More abuse news from Afghanistan

[NaplesX]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBQZ0ECG9E.html

"The U.S. military released 53 Afghans from its jails in Afghanistan on Wednesday after deciding that they posed no threat, American officials said."

and then:

"It was not immediately clear how many Afghans are still in U.S. military detention. A month ago, 85 other prisoners were released."

and then:

"There was no apology for the 53, but officials handed each of them 10,000 Afghanis (US$234; euro182), and a new turban as well as a letter from the U.S. military confirming their release."

"Col. James Yonts, the U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan, said the 53 were "low-level combatants" who committed hostile acts against civilians, Afghan forces and U.S.-led coalition forces.

"These individuals were found no longer a threat to anyone," he told reporters in Kabul."

When are we going to treat these people with respect?

OH Wait!! I skipped part of the articled that states - "Four of those who were released and spoke to The Associated Press said they were not abused while in detention."

"No one has beaten me during the last eight months and I haven't heard of anyone else being beaten," said Mohammed Anwar Hanifi, 38, who worked as a government official in eastern Paktika province before being arrested last October. "I was interrogated a lot, but they found no proof I was guilty. It is why they released me."

I would have thought that all detainees are being abused, by what we hear in the media.

Why is this not the main story? Will this cause widespread spontaneous apologies across the ME? Likely not.

[pfflam]

138 prisoners are released and given some bling cash and you think that that somehow excuses the detention fo tens of thousands and torture of how many of those tens of thousands?!?!?!?!?

You are exhibiting serious signs of stoogage: as in "he was a stooge of the pathetic PR media stunts"


That's like noticing that Muslims don't like it when we desecrate their holy book and then come out with a story saying that the story was not true . . . . "oops sorry, it was just another Liberal Journalist . . . not our men at Gitmo . . . so you can stop that protesting now . . "

[pfflam]

Or maybe I should just put it this way:

Yeah Naples . . . maybe your right, why isn't this a Top Story:

headline: US Does Not Turture Some Innocent Men Held Prisoner

[Harald]

Probably not, because that's how you're supposed to treat detainees.

"We're really sorry -- we take back all the things we said because you didn't beat up 100% of the people you arrested."

There has been widespread abuse of prisoners. US soldiers have beaten several individuals to death. US soldiers have beaten totally innocent people to death. That tends to, you know, focus people.

[pfflam]

enough to qualify it as quite a bit more than 'several'

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
enough to qualify it as quite a bit more than 'several' So it's OK for the media to blight the reputation of the US, by running a false story over and over and over, and when evidence comes to light that this may not be as systemic a problem as THEY made it out to be, stick it in an almost unrelated story and ignore it.

You think this will get ANY play on the mainstream media?

It goes to bolster the view by some that the media is anti-military.

[groverat]

We locked up Afghanis for 8 months who didn't have anything to do with anything and you are now trumpeting it as some kind of moral victory?

Oh, and we didn't beat them?

Would you actually like the media to run stories proclaiming; "The US actually kept prisoners without torturing them!"?

You will have to make some effort to prove that "the media" has made prisoner abuse seem like a 100% thing aside from just saying, obviously you are an extremely biased source to get such analysis from.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
We locked up Afghanis for 8 months who didn't have anything to do with anything and you are now trumpeting it as some kind of moral victory?

Oh, and we didn't beat them?

Would you actually like the media to run stories proclaiming; "The US actually kept prisoners without torturing them!"?

You will have to make some effort to prove that "the media" has made prisoner abuse seem like a 100% thing aside from just saying, obviously you are an extremely biased source to get such analysis from. YES absolutely. After the constant onslaught of false accusations and being the voice for terrorists and murderers.

I really think that this should be a top story.

"Perhaps we were wrong about rampant abuse accusations"

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by NaplesX

It goes to bolster the view by some that the media is anti-military.

military or anti-military?

Am I correct to assume that this is the lense in which you look at a news story?

Is this news story pro military or anti-military?

It is begining to look like the military is your baby.

Fellows

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Fellowship
military or anti-military?

Am I correct to assume that this is the lense in which you look at a news story?

Is this news story pro military or anti-military?

It is begining to look like the military is your baby.

Fellows No sir. I wanna see fair coverage. If a lie like the flushing story got such play and cause lives to be lost, what could it hurt to equally play up real news like this?

[NaplesX]

No. The media want you to believe that abuse is taling place right now as we speak, with GWB calling the punches.

Of course, you and all of your friends here will promote that idea every chance you get.

Way to "support the troops". We know you do because you SAY you do.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by NaplesX
No sir. I wanna see fair coverage. If a lie like the flushing story got such play and cause lives to be lost, what could it hurt to equally play up real news like this?

You know what is funny about conservatives like yourself is that you are the first to lambast someone for asking to look inward at our foreign policy of the last 50 years and why terrorists might hate America.

Yet you you are the first to blame the media for deaths that result from a story.

Either we cause the reaction agaisnt us or we don't?

Which way is it?

Fellows

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Fellowship
You know what is funny about conservatives like yourself is that you are the first to lambast someone for asking to look inward at our foreign policy of the last 50 years and why terrorists might hate America.

Yet you you are the first to blame the media for deaths that result from a story.

Either we cause the reaction agaisnt us or we don't?

Which way is it?

Fellows I disagree with your premise.

You actually think its that black-n-white?

Not very nuanced for a "progressive" thinker.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I disagree with your premise.

You actually think its that black-n-white?

Not very nuanced for a "progressive" thinker.

No you think it is black and white.

You think there was no underlying anger in the middle east before the Koran story broke.

If I am wrong correct me please.

Fellows

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Fellowship
You know what is funny about conservatives like yourself is that you are the first to lambast someone for asking to look inward at our foreign policy of the last 50 years and why terrorists might hate America.

Yet you you are the first to blame the media for deaths that result from a story.

Either we cause the reaction agaisnt us or we don't?

Which way is it?

Fellows So parroting false accusations is taking "a look inward" to you?

And if so does GWB and this admin really hold responsibility for the past 50 years? It seems to me that you and your peeps want to lay it at his feet.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Fellowship
No you think it is black and white.

You think there was no underlying anger in the middle east before the Koran story broke.

If I am wrong correct me please.

Fellows There has been anger toward the US long before GWB. What the hell are you talking about?

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So parroting false accusations is taking "a look inward" to you?

And if so does GWB and this admin really hold responsibility for the past 50 years? It seems to me that you and your peeps want to lay it at his feet.

You do seem to forget that America has fucked up the middle east with our support to dictators so we can watch as Iraq and Iran dish it up to each other so we can sit on the sidelines and watch them self-destruct and we can smile real big and move in to "save the day" invade, secure "American Interests" and install Democracy :D

Ohh yes we are great. And Bush is the one in case you forgot who decided to get us into the killing business over in a region where we like to be the pupet master of the governments. Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, you name it..

Fellows

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
There has been anger toward the US long before GWB. What the hell are you talking about?

So what's wrong with researching the source of that then ?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Fellowship
You do seem to forget that America has fucked up the middle east with our support to dictators so we can watch as Iraq and Iran dish it up to each other so we can sit on the sidelines and watch them self-destruct and we can smile real big and move in to "save the day" invade, secure "American Interests" and install Democracy :D

Ohh yes we are great. And Bush is the one in case you forgot who decided to get us into the killing business over in a region where we like to be the pupet master of the governments. Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, you name it..

Fellows Really?

But what does that have to do with the media ignoring news that would dispute their claims?

Oh, maybe you think that the US and the young men in the military are getting exactly what they deserve?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
So what's wrong with researching the source of that then ? Not a thing.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Really?

But what does that have to do with the media ignoring nows that would dispute their claims?

Oh, maybe you think that the US and the young men in the military are getting exactly what they deserve?

We deserve to be an honest nation both in the media as you suggest and at government level.

At the moment we have failed. We are not honest with the american people or the world as we seek to control the worlds politics and natural resources.

Fellows

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Fellowship
We deserve to be an honest nation both in the media as you suggest and at government level.

At the moment we have failed. We are not honest with the american people or the world as we seek to control the worlds politics and natural resources.

Fellows You've gone into "zombie talking points guy" mode, because you did not address anything I posted.

Care to address my last post?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

The US army imprisoned people wrongly and tortured them. Instead of being angry about this, you're angry that others aren't happy when some prisoners who weren't tortured are released and given new turbans.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
The US army imprisoned people wrongly and tortured them. Instead of being angry about this, you're angry that others aren't happy when some prisoners who weren't tortured are released and given new turbans. Wrong. I am as angry about the abuses as you are. I am not angry about people being detained to secure a battlefield in the middle of a war. That saves lives - both US and those that were detained.

I am angry about you and your friends in the media making mountains out of molehills and making it more difficult to prosecute and win the war. Way to "support the troops", right?

[segovius]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
The US army imprisoned people wrongly and tortured them. Instead of being angry about this, you're angry that others aren't happy when some prisoners who weren't tortured are released and given new turbans.

Aren't turbans for Sikhs ?

[New]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
The US army imprisoned people wrongly and tortured them. Instead of being angry about this, you're angry that others aren't happy when some prisoners who weren't tortured are released and given new turbans.

HEHE... I want a new Turban.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I am angry about you and your friends in the media making mountains out of molehills and making it more difficult to prosecute and win the war. Way to "support the troops", right?
The troops are torturing anyone? One single person?

Fuck the troops. I do not support the troops. The war's not worth winning anymore. Fuck them.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
The troops are torturing anyone? One single person?

Fuck the troops. I do not support the troops. The war's not worth winning anymore. Fuck them. Well we all see how reasonable and level-headed you are.

"Progressive" sentiment?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Well we all see how reasonable and level-headed you are.

"Progressive" sentiment?
Hey, I'm not the one defending torture, that's all I know. :)

[Gilsch]

Naples as usual is all over the place. So 4 of the 53 said they weren't abused in any way. Shouldn't it be that way to begin with?

Napleslogic: When prisoners report abuse, it's hearsay. When they don't claim that they were abused or tortured they're telling the truth.

Nice logic....I agree. Why reporting that 4 out of the 53 prisoners recently released were not abused or tortured isn't the main story everywhere I don't know. Baffling. :lol:

I think I'll celebrate June 1st from now on. :p

[pfflam]

You keep going on and on about 'false claims' . . . .

What claims are false?

Non have been shown to have been false . . . . especially when just last week the Pentagon came out admitting there 'may have been some "misshandling"' of the Koran

and what about the numerous FBI agents. . . you know, the 'Good-Guys', guys on our team, who witnessed various extreme forms of prisoner abuse in Gitmo
and numerous other trust worthy and/or not trustworthy sources that simply make it all pretty much impossible to believe that nothing systematically nefarious is taking place . . . .

You go on and on saying 'false' but you never say what is false . . . and when you do, most likely you will be wrong.

And then this: this following Logic is extremely . . .um . . . wrong, and I want you to stop and think just a little bit about what you are saying when you agree with the following statement, which is a quote from groverat, whis eloquent as usual:

We locked up Afghanis for 8 months who didn't have anything to do with anything and you are now trumpeting it as some kind of moral victory?

Oh, and we didn't beat them?

Would you actually like the media to run stories proclaiming; "The US actually kept prisoners without torturing them!"?
you said that you agree with this . . .

look closely, not only is an 8 month jail time without reason a form of abuse, but the fact that we didn't torture them proves nothing as far as how we dealt with the rest of prisoners, which, if you know anything about the numbers, is very very very many more than the mere 138 mentioned in the article . . .

That is simply terrible logical reasoning . . . like a textbook example of how a small example does not disprove the norm . . .
I should submit your reasoning to my Logician friend, he can use it as an example for his Logic classes . .

[NaplesX]

pflam and gilsch:

the story about koran flushing was false. News-week withdrew it for this reason. You will have to come to grips with it.

The mishandling of the koran were for the most part unintentional. Those that did it purposely are being investigated and reprimanded.

The only flushing of a koran was done by a detainee.

There are 10's of thousands of detainees and only like 300 cases of "abuse" or mishandling. I don't know that seems small.

Not only that these incidents are all being investigated. Did Zarqawi do the saim for his detainees?

The US is handling these detainees humanly by any reasonable definition. If you compare it to how the enemy would treat their detainees, there is no contest here.

I like how just detaining someone is now torture, according to the collective. Talk about stupid.

Anyway, I have a problem with perspective from the media's standpoint. You don't. Well isn't that a surprise.

[BRussell]

When we have to publicize the fact that we didn't torture someone, you know something is terribly wrong.

In other news - today our government didn't start any wars, didn't "strictly construct" any individual liberties away, and didn't kill any fluffy kittens. When will the left-wing media give this government a fair shake?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by BRussell
When we have to publicize the fact that we didn't torture someone, you know something is terribly wrong.

In other news - today our government didn't start any wars, didn't "strictly construct" any individual liberties away, and didn't kill any fluffy kittens. When will the left-wing media give this government a fair shake? I agree that this shouldn't be news.

But our friends at News-Weak and all, have perpetrated lies and rumors as actual news. These four ex-detainees are news in the liberal up-is-down, right-is-wrong world.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
pflam and gilsch:

the story about koran flushing was false. News-week withdrew it for this reason. You will have to come to grips with it.
Newsweek withdrew the story due to pressure from the Pentagon . . . they were able to withdraw it, not because the story was false, but because their source was someone that they could claim was not reliable . . . thus fullfilling the political need for a retraction
The mishandling of the koran were for the most part unintentional. Those that did it purposely are being investigated and reprimanded. Let me see . . . um . . . it was intentional except that they will be 'punished' for intentionally doing it unintentionally?

and wake up!! This is a systematic climate of support for abuse and torture: all of 'those responsible', meaning those who are being punished, were doing what they were deliberately lead to believe was what they were supposed to do: in other words, there is a chain of command that supported abuse but is now turning on the very troops it is supposed to be supporting - - stick it to the grunts for doing their jobs.

If there was a real 'investigation going on there would be an independant prosecutor and investigator with complete autonomy and subpoena power!!

The only flushing of a koran was done by a detainee.

There are 10's of thousands of detainees and only like 300 cases of "abuse" or mishandling. I don't know that seems small.
. Done by a detainee?
You believe that crap!?!?!

if a detainee, a Muslim, flushed a Koran, then it was a gun point

and this 300 number? that is high enough isn't it?!!
except that it is not a real number, it is merely that absolutely known cases that came out due to soldiers of good conscience who risked their lives and careers and leaked information . . .
hell, over 100 detainees have died at the hands of US soldiers, so you can bet that the number being tortured is far higher than 300.

And your insipid and sociopathic attempt to question the abusive nature of the handling by putting abuse in quotes is simple disgusting: America was once thought of as beyond such pathetic and disgusting attitudes . . . I for one, am patriotic enough to demand more from my country!!!


Not only that these incidents are all being investigated. Did Zarqawi do the saim for his detainees?

The US is handling these detainees humanly by any reasonable definition. If you compare it to how the enemy would treat their detainees, there is no contest here.

I like how just detaining someone is now torture, according to the collective. Talk about stupid.

Anyway, I have a problem with perspective from the media's standpoint. You don't. Well isn't that a surprise Media shmedia . . . this has nothing to do with the media . . .

and simply because Zarqawi is a murderous thug without any human decency does NOT MAKE IT RIGHT
Can an adult actually use that kind of Logic?
are you actually an adult?!: do we need to say something like: "if everybody were to jump off of the Golden Gate bridge would that make it right?" for you to understand?


And I just have to say one more time: the onus with regards to the issue of 'collectivity' is on you Naples, as you are the one spouting what is popular (ie: newspeak) 'patria' talk: you are the one who is acting like a Young Pioneer in the final days of the Soviet Union and singing praises for the strength and truth of the Union while refusing to see what is right in front of their nose . . . come on man . . . wake up!!

[NaplesX]

If you had a daughter that was of driving age and got pissed at someone that cut her off and yelled profanities at them and immediately the local newspaper posts a picture of her angry face claiming "The segovius family encourages road-rage and need to give up their licenses" how would you feel/ If in fact you had proof of the opposite, and presented it only to be ignored and having them say "When we have to publicize the fact that you didn't have road-rage, you know something is terribly wrong."

Well anyway, that is exactly what is happening here. And the military is the scapegoat that is suffering.

I thought we wanted to bring these guys home quickly as possible?

Guess not. Let's stir up muslim anger and stretch it out more.

Brilliant.

[pfflam]

You should refrain from literary attempts . . . it is embarrassing.

as far as supporting our troops and scapegoating: the scapegoating is coming from those wha are blaming the sodiers for following the chain of command

who was it that said in a memo that torture was ok?
some guy named Gonzales . . . . some guy pretty very damn close to the President?

hmm?


and yeah, lets stir up Muslim anger by torturing innocents as well as some gulty Muslims, then pretend that simply because the story is not aired that it isn't happening, and invading a country under absolutely false pretenses, getting the oil out but keeping the electricity barely functional . . . and let's not forget that the first thing we did was to take the national industry and parcel it out to the highest biddrs and give the national wealth to people who are known fellons --can you say Chalabi?!
Who's really doing the stirring!?!

You can't believe that we can mistreat as many as we apparently have and expect all forms of media to be silent about it . . .
and your demand for us to do so is the SICKEST kind of collusion:that's like supporting the NKVD by remaining a silent and passive tool to thier systematic liquidation of your nieghboors.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
Newsweek withdrew the story due to pressure from the Pentagon . . . they were able to withdraw it, not because the story was false, but because their source was someone that they could claim was not reliable . . . thus fullfilling the political need for a retraction Let me see . . . um . . . it was intentional except that they will be 'punished' for intentionally doing it unintentionally?

and wake up!! This is a systematic climate of support for abuse and torture: all of 'those responsible', meaning those who are being punished, were doing what they were deliberately lead to believe was what they were supposed to do: in other words, there is a chain of command that supported abuse but is now turning on the very troops it is supposed to be supporting - - stick it to the grunts for doing their jobs.

If there was a real 'investigation going on there would be an independant prosecutor and investigator with complete autonomy and subpoena power!!

Done by a detainee?
You believe that crap!?!?!

if a detainee, a Muslim, flushed a Koran, then it was a gun point

and this 300 number? that is high enough isn't it?!!
except that it is not a real number, it is merely that absolutely known cases that came out due to soldiers of good conscience who risked their lives and careers and leaked information . . .
hell, over 100 detainees have died at the hands of US soldiers, so you can bet that the number being tortured is far higher than 300.

And your insipid and sociopathic attempt to question the abusive nature of the handling by putting abuse in quotes is simple disgusting: America was once thought of as beyond such pathetic and disgusting attitudes . . . I for one, am patriotic enough to demand more from my country!!!

Media shmedia . . . this has nothing to do with the media . . .

and simply because Zarqawi is a murderous thug without any human decency does NOT MAKE IT RIGHT
Can an adult actually use that kind of Logic?
are you actually an adult?!: do we need to say something like: "if everybody were to jump off of the Golden Gate bridge would that make it right?" for you to understand?


And I just have to say one more time: the onus with regards to the issue of 'collectivity' is on you Naples, as you are the one spouting what is popular (ie: newspeak) 'patria' talk: you are the one who is acting like a Young Pioneer in the final days of the Soviet Union and singing praises for the strength and truth of the Union while refusing to see what is right in front of their nose . . . come on man . . . wake up!! Nothing you post here is substantiated. You are posting opinion and conjecture, which is cool.

But you are fighting the wrong enemy. You are raging against the wrong machine. You see I don't want you to change or die for that fact. I don't want to exterminate you. Last I checked, either does the US government.

So your waling and gnashing of teeth over the people that would wish you great harm just seems silly to me. No. it's sad and comical at the same time, really. You are calling me insensitive to the suffering of terrorists and killers. and I am saying if the this conflict is not won by the US then millions will suffer things far worse than koran flushing.

But hey, you're more enlightened than me by virtue of your "progressive" views.

PS. - Something you guys conveniently skipped over in the article I posted, just as I suspected you knee-jerk artists would:

"Col. James Yonts, the U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan, said the 53 were "low-level combatants" who committed hostile acts against civilians, Afghan forces and U.S.-led coalition forces."

So they were not "wrongfully" detained. Woopsie daisy.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I agree that this shouldn't be news.

But our friends at News-Weak and all, have perpetrated lies and rumors as actual news. These four ex-detainees are news in the liberal up-is-down, right-is-wrong world. Newsweek's bungled story is hardly to blame for the problem, especially when we have seen photographs of much, much worse.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/06/200px-AbuGhraibScandalGraner55.jpg

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by BRussell
Newsweek's bungled story is hardly to blame for the problem, especially when we have seen photographs of much, much worse.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/06/200px-AbuGhraibScandalGraner55.jpg "Yay. a moron takes a picture. Let's kill more civilians." says an Iraqi fundy whacko.

Brilliant.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
You should refrain from literary attempts . . . it is embarrassing.

as far as supporting our troops and scapegoating: the scapegoating is coming from those wha are blaming the sodiers for following the chain of command

who was it that said in a memo that torture was ok?
some guy named Gonzales . . . . some guy pretty very damn close to the President?

hmm?


and yeah, lets stir up Muslim anger by torturing innocents as well as some gulty Muslims, then pretend that simply because the story is not aired that it isn't happening, and invading a country under absolutely false pretenses, getting the oil out but keeping the electricity barely functional . . . and let's not forget that the first thing we did was to take the national industry and parcel it out to the highest biddrs and give the national wealth to people who are known fellons --can you say Chalabi?!
Who's really doing the stirring!?!

You can't believe that we can mistreat as many as we apparently have and expect all forms of media to be silent about it . . .
and your demand for us to do so is the SICKEST kind of collusion:that's like supporting the NKVD by remaining a silent and passive tool to thier systematic liquidation of your nieghboors. You are being dishonest. Sorry try again.

[BRussell]

Tell me this Naples: Which is worse, mistreating detainees, or publicizing that mistreatment?

[pfflam]

No, its merely reporting, not publicizing . . .. once upon a time, reporters were supposed to report the truth. . . . it was kind of an obligationi . . .

what were they thinking?!?!

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by BRussell
Tell me this Naples: Which is worse, mistreating detainees, or publicizing that mistreatment? Let's see...

The News-Weak story shows us that even an untrue story can have serious consequences.

So being that we are in the middle of a war, I would have to say that publicizing a Koran Flushing story, true or not, will do more harm than good.

Mistreatment is such an overused word these days, so is abuse. In fact, thanks to - who was it here? - the actual detainment, regardless the humane standards our detainers are held to, is abuse.

So there you have it folks. No matter what is done with terrorists and juhadists, it is mistreatment or abuse.

"Nothing to see here, just supporting the troops any way possible. Move along."

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Let's see...

The News-Weak story shows us that even an untrue story can have serious consequences.

So being that we are in the middle of a war, I would have to say that publicizing a Koran Flushing story, true or not, will do more harm than good.

Mistreatment is such an overused word these days, so is abuse. In fact, thanks to - who was it here? - the actual detainment, regardless the humane standards our detainers are held to, is abuse.

So there you have it folks. No matter what is done with terrorists and juhadists, it is mistreatment or abuse.

"Nothing to see here, just supporting the troops any way possible. Move along." Except tht you miss the simple fact that people who were released as innocent spent 8-months in detention . . . .
Granted calling that abuse is a bit much, but when this sort of thing is happening all the time, even in the states, where people are beng assumed to be 'juhadists' first, without any recourse to the same legal rights that our legal structure assumes are due to every human being then there is something that is being 'abused'.

And as for the time-of-war argument, what ou are essentially saying here is that because it is a time of war, the press should not tell the truth, even if the truth is that some Americans are perpetrating what amounts to war crimes?
and if not war-crimes then at least crimes against the standards of decency that America used to stand for.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
Except tht you miss the simple fact that people who were released as innocent spent 8-months in detention . . . .
Granted calling that abuse is a bit much, but when this sort of thing is happening all the time, even in the states, where people are beng assumed to be 'juhadists' first, without any recourse to the same legal rights that our legal structure assumes are due to every human being then there is something that is being 'abused'.

And as for the time-of-war argument, what ou are essentially saying here is that because it is a time of war, the press should not tell the truth, even if the truth is that some Americans are perpetrating what amounts to war crimes?
and if not war-crimes then at least crimes against the standards of decency that America used to stand for. STOP.

Read the article! Is that too much to ask?

""Col. James Yonts, the U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan, said the 53 were "low-level combatants" who committed hostile acts against civilians, Afghan forces and U.S.-led coalition forces."

THESE PEOPLE WERE NOT INNOCENT!

READ. It does a body good.

Man, talk about thick.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
And as for the time-of-war argument, what ou are essentially saying here is that because it is a time of war, the press should not tell the truth, even if the truth is that some Americans are perpetrating what amounts to war crimes?
and if not war-crimes then at least crimes against the standards of decency that America used to stand for. I am saying news agencies should be responsible. What about that don't you understand?

A news article with a worldwide circulation could stir up more tensions and directly or indirectly cause more death and more war.

We are in what is called the information age. Information is power. Shouldn't news organizations wield it wisely?

EDIT: The News-Weak story was NOT the truth.

[Gene Clean]

Naples, you make it sound like you care about civilians. You don't. If you did, you wouldn't support this adminstration's war in Iraq. They kill civilians. Lots of them.

[segovius]

Breaking news:

It seems that a lot of the 'detainees' in Guantanamo and other camps have actually been sold to the US - or more correctly, the US has bought them for detention - in a kind of modern day updating of Heart of Darkness.

Evidence is emerging (http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050531/w053186.html) of how the US have been paying Pakistani tribesman and other shadowy outfits large sums of money to kidnap Arab and other Muslims.

The criminal gangs that are selling these people to the US (co-operating with them in fact) know nothing of anyone's guilt or otherwise and, like the US, care little, As usual, it is all about money and the trade in human traffic for the camps is a business just as all other aspects of the Iraq enterprise are a business.

The 'terrorist' myth is just for the hapless sheep - on the ground no-one needs to believe that particular lie - it's strictly for the God-fearing folks down home on the farm.

Bounties ranged from $3,000 to $25,000 US, the detainees testified during military tribunals, said transcripts the U.S. government gave The Associated Press to comply with a Freedom of Information lawsuit.

A former CIA intelligence officer who helped lead the search for accused terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden told AP the accounts sounded legitimate because U.S. allies regularly received money to help catch Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. Gary Schroen said he took a suitcase with $3 million in cash into Afghanistan to help supply and win over warlords to fight for U.S. Special Forces.

So far $57M has been paid out to bounty hunters and the captured arabs make up a large percentage of those currently being held in the illegal US torture-camps.

One prisoner said he was on his way to Germany in 2001 when he was captured and sold for "a briefcase full of money" then flown to Afghanistan before being sent to Guantanamo.

"It's obvious. They knew Americans were looking for Arabs, so they captured Arabs and sold them - just like someone catches a fish and sells it," he said.

A detainee said he was seized by "mafia" operatives somewhere in Europe and sold to Americans because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time - an Arab in a foreign country.

Another detainee who identified himself as a Saudi businessman said: "The Pakistani police sold me for money to the Americans."

Several prisoners who appeared to be Chinese Muslims - known as Uighurs - described being betrayed by Pakistani tribesmen along with about 100 Arabs.

They said they went to Afghanistan for military training to fight for independence from China. When U.S. planes started bombing near their camp, they fled into the mountains near Tora Bora and hid for weeks, starving.

One detainee said they finally followed a group of Arabs, apparently fighters, being guided by an Afghan to the Pakistani border.

"We crossed into Pakistan and there were tribal people there and they took us to their houses and they killed a sheep and cooked the meat and we ate," he said.

That night, they were taken to a mosque, where about 100 Arabs also sheltered. After being fed bread and tea, they were told to leave in groups of 10, taken to a truck, and driven to a Pakistani prison. From there, they were handed to Americans and flown to Guantanamo.

Soon, he said, they were in prison in Pakistan where "we heard they sold us to the Pakistani authorities for $5,000 per person."

There have been reports of Arabs being sold to the Americans after the U.S.-led offensive in Afghanistan but the testimonies offer the most detail from prisoners themselves.

In March 2002, the AP reported Afghan intelligence offered rewards for the capture of al-Qaida fighters - the day after a five-hour meeting with U.S. Special Forces. Intelligence officers refused to say if the two events were linked and if the United States was paying the offered reward of 150 million Afghanis, then equivalent to $4,000 a head.

One Kuwaiti who was released, 26-year-old Nasser al-Mutairi, told al-Odha interrogators said Dostum's forces sold them to the Pakistanis for $5,000 each and the Pakistanis in turn sold them to the Americans.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Naples, you make it sound like you care about civilians. You don't. If you did, you wouldn't support this adminstration's war in Iraq. They kill civilians. Lots of them. Please try not to project.

SH has the US beat. So did Hitler. 50 million people (civilians) now have a chance at the freedoms you and I enjoy.

I do care about people, please don't suggest otherwise, thanks.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
Breaking news:

It seems that a lot of the 'detainees' in Guantanamo and other camps have actually been sold to the US - or more correctly, the US has bought them for detention - in a kind of modern day updating of Heart of Darkness.

Evidence is emerging (http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050531/w053186.html) of how the US have been paying Pakistani tribesman and other shadowy outfits large sums of money to kidnap Arab and other Muslims.

The criminal gangs that are selling these people to the US (co-operating with them in fact) know nothing of anyone's guilt or otherwise and, like the US, care little, As usual, it is all about money and the trade in human traffic for the camps is a business just as all other aspects of the Iraq enterprise are a business.

The 'terrorist' myth is just for the hapless sheep - on the ground no-one needs to believe that particular lie - it's strictly for the God-fearing folks down home on the farm.



So far $57M has been paid out to bounty hunters and the captured arabs make up a large percentage of those currently being held in the illegal US torture-camps. Old news, Bounties and Bounty Hunters have been around for ages. Do you have no pride?

Latch onto any stupid claim, much?

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Please try not to project.

SH has the US beat. So did Hitler. 50 million people (civilians) now have a chance at the freedoms you and I enjoy.

I do care about people, please don't suggest otherwise, thanks.

Yeah, they're just loving it - shame those in mass graves in Fallujah can't join the party but hey...small price.

We actually have electricity where I live and some people have jobs too (as well as being able to walk the streets without fear of instant death from US military hardware) so I'm not exactly enjoying the freedoms that you and the Iraqis are but I'm not jealous...well, just a bit.

But hey, when you've sorted out the raghead scum in Iran maybe you could liberate us too - my electricity bill is WAY too high anyway and sometimes I feel I have lived a little too long.....the threat of deportation, imprisonment without charge and sudden painful death will certainly put that spice back into things.

I know you have to liberate the most deserving (evil) first but really we haven't had that sort of freedom here since Franco - things have got real bad since then.....please help when you can.

We love you......

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
Yeah, they're just loving it - shame those in mass graves in Fallujah can't join the party but hey...small price.

We actually have electricity where I live and some people have jobs too (as well as being able to walk the streets without fear of instant death from US military hardware) so I'm not exactly enjoying the freedoms that you and the Iraqis are but I'm not jealous...well, just a bit.

But hey, when you've sorted out the raghead scum in Iran maybe you could liberate us too - my electricity bill is WAY too high anyway and sometimes I feel I have lived a little too long.....the threat of deportation, imprisonment without charge and sudden painful death will certainly put that spice back into things.

I know you have to liberate the most deserving (evil) first but really we haven't had that sort of freedom here since Franco - things have got real bad since then.....please help when you can.

We love you...... You're being dishonest again. I said they had a chance, not that they are enjoying all the benefits just yet.

[pfflam]

I'll reiterate part of my first post:

"You are exhibiting serious signs of stoogage: as in "he was a stooge of the pathetic PR media stunts""

They released some prisoners but called in the press corps and made sure that four very likeable ones were even given interviews . . . . how nice.


So let us ammend: the headline should read:
"A Few Prisoners not tortured: & Some Said To Be 'Bad-Guys' By Colonel: 'But We Had To Let Them Go Anywy - Just To Show How Nice We Are"

'Press reporters were then given a tasty KBR meal and driven back to their barracks in an armored SUV . . . '

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
I'll reiterate part of my first post:

"You are exhibiting serious signs of stoogage: as in "he was a stooge of the pathetic PR media stunts""

They released some prisoners but called in the press corps and made sure that four very likeable ones were even given interviews . . . . how nice.


So let us ammend: the headline should read:
"A Few Prisoners not tortured: & Some Said To Be 'Bad-Guys' By Colonel: 'But We Had To Let Them Go Anywy - Just To Show How Nice We Are"

'Press reporters were then given a tasty KBR meal and driven back to their barracks in an armored SUV . . . ' And this is based on what?

Don't answer, because it's based on nothing, nada, zip.

They did eight months for being combatants, (illegal ones according to the Geneva Conventions) in an unconventional war. The US can hold them until all hostilities are ended, if they wanted. Come on.

"Col. James Yonts, the U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan, said the 53 were "low-level combatants" who committed hostile acts against civilians, Afghan forces and U.S.-led coalition forces.

They did their time, they were released.

What is there to be so confused about.

[Gilsch]

You guys are still wasting your time with this guy? Isn't it obvious yet that Naples is the straight-faced version of "Common Man"?

Naples reminds me of a little kid who is trying to fit a square peg into a circular hole. When it's pointed out to him that it'll never work he gets pissy and tries to fit the peg into the circular hole with renewed blind fanatical determination.

Brilliant!

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by NaplesX
"Col. James Yonts, the U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan, said the 53 were "low-level combatants" who committed hostile acts against civilians, Afghan forces and U.S.-led coalition forces.

They did their time, they were released. :lol: So you don't have a problem with "terrorists" being released now? How convenient. I'm out of this thread. I will be laughing from the outside.

Not only are we "liberators", but we're also into rehabilitating "terrorists". Support the Afghani Civil Liberties Union. :D

[tonton]

The premise of this thread is equivalent to saying that newspapers should post a story that "There are some buildings in the US that Al Qaeda didn't destroy, so the allegation that Al Qaeda is bad is a false one!"

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
And this is based on what?

Don't answer, because it's based on nothing, nada, zip.
Where do you learn these brilliant debate tactics?!


They did eight months for being combatants, (illegal ones according to the Geneva Conventions) in an unconventional war. The US can hold them until all hostilities are ended, if they wanted. Come on.

"Col. James Yonts, the U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan, said the 53 were "low-level combatants" who committed hostile acts against civilians, Afghan forces and U.S.-led coalition forces.

They did their time, they were released.

What is there to be so confused about. I am not confused. According to the post above . . . you think that they are showing what good-guys they are by letting illegal combatants out of jail . . . . as long as they do it after the press release was sent and the PR corps were on hand for interviews . . .

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
Where do you learn these brilliant debate tactics?!

I am not confused. According to the post above . . . you think that they are showing what good-guys they are by letting illegal combatants out of jail . . . . as long as they do it after the press release was sent and the PR corps were on hand for interviews . . . Said nothing of the sort. More dishonesty.

My premise was the press is being unbalanced in it's coverage. I am right. The info is not been being touched by the mainstream media. It will remain that way. But I guarantee they will run full out with any allegation that comes down the pike. Give it a day or two.

And if your theory were true, I think they would have more than some AP reporter on hand. There are fox news guys over there that would have been glad to report on this, no?

Apparently the press is not a lackey to the Bush Admin or the military it leads.

[pfflam]

The incredibly simplistic point that you refuse to even see is this:

America abusing people is a far far more important story, that we should take to heart, understand and refuse to accept from what is supposed to be the 'shining exemplar' of nations

then the story that there werre a few people that we did not in fact torture.

Why is it that you can't see this / / / have you ever studied the simplest of Logical syllogisms?

If a=b and b=a but b ~=c then a~=c . . . can you follow that? . . . the logic should be as simple to comprehend

[segovius]

Originally posted by Gilsch
You guys are still wasting your time with this guy? Isn't it obvious yet that Naples is the straight-faced version of "Common Man"?

You're absolutely right - I've seen the light.

Those are keystrokes that I'll never get back. From here on in I change my ways.

[Harald]

You described the activites at Abu Ghraib, as typified by the prisoner murdered in captivity shown above as "like hazing."

I'm stunned you think you have any credibility on this topic, when you clearly do not understand it.

Look, for God's sake, what is a more important story?

1) American troops murder and torture people in Iraqi prison: photos

2) Afghani prisoner released, says he wasn't tortured

[groverat]

Originally posted by Harald
I'm stunned you think you have any credibility on this topic

It's fairly obvious that he doesn't.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Harald
You described the activites at Abu Ghraib, as typified by the prisoner murdered in captivity shown above as "like hazing."

I'm stunned you think you have any credibility on this topic, when you clearly do not understand it.
You are making stuff up. I said the activities there were not that different than hazing. In that thread and elsewhere I have condemned the abuse and the abusers for not being your typical soldier over there.

Feel free to distort and take out of context, if that's all you got.

Originally posted by Harald
Look, for God's sake, what is a more important story?

1) American troops murder and torture people in Iraqi prison: photos

2) Afghani prisoner released, says he wasn't tortured 1.) was an important story, but the airing of it caused more deaths US and otherwise. So perhaps it did more harm than good. Do the math - 300 cases of abuse and mistreatment, compared to how many dead US soldiers in Iraq and elswhere since Abu-Ghraib?

2.) Is also just as important to help the perception by the world. The press is more than willing to tear the US down, why not provide balance? Besides, the job of the press is to report all of the stories and let us decide. Perhaps you feel otherwise?

Anyway, I am not factoring in Abu-Ghraib since it is over and done with. I am talking about the subsequent reports, but mostly the News-Weak story and the surrounding stories based only on allegations by detainees. These stories are effecting the military personnel from all of the coalition countries.

Now, I see support for these stories as support for terrorism and the terrorists that are looking for any excuse to kill your fellow countrymen. It is just emboldening your enemy.

I am not excusing the mistakes made in this war, just as I am not going to excuse reckless and irresponsible behavior that is approaching treachery by the US press. If you wish to do so, that is on your conscience.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
It's fairly obvious that he doesn't. Your statement is not phrased correctly.

Besides, Is it in the job description of a mod to fan the flames of any given argument?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by tonton
The premise of this thread is equivalent to saying that newspapers should post a story that "There are some buildings in the US that Al Qaeda didn't destroy, so the allegation that Al Qaeda is bad is a false one!" Well the media feels it nessesary to report non stories when it comes to Iran:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=8689775

Great headline "Iran didn't 'respond negatively' to EU nuclear deal"

Not related to this story but it seems to disprove the consensus here.

[LiquidR]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/10/31/afghan.kidnap/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4684713/

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6224876/

The hands of those that our soldiers fight are not clean either. Unfortunately this shit is the reality of war, it happens in every war, on all sides. If you want it to stop find a way to stop war and human fallibility.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by LiquidR
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/10/31/afghan.kidnap/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4684713/

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6224876/

The hands of those that our soldiers fight are not clean either. Unfortunately this shit is the reality of war, it happens in every war, on all sides. If you want it to stop find a way to stop war and human fallibility. Dude, you won't get any favorable reaction here about that kind of stuff. You are loosing focus on the point here - THE US IS EVIL! Just ask the US press.

[groverat]

Besides, Is it in the job description of a mod to fan the flames of any given argument?

No, and it wasn't what I was doing. I was answering a question with a factual response.

You have invented a shadowy conspiracy theory (media out to get the military) with no evidence behind it and used that as a platform to go even further in advocating public apathy towards the torture and murder of civilians. So it's pretty clear that you don't have credibility because the basis for your entire argument is complete garbage.

It's not my fault that you say ridiculous things. And I'm not obligated to pretend you make sense when you don't.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat No, and it wasn't what I was doing. I was answering a question with a factual response.

You have invented a shadowy conspiracy theory (media out to get the military) with no evidence behind it and used that as a platform to go even further in advocating public apathy towards the torture and murder of civilians. So it's pretty clear that you don't have credibility because the basis for your entire argument is complete garbage.

It's not my fault that you say ridiculous things. And I'm not obligated to pretend you make sense when you don't. You did it again and this time by lying.

You know I am not advocating any such thing.

Lies is what you are reduced to.

Brilliant.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You are making stuff up. I said the activities there were not that different than hazing. This amounts to saying: "I didn't say it was just like hazing, I said it was like hazing"

1.) was an important story, but the airing of it caused more deaths US and otherwise. So perhaps it did more harm than good. Do the math - 300 cases of abuse and mistreatment, compared to how many dead US soldiers in Iraq and elswhere since Abu-Ghraib?

2.) Is also just as important to help the perception by the world. The press is more than willing to tear the US down, why not provide balance? Besides, the job of the press is to report all of the stories and let us decide. Perhaps you feel otherwise?. On the first point:
a reporter's responsibility is to the truth.
If you are creating a situation that will cause American Deaths when people find out about it then you probably ought not to be creating that situation.

If America stood by it image and stance as a country that stands for civilized principles such as freedom and democracy and rule of Law, then it should stand by those principles in every sphere of its endeavors: it should strive to be an example even in times of war.

as for two: "why not provide balance?" if the truth is balanced then balance will be what a responsible reporter will strive to report.
now apparently there was a rreport about freeing some untortured prisoners, after all you are talking about it right?!

And considering the imbalance of importance with regards to that story in relationship to the revelations that the US has been using tactics that are beneath it . . . I consider that sort of balanced.


oh, and most importantly, Let's quote LAURA BUSH here:

"you can't blame it (anti-US rallies) all on Newsweek~"

Leaving open the more important question of who then can you blame for all of this?
Does she have an inside insight into the responsibility?!

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You did it again and this time by lying.

You know I am not advocating any such thing.

Lies is what you are reduced to.

Brilliant. Yeah Groverat, you're lying . . . he's not advocating torture . . .he's advocating the need for some serious Hazing!

:p

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
This amounts to saying: "I didn't say it was just like hazing, I said it was like hazing" I put the effort into using specific words when posting here. Please, don't quote me out of context and wrong. That is dishonest. You know it.

Originally posted by pfflam
On the first point:
a reporter's responsibility is to the truth.
If you are creating a situation that will cause American Deaths when people find out about it then you probably ought not to be creating that situation. I agree. But you are excusing the media from any kind of responsibility. It can be argues that they are helping the enemy in certain cases. I'm not sure why they would want that on them. Do you?

Originally posted by pfflam
If America stood by it image and stance as a country that stands for civilized principles such as freedom and democracy and rule of Law, then it should stand by those principles in every sphere of its endeavors: it should strive to be an example even in times of war. I would say it does. The 300 investigations into prisoner abuse testify to that louder than anything else. You won't see that in too many other countries, especially in the radical muslim ones.

Originally posted by pfflam
as for two: "why not provide balance?" if the truth is balanced then balance will be what a responsible reporter will strive to report.
now apparently there was a rreport about freeing some untortured prisoners, after all you are talking about it right?! How many front page and dominant stories about alleged abuse and how many stating otherwise? You do the math.

Originally posted by pfflam
And considering the imbalance of importance with regards to that story in relationship to the revelations that the US has been using tactics that are beneath it . . . I consider that sort of balanced. Of course you do.


Originally posted by pfflam
oh, and most importantly, Let's quote LAURA BUSH here:

"you can't blame it (anti-US rallies) all on Newsweek~" So? I can't say i disagree with that.

Originally posted by pfflam
Leaving open the more important question of who then can you blame for all of this? President of the United States George W. Bush, of course.
Originally posted by pfflam
Does she have an inside insight into the responsibility?! Perhaps, perhaps she is just being diplomatic as one would expect.

Notice she did not excuse News-Weak of all blame either.

[Gene Clean]

Do you have any other argument except 'that is dishonest' and 'don't put my words out of context'?

It seems you're the only honest person here.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Do you have any other argument except 'that is dishonest' and 'don't put my words out of context'?

It seems you're the only honest person here. Perhaps I am. But have you noticed that the argument seems to shift from wither or not the media is being fair in their coverage to but "you said this before about Abu Ghraib" and "you want torture"?

How long till someone here accuses me of being a torturer? Why not just go all the way?

Anyway, do you think the media is being fair in it's coverage of this issue?

[Gene Clean]

It's becoming boring to read threads where you participate because I know beforehand what you will say:

1) Don't be dishonest,
2) Don't put my words out of context
3) etc.

Some creativity, please?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by NaplesX
How long till someone here accuses me of being a torturer? Why not just go all the way? I think you are torturing some of the folks here just by posting.

Anyway, do you think the media is being fair in it's coverage of this issue? I think it's very unfair. It's way, way under-covered. In my view, the decision by the Bush administration to essentially forgo a "hearts-and-minds" approach in favor of an "ends-justify-means" approach was the central decision (and IMO the central flaw) of his post-9/11 strategy. It deserves to be publicly debated.

[groverat]

You know I am not advocating any such thing.

By making up a bunch of false crap about some media conspiracy you advocate mass-scale denial of any US impropriety abroad. Because you deal in falsehood your words and attitudes have very bizarre hangers-on. If you don't like what you say, stop saying it.

Even Laura Bush, who has no reason at all to be friendly to some nebulous liberal media conspiracy against her husband, has dismissed the kind of paranoid, tin-foil conservative thinking you spew liberally throughout this thread.

It's garbage.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
It's becoming boring to read threads where you participate because I know beforehand what you will say:

1) Don't be dishonest,
2) Don't put my words out of context
3) etc.

Some creativity, please? I call it as I see it. Sue me.

[Moe_in_Texas]

A new freaking turbin! Very fresh.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I call it as I see it. Sue me.

Unfortunately, there is no law against intellectual laziness.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
By making up a bunch of false crap about some media conspiracy you advocate mass-scale denial of any US impropriety abroad. Because you deal in falsehood your words and attitudes have very bizarre hangers-on. If you don't like what you say, stop saying it. You are entitled to your opinion. As am I. If I think you're being dishonest, I will let you know. If you don't like it attempt to be honest about what I say and don't. Seems pretty fair to me.

Originally posted by groverat
Even Laura Bush, who has no reason at all to be friendly to some nebulous liberal media conspiracy against her husband, has dismissed the kind of paranoid, tin-foil conservative thinking you spew liberally throughout this thread.

It's garbage. Well, once again, you must have misread what she said. She said, and I quote "you can't blame it all on Newsweek" that would mean that you could blame some of it on them, according to the English words that she used in that sentence. I will break it down for you if necessary.

So, for you to say that she just dismisses it, would be wrong and dare I say, dishonest.

And since we all are agreeing with the first lady, "She said that abuse was "not any sort of typical thing from the United States.""

The report that you guys are quoting also says "she considered the report irresponsible"

In an interview with fox she also said:

"HENNEBERG: Do you think Newsweek needs to do anything else about its error?

BUSH: Well sure. I mean, I think that they can let people know that it was a mistake"

The first lady seems to be saying just what I am saying. So I guess we're all in agreement then?

[BRussell]

Oh look, some news. (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-06-04T015157Z_01_N03284541_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-GUANTANAMO-KORAN-DC.XML)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military for the first time on Friday detailed how jailers at Guantanamo mishandled the Koran, including a case in which a guard's urine splashed through a vent onto the Islamic holy book and others in which it was kicked, stepped on and soaked in water.

U.S. Southern Command, responsible for the prison for foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, described five cases of "mishandling" of a Koran by U.S. personnel confirmed by a newly completed military inquiry, officials said in a statement.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by BRussell
Oh look, some news. (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-06-04T015157Z_01_N03284541_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-GUANTANAMO-KORAN-DC.XML) oh no!

"In the incident involving urine, which took place this past March, Southern Command said a guard left his observation post, went outside and urinated near an air vent, and "the wind blew his urine through the vent" and into a cell block.

It said a detainee told guards the urine "splashed on him and his Koran." The statement said the detainee was given a new prison uniform and Koran, and that the guard was reprimanded and given duty in which he had no contact with prisoners. Army Capt. John Adams, a spokesman at Guantanamo, said the inquiry deemed the incident "accidental."

Southern Command said a civilian contractor interrogator apologized in July 2003 to a detainee for stepping on his Koran. The interrogator "was later terminated for a pattern of unacceptable behavior, an inability to follow direct guidance and poor leadership," the statement said.

In August 2003, prisoners' Korans became wet when night-shift guards threw water balloons in a cell block, the statement said. In February 2002, guards kicked a prisoner's Koran, it added.

In the fifth confirmed incident of mishandling a Koran, Southern Command said a prisoner in August 2003 complained that "a two-word obscenity" had been written in English in his Koran. Southern Command said it was "possible" a guard had written the words but "equally possible" the prisoner himself had done it. It did not offer an explanation of the detainee's possible motive."

So, really no news here except a guard kicked a book. Oh, the humanity.

I bolded the pertinent info for you. No need to thank me.

Does not sound like any kind of pattern except that they make these terrorist very comfortable. i wonder if Zarqawi has ordered a pallet of bibles and uniforms for his prisoners?

[Gene Clean]

That 'a book' you're talking about, for some people is God's words. So you don't go around kickin' it. Or flushin' it. But since it's the Muslim holy book, then, you might as well, right?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
That 'a book' you're talking about, for some people is God's words. So you don't go around kickin' it. Or flushin' it. But since it's the Muslim holy book, then, you might as well, right? You're not actually gonna go down that road again, are you?

The the book is just paper. It is the ideas inside that are important.

Besides, it sounds like if your copy get mishandled, it gets replaced immediately, if requested.

Come on. Let's all grow some, shall we?

[Gene Clean]

No. No. It's not 'just paper'. There are strict rules in the Islamic world on how to handle the Kor'an. They don't kick their Kor'ans around when they get angry, and they certainly don't piss on 'em.

It seems to me, you're the one who needs to grow. And read some too.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
No. No. It's not 'just paper'. There are strict rules in the Islamic world on how to handle the Kor'an. They don't kick their Kor'ans around when they get angry, and they certainly don't piss on 'em.

It seems to me, you're the one who needs to grow. And read some too. So Muslims don't have accidents?

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So Muslims don't have accidents?

Not pissing-on-the-Kor'an accidents, no.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Not pissing-on-the-Kor'an accidents, no. Well, it's good to know you can see every action everywhere.

[tonton]

"In the incident involving urine, which took place this past March, Southern Command said a guard left his observation post, went outside and urinated near an air vent, and "the wind blew his urine through the vent" and into a cell block.

It said a detainee told guards the urine "splashed on him and his Koran." The statement said the detainee was given a new prison uniform and Koran, and that the guard was reprimanded and given duty in which he had no contact with prisoners. Army Capt. John Adams, a spokesman at Guantanamo, said the inquiry deemed the incident "accidental."

Geez... NaplesX, you actually believe a guard pissing near an air vent and the urine blowing into a cell block was an accident. This shows a whole new level of intelligence.

By the way, I've got some great land in Florida for sale. Wanna buy some? Oh, yeah, you already live there.

A fool and his political morals are soon parted.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by tonton
Geez... NaplesX, you actually believe a guard pissing near an air vent and the urine blowing into a cell block was an accident. This shows a whole new level of intelligence.

By the way, I've got some great land in Florida for sale. Wanna buy some? Oh, yeah, you already live there.

A fool and his political morals are soon parted. Dude. Why would i believe otherwise? Based on what? You're asking me to disregard a straight forward statement that is no doubt well documented for what?

Apparently you've never pissed outside when it's windy.

[midwinter]

Wow.

Originally posted by NaplesX
1.) was an important story, but the airing of it caused more deaths US and otherwise. So perhaps it did more harm than good. Do the math - 300 cases of abuse and mistreatment, compared to how many dead US soldiers in Iraq and elswhere since Abu-Ghraib?

In other words, it would have been better for the US to torture people and the media NOT report on it. Because it's for the troops.

Anyway, I am not factoring in Abu-Ghraib since it is over and done with.

Oh but you are.

I am talking about the subsequent reports, but mostly the News-Weak story and the surrounding stories based only on allegations by detainees. These stories are effecting the military personnel from all of the coalition countries.

I'm stunned that no one has brought up the actual text of the Newsweek retraction, which in no way discredited the story. It simply said that the source was unreliable. And since all of that, loads of stories have come out about similar abuses at Gitmo. From the DOD even.

Now, I see support for these stories as support for terrorism and the terrorists that are looking for any excuse to kill your fellow countrymen. It is just emboldening your enemy.

So not liking the truth is how you support the troops? So attacking anyone who publishes criticism is how you support the troops?

The troops deserve better.

I am not excusing the mistakes made in this war,

Yes you are. You did in the first bit I quoted.

just as I am not going to excuse reckless and irresponsible behavior that is approaching treachery by the US press.

Reporting things = treason. Brilliant.

If you wish to do so, that is on your conscience.

At least I have one.

[NaplesX]

Babble posted by midwinter
Stuff... Making up stuff is not going to make me change my mind or agree with you. Why waste your time.

I post what my opinions are. You don't have to like them. No need to go all Howard Dean.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
stuff...

I like the way you directly engage the thoughtful comments I make. That's clever.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
I like the way you directly engage the thoughtful comments I make. That's clever. I gave them the time and effort they deserved.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I gave them the time and effort they deserved.

Hey, if you're too much of a coward to engage me, that's fine. I'm cool with it.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
Hey, if you're too much of a coward to engage me, that's fine. I'm cool with it. That's cool. I'm cool that you're cool with being cool...

Everything you bring up has been discussed here already. You're wasting your time.

BTW peer pressure NEVER worked on me.

Good try.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
That's cool. I'm cool that you're cool with being cool...

Everything you bring up has been discussed here already. You're wasting your time.

BTW peer pressure NEVER worked on me.

Good try.

Who mentioned anything about peer pressure? I just think you're a coward who has condoned torture and then attempted to paint anyone who endorses the reporting of that torture as unAmerican. And then you bizarrely tried to tie all of this in somehow with supporting the troops.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
Who mentioned anything about peer pressure? I just think you're a coward who has condoned torture and then attempted to paint anyone who endorses the reporting of that torture as unAmerican. And then you bizarrely tried to tie all of this in somehow with supporting the troops. Have you followed this thread or any others?

I mean really. I don't condone torture. I don't say that simply reporting news is treasonous or un-American.

WE ARE AT WAR! Remember? Actions have consequences, and while at war death often is the consequence. I want the bad guys to suffer, not volunteer soldiers that are your countrymen. I don't want want the US press to cause deaths. I want the press to reflect built-in sense of fairness that most people I KNOW have.

I have been really clear and consistent about my beef that started this thread, over and over. What do you want from me? Please, no more of this incessant "So what you really meant was..."

I TYPED WHAT I MEANT.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Have you followed this thread or any others?

I mean really. I don't condone torture. I don't say that simply reporting news is treasonous or un-American.

WE ARE AT WAR! Remember? Actions have consequences, and while at war death often is the consequence. I want the bad guys to suffer, not volunteer soldiers that are your countrymen. I don't want want the US press to cause deaths. I want the press to reflect built-in sense of fairness that most people I KNOW have.

I have been really clear and consistent about my beef that started this thread, over and over. What do you want from me? Please, no more of this incessant "So what you really meant was..."

I TYPED WHAT I MEANT.

OK. Please answer this question: if, while we are at war, US soldiers torture or abuse detainees in ways that might incite violence, the media should report it.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
OK. Please answer this question: if, while we are at war, US soldiers torture or abuse detainees in ways that might incite violence, the media should report it. I will answer your question if you consider this scenario:

Let's say your son/daughter is over there, and the chances of him/her getting killed was dramatically increased because of backlash, would you want the media endangering his/her life over a Koran flushing story or over a handful of irresponsible morons?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I will answer you question if you consider this scenario:

Let's say your son/daughter is over there, and the chances of him/her getting killed was dramatically increased because of backlash, would you want the media endangering his/her life over a Koran flushing story or over a handful of irresponsible morons?

This is what is called a red herring.

You are too much of a coward to answer my simple question.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
This is what is called a red herring.

You are too much of a coward to answer my simple question. Really?

There is what, 200,000 troops over there. If each person has 2 parents a sibling or two and a handful of friends, that's a million people that are potentially effected. I think that the media has a responsibility to these people. There decisions effect all of them.

My answer to your question is a definite maybe. I would say no to printing the story if it was up to me.

How did reporting on Abu-Ghraib help end the war any faster? Did it save any lives? Did it make anyones life better? If so whose? How about the fake Koran flushing story?

There i answered your question. Now reciprocate in kind. Lest you be proven to be what you accuse me of.

[Anders]

What are you two trying to accomplish?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Anders
What are you two trying to accomplish? Honest debate here.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
[B]Really?

There is what, 200,000 troops over there. If each person has 2 parents a sibling or two and a handful of friends, that's a million people that are potentially effected. I think that the media has a responsibility to these people. There decisions effect all of them.

Before you follow this line of argument too much further, you should know that I'm married to a Gulf War I widow (http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/papers/1991/91031700.html).

I live with the effects of a war in Iraq every day. Every time I move, I move three people: me, my wife, and her F-16 pilot late husband.

Don't you dare presume to lecture me about the effects of war.

My answer to your question is a definite maybe. I would say no to printing the story if it was up to me.

So you think that saving lives is more important than the truth.

How did reporting on Abu-Ghraib help end the war any faster?

It wasn't supposed to. It was the truth.

Did it save any lives?

It wasn't supposed to. It was the truth.

Did it make anyones life better?

It wasn't supposed to. It was the truth.

How about the fake Koran flushing story?

How about it? it's the truth, as has been confirmed by numerous sources.

There i answered your question.

No, you didn't. You gave a mealy-mouthed answer to a simple question. I won't presume to imagine your motives.

Now reciprocate in kind. Lest you be proven to be what you accuse me of.

Ok. Your question was


Let's say your son/daughter is over there, and the chances of him/her getting killed was dramatically increased because of backlash, would you want the media endangering his/her life over a Koran flushing story or over a handful of irresponsible morons?


Yes. Because the truth is more important than anything. And I hope that my earlier reference to my wife's late husband contextualizes my answer a bit for you.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Anders
What are you two trying to accomplish?

I'm trying to get this down to brass tacks. This debate has meandered all over the place, and I'm trying to get to the heart of the matter, which is whether or not the press has an obligation to report what it believes to be the truth.

Naples and I, despite our many, many differences (and I seriously question his choice of amplifier), most certainly agree that the press is generally lazy and rash. The larger issue is its fealty. And that is what is being debated here.

Please don't lock this thread.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
Before you follow this line of argument too much further, you should know that I'm married to a Gulf War I widow (http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/papers/1991/91031700.html).

I live with the effects of a war in Iraq every day. Every time I move, I move three people: me, my wife, and her F-16 pilot late husband.

Don't you dare presume to lecture me about the effects of war. Let's leave her out of this, as well as Golf War 1. Here and now, agreed?

Originally posted by midwinter
So you think that saving lives is more important than the truth. Life is not a renewable commodity. Once a guy is dead, he's dead. You nor I have the power to reverse that. A lie or misstatement or falsehood or omission can be corrected. So I am gonna rule in favor of life. Yep. Final answer.

So I take it that when your wife asks you if a dress makes her look fat or if she looks like she's getting older or any number of potential questions like that, you opt for absolute truth over everything else? Being married for 13 years I would suggest not going that rout. But hey, you must follow your conscience.


Originally posted by midwinter
How about it? it's the truth, as has been confirmed by numerous sources. Name one credible verified source.

Originally posted by midwinter
No, you didn't. You gave a mealy-mouthed answer to a simple question. I won't presume to imagine your motives. So "no" is no longer a definitive answer? Haw was i to know?

Originally posted by midwinter
Yes. Because the truth is more important than anything. And I hope that my earlier reference to my wife's late husband contextualizes my answer a bit for you. Refer to above

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Let's leave her out of this, as well as Golf War 1. Here and now, agreed?

Considering we just went through Memorial Day, I would like nothing more. Probably the wisest decision you've made in this whole debate.

Life is not a renewable commodity. Once a guy is dead, he's dead.

The problem is that while the "guy" doesn't physically exist anymore, you still have to lug his shit around. And deal with his wife when it's his anniversary. Or his birthday.

Oops.

You nor I have the power to reverse that. A lie or misstatement or falsehood or omission can be corrected.

Actually, I would argue that it cannot be corrected. The lie is still there. You can only add more "text" to the lie.

So I am gonna rule in favor of life. Yep. Final answer.

And I rule in favor of truth.

So I take it that when your wife asks you if a dress makes her look fat or if she looks like she's getting older or any number of potential questions like that, you opt for absolute truth over everything else?

Yes. And after a couple of time, she learned not to ask me disingenuous questions.

Being married for 13 years I would suggest not going that rout.

We are clearly married to different women.

But hey, you must follow your conscience.

As I said, I have one.

Name one credible verified source.

How's this (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=koran+flush&btnG=Search+News)? But then you've got your bases covered: 1) reporting it is unamerican. 2) The sources hate america. 3) remember the troops.

So "no" is no longer a definitive answer? Haw was i to know?

I asked you a question that was simply yes or no. You hemmed and hawed.

Refer to above

Indeed.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
Actually, I would argue that it cannot be corrected. The lie is still there. You can only add more "text" to the lie. So is an omission an viable alternative? Or is it truth, consequences be damned?

Originally posted by midwinter
As I said, I have one.
As you stated. You gonna keep on insulting me? Come now.

Originally posted by midwinter
How's this (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=koran+flush&btnG=Search+News)? But then you've got your bases covered: 1) reporting it is unamerican. 2) The sources hate america. 3) remember the troops. 1st story:

"A video showing a man urinating on a Koran(Quran) and then flushing the Islamic holy book down the toilet was posted on a popular internet forum yesterday in what the poster described as a deliberate attempt to offend the more than 1 billion Muslims around the world.

"It was intended to be hyper-inflammatory," the creator of the home video, who goes by the nickname USAPatriot, said. "I'm sick and damned tired of my flag being burned, chants of 'Death to America', beheadings and bombings by the followers of the 'religion of peace'. It's all bullshit. I hope I offended 1.x Billion people. I certainly hope to."

There you have it folks, a Koran flushing has occurred by the military at Guitmo.

I found no independently corroborated sources in the first two pages of Google results. Care to narrow it down a bit.

Originally posted by midwinter
I asked you a question that was simply yes or no. You hemmed and hawed. I said If it was up to me, no. I say that's pretty clear, but OK.

-----

Is it ok for the press to tell the truth about mistreatment and ignore truth about the extraordinary lengths the military is going to to provide humane detainment?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So is an omission an viable alternative? Or is it truth, consequences be damned?

A lie of omission is still a lie.

As you stated. You gonna keep on insulting me? Come now.

Sure.

1st story:

There you have it folks, a Koran flushing has occurred by the military at Guitmo.

Reasoning from the exception.

I found no independently corroborated sources in the first two pages of Google results. Care to narrow it down a bit.


Indeed. Please define for us what would constitute "independently corroborated sources."

Is it ok for the press to tell the truth about mistreatment and ignore truth about the extraordinary lengths the military is going to to provide humane detainment?

Yes. No one is stopping other branches of media from reporting these other things. Hell, I'm watching a Frontline documentary right now about all of this.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
Yes. No one is stopping other branches of media from reporting these other things. Hell, I'm watching a Frontline documentary right now about all of this. The press by not reporting the full story is, in fact, lying by omission.

By your own standards the press is not being truthful.

Time for you to rethink your position. Your argument is flawed.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
The press by not reporting the full story is, in fact, lying by omission.

By your own argument the press is not being truthful.

Time for you to rethink your position. Your argument is flawed.

The press is not obligated to wait until the entire context of an event is clear before they report. That's what historians do. And in case you haven't noticed or ever done any archival research, it is the press who provide that context. And the more voices in that context, the better.

The press should should report what they know/believe to be true.

Let's back off your attempt at endgame here.

[midwinter]

Cough (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8695349)

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
The press is not obligated to wait until the entire context of an event is clear before they report. That's what historians do. And in case you haven't noticed or ever done any archival research, it is the press who provide that context. And the more voices in that context, the better.

The press should should report what they know/believe to be true.

Let's back off your attempt at endgame here. Your argument has a gaping hole in it.

And what is truth and what is believed to be truth can often be different things. So we are not talking about absolute truth, here. Were talking about what YOU feel is truth.

The efforts put forth by the military to be humane to prisoners was a known quantity when Abu-Graib was reported. IT WAS IGNORED AND OMITTED. Same with the Fake Koran Flushing.

Facts are being omitted, and by your standards, here in black and white, they are lying. Either you are for truth or you're not. You will have to work that out amongst yourself.

I'm sorry, you are grasping. And your article is now old news in this thread. Although it was a well written and fair piece, if you take the time to read it.

[segovius]

Originally posted by midwinter
Cough (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8695349)

That's game over.

Time for bed.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
That's game over.

Time for bed. Ok goodnight.

[NaplesX]

Oh yeah, who is forcing the US media to print stories that are harmful to the US?

Would that fall under this statement "No one is stopping other branches of media from reporting these other things." by you?

Other country's media could fill that gap according to that logic.

[giant]

The significance of a free press is that it allows public discourse about problems with government and its actions. That's why it's fundamental to democracy. A press that blindly cheerleads when problems arise is a feature of autoritarian governments, not functional democratic ones.

That's what makes uninformed belief systems like yours so frightening. You incessantly complain about the most valuable function of a free press and advocate that the american press behave similar to authoritarian state-controlled ones.

In addition, you conveniently ignore the fact that our free press already primarily prints stories as they get them from the government. There is far less editing of the information than you clearly believe. That goes for everything in american journalism. It's largely a business of reprinting press releases and other pre-written reports fed to it, not creating stories.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
The significance of a free press is that it allows public discourse about problems with government and its actions. That's why it's fundamental to democracy. A press that blindly cheerleads when problems arise is a feature of autoritarian governments, not functional democratic ones. I'm not calling for that.

Originally posted by giant
That's what makes uninformed belief systems like yours so frightening. You incessantly complain about the most valuable function of a free press and advocate that the american press behave similar to authoritarian state-controlled ones. I am complaining about dishonesty and lack of balance, resulting in more hostilities toward US citizens and soldiers. You think that ability to create worldwide hostility is the most valuable function of the press? A free US press is supposed to be a benefit to the US, not it's enemies.

Originally posted by giant
In addition, you conveniently ignore the fact that our free press already primarily prints stories as they get them from the government. There is far less editing of the information than you clearly believe. That goes for everything in american journalism. It's largely a business of reprinting press releases and other pre-written reports fed to it, not creating stories. Thank you. That is a great point. It is a tool for political partisans, on both sides from all nations, It should be independent and loyal to America, not an internationalist entity.

[BRussell]

Here's my favorite one:

In the incident involving urine, which took place this past March, Southern Command said a guard left his observation post, went outside and urinated near an air vent, and "the wind blew his urine through the vent" and into a cell block.

It said a detainee told guards the urine "splashed on him and his Koran." The statement said the detainee was given a new prison uniform and Koran, and that the guard was reprimanded and given duty in which he had no contact with prisoners. Army Capt. John Adams, a spokesman at Guantanamo, said the inquiry deemed the incident "accidental."
He accidentally peed on a Koran? "I just happened to be peeing next to this Koran here, and the wind blew my pee all by accident and stuff!" And if it was an accident, why was the urinator reprimanded and re-assigned? You just can't make this stuff up.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
[BIt should be independent and loyal to America, not an internationalist entity. [/B]

NO NO NO. The Press cannot be BOTH independent AND loyal to America. The press's ONLY obligation is to print THE TRUTH.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance, purpose and function of freedom of the press.

[Harald]

Originally posted by NaplesX
[BIIt should be independent and loyal to America, not an internationalist entity. [/B]

That's great independence!

Loyal to home and not printing stuff from the perspective of / as part of the global community.

Remember Pravda? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda)

[segovius]

Originally posted by Harald
That's great independence!

Loyal to home and not printing stuff from the perspective of / as part of the global community.

Remember Pravda? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda)

Saddam had a paper like that too.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
NO NO NO. The Press cannot be BOTH independent AND loyal to America. The press's ONLY obligation is to print THE TRUTH.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance, purpose and function of freedom of the press. We are at war.

The press hold lives in their greedy little hands.

The press has to be responsible during times of war.

Nothing you and all your progressive friends can say will make these things go away. The press has huge responsibility along with their sweeping freedoms.

I think it is you who fundamentally misunderstands responsibility of the press. If the press is not regulated, hopefully and preferably by themselves, they become just another totalitarian entity, that imposes it's will and idealism on others.

If we frame this according to what the US constitution and the founders of it had in mind, a "free" press was a necessity to benefit the US "people".

As it sits right now, the press is helping and supporting enemies of the US, in my estimation, by printing news focusing only on US and US military blunders, mistakes and weaknesses.

Responsibility.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Harald
That's great independence!

Loyal to home and not printing stuff from the perspective of / as part of the global community.

Remember Pravda? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda) We are at war.

You want the US press to help the enemy? That is exactly what is happening.

I am calling for balance/fairness/responsibility. Apparently these things are not important to you.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
We are at war.

Thanks for the update.

The press hold lives in their greedy little hands.

Huh?

The press has to be responsible during times of war.

Responsible to whom? In what way? As an aside, I wish the press had been responsible in the run-up to war. They failed the world in a spectacular fashion.

I think it is you who fundamentally misunderstands responsibility of the press. If the press is not regulated, hopefully and preferably by themselves, they become just another totalitarian entity, that imposes it's will and idealism on others.

Damn. Just. Damn, NaplesX. This is so wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. You want the press to be regulated??

If we frame this according to what the US constitution and the founders of it had in mind, a "free" press was a necessity to benefit the US "people."

Have you read Hamilton's defense of Zenger/freedom of the press in 1735? Do you know anything about what "freedom of the press" means? Literally or figuratively? The "free" press is called that because in England and the colonies prior to 1735, printing presses had to be licensed by the state. Anything you printed had to be OK'd by the state, and underground presses were confiscated and their operators jailed.

Why, you might ask? Because it was for the people. If people were allowed to print whatever they wanted, there would be chaos. Leaders might be attacked in print. The preference is clearly for order rather than justice.

You are arguing that the press should NOT be free, and that it should essentially be an organ of the state—a propaganda tool. Like it or not, NaplesX, that's what you're arguing here, and I don't think I need to point out that it is a profoundly unamerican position.

You're right, you know, when you keep telling people you're not a Republican. I don't think you are. You really seem to lean more towards unbridled fascism.

[NaplesX]

There is good news though. It would appear that a lot of the traditional newspapers that do not report fairly, are in serious decline.

It may be that the "people" are helping to regulate them, after all.

[groverat]

Harald, sego, giant, et al.:

Why are you still talking? Seriously.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
Responsible to whom? In what way? As an aside, I wish the press had been responsible in the run-up to war. They failed the world in a spectacular fashion. Responsible to the American people, not the world as you keep insisting.

Originally posted by midwinter
Damn. Just. Damn, NaplesX. This is so wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. You want the press to be regulated?? Your right, I said the word regulated. So feel free to break into a mindless rant at the appearance of that single word, context be damned.

And the race is on:
Originally posted by midwinter
Have you read Hamilton's defense of Zenger/freedom of the press in 1735? Do you know anything about what "freedom of the press" means? Literally or figuratively? The "free" press is called that because in England and the colonies prior to 1735, printing presses had to be licensed by the state. Anything you printed had to be OK'd by the state, and underground presses