koran allegation. So that would be an affirmative and a non-denial.
Mind reading. The proof that the liberal media only wants to bash Bush is that the liberal media bashes Bush. They said it straight, they had a report. As has been pointed out herein, this was not the only report connecting the Koran and toilets. They may all be lies, but the fact of the reports themselves is not. You may credit yourself with the power to peer into their minds, but kindly do not ask us to.
Innocent enough that they let them go. Or are you suggesting that the Admin has loosed dangerous terrorists?
You forgot the Satanic secular activist judges. Heaven help the innocent man who has you for a interrogator, his inability to tell you anything seems likely to be interpreted as stubborness.
How do you tell the difference between the man who genuinely doesn’t know anything and the man who’s resisting?
You have some evidence to offer that this is the case?
Clandestine violent organizations share one crucial behavior pattern: if anyone is picked up, assume that the enemy knows everything he knows. Codes, meetings, the works. Any other assumption would be suicidal.
Unless I’m very wrong, isn’t it a fairly common practice amongst the world’s military to assure it soldiers that they have no need to resist torture heroicly, they don’t know anything that crucial, and besides which, it will be assumed that they cracked anyway. And even if these people did know something two fucking years ago, is there any plausible chance they have information now?
So, no, I don’t want the ACLU in Gitmo. Tell you what I do want: I want a thorough investigation by a body of investigators and/or experts that both you and I would agree were credible and trustworthy. I want them to delve into all the facts about Gitmo and release a report that entirely exonerates American service personnel of any wrong whatsoever.
Failing that, I’ll settle for the truth.
Actually, trained interrogators have methods to accomplish just that; and since outright phyical torture (you know; pulling fingernails and toenails with pliers, electrodes in sensitive spots, etc.,) is off limits, it takes time for an interrogator to confidently assess whether a subject is being truthfull or holding out.
You aren’t.
Essentially correct, but you work for the breaks, hoping that the Other Guys make a mistake; like assuming that Operative X is dead when in fact you’ve made him “disappear” and are sweating him for all kinds of good HumInt. Both the Soviets and Americans “debriefed” defectors for years, getting tons of info from them.
As such, alienating an interrogation suject by angering him doesn’t make much sense, from what I can recall of some very basic Interrogation Instruction received by the Army many years ago. We were taught to try to establish a rapport with the subject, showing humanity to establish a common bond and break down their defenses, and that outright torture (physical or psychological) was far more often counterproductive.
Then again, we weren’t being instructed in how to deal with hardcore “Believers,” either, but the more common Soviet/Eastern Bloc soldiers.
Once again, Ex Tank offers up some of the best SDMB conservative commentary:
Colorful, yes, but also fully substantiated (see above). Also like any good analyst, Ex Tank doesn’t cheat when he faces mixed evidence: his argument shows an understanding of the opposing POV. Oh, and note the focus on the editor whose job it is to catch such flubs. Observe and learn, grasshopper.
Back to the thread: there is little wrong in reporting the words of a credible insider, once you have shown the reporting to 2 other insiders. This is fully consistent with responsible journalism.
The problem is when you can’t distinguish between a human interest story that merits a brief mention in “Periscope”, and a story that is likely to piss a lot of people off. In the latter case, you follow up with direct comments and questions regarding what those in government plan to do about the scandal.
Briefly, Newsweek’s framing was off, with deadly results. Yeah, it matters.
My personal opinion is that Time, Shmoozweek and USA OK rely too much on journalists who can deliver the bouncy house prose, and not enough on regional (or for that matter topical) experts who actually know what they’re talking about. But hey, that’s just MHO.
I stick with The Economist, with helpings of the NYT, WAPO, various sundry political magazines and certain informed bloggers.
I’ve read a little about interrogation over the past few years. Once I get around to it, I’d like to participate in a GD thread, “What are the optimal methods of interrogation?”
Briefly:
-
“…few if any prisoners are likely to possess decisive information about imminent plans. …Rather, it is the small and seemingly inconsequential bits of evidence that prisoners may give away once they start talking about training, weapons, commanders, tactics that, when assembled into a larger mosaic, build up the most complete and valuable picture of the enemy’s organization, intentions, and methods.” From The Atlantic Magazine, June 2005
-
The first step is to get the prisoner talking. In the Military Classic Suggestions for Japanese Interpreters Sherwood Moran noted that 2 elements were critical: a) the attitude of the interrogator and b) his knowledge and use of the language.
a. If you are nice, they will talk. If you are officious or tough, they will be reminded that you are the enemy and will stay quiet.
b. Today, more students in the US are learning Russian (never mind French, etc) than Arabic. Dammit.
-
Moran’s POV, is consistent with that of the former head of Israeli ?intelligence? (need to dig this out).
-
Expert interrogators in big-city police forces will tell a similar story.
-
If one ignores human rights, there is a role for torture actually. But it is… small.
-
There is some evidence that Dick Cheney was not aware of or did not understand the preceding. If only the guy had other priorities when he was of draft age… Not just a cheap shot, merely a sad reality…
ExTank: The simple fact of the matter is that since Abu Ghraib, there is little in the minds of extremist Muslims (perhaps even ordinary Muslims?) that the U.S is not capable of doing
And that in itself, ISTM, answers Evil One’s arguments in favor of torture back on page 2. Leaving all humanitarian considerations aside, the trouble is that torturing prisoners (especially innocent ones) simply makes many of their compatriots and co-religionists despise and distrust us.
AFAICT, nobody has offered any convincing evidence that we’re getting anywhere near enough useful information out of torturing detainees to make up for the price we’re paying by pouring fuel on the flames of anti-US resentment.
Well, there’s torture, and then there’s torture. There’s the slow, methodical, grinding, psychological torture necessary to break down ardent fanatics into willing mines of information. And then there’s ripping their testicles off with power tools.
The first method is necessary, if distastefull, in a long-term campaign of Fighting Terrorism.
The second method is cruel, barbaric, illegal, of extremely limited utility, and ultimately counterproductive. Like the man said in the movie, “If you beat on this prick long enough, he’ll tell you he set the Ghicago Fire, but that don’t necessarily make it so.”
The dropping of Korans into toilets may be of some use in the first method, until the word gets out to the rest of the fanatical world through release of those who are deemed “not usefull, probably innocent.” It can only remain usefull if those Gitmo detainees who were released had instead became “Unpersons.”
Which is it’s own set of problems more closely related to the second method.
Sleep deprivation, drugs, disorientation, good cop/bad cop, re-education by moderate Muslim clerics; all these are probably used to greater effect, and are much more ethical, than the second method, or even dropping Korans into toilets.
It’s a contest of wills, and the first to blink loses. But you’re right in one regard, even if you didn’t come right out and say it as such: there’s a point of diminishing returns in almost every endeavor, and the whole Gitmo situation may very well have passed that point long ago.
And Measure for Measure? Thanks.
Couple of points here worth mentioning. As has been covered in this thread a ways back, this was old news. It’s been reported by other sources and been attested to by prisoners released from gitmo. We don’t know how the conversations with the government officials that were contacted by newsweek went, only that one refused comment and the other neither confirmed or denied it. Likely the only plan would’ve been “We’ll look into it” which would do very little to placate the sort of people prone to rioting, especially given our lack of credibility these days.
Lastly, do you really believe that Newsweek should have predicted this?
The quotes you supply don’t seem to contradict me, unless you think that I think the protests were due to one thing only, which protests never are.
I think that supports that the protests were (in part) the newsweek report.
If that’s what they were angry about, I can see how the newsweek report could push them over the edge.
I’m not sure why you and rjung are focusing on this. I was refuting the idea that Americans get as upset by the desicration of the flag as Muslims by the desicration of the Koran. Forgetting about Newsweek and the riots, this still holds. Desecration of the Koran is punishable by the death penalty in some Muslim countires. Desecration of the flag is legal in the US, and not even the craziest of the crazies proposed the death penalty for flag desecrators.
And, for the record, I don’t criticize Newsweek for writing the item, even if they knew it would cause riots. I criticize them for 1) engaging in gocha! journalism, which is a widespread non-partisan problem, which led them to 2) using an anonymous source for reporting on what will be in a report, which is again a journalistic criticism, not a partisan one. If you report on what is “going” to be in a report, and it gets bad press, than it won’t be in the report! And you can’t back up your assertion execpt with a “Uh… a high ranking…uh…Pentagon employee said…uh…he thinks someone told him it was going to be in there. But now he says he didn’t.” Wait until the report can’t be changed, find a named source, or get better evidence so that the people who change the report look bad instead of the journalist.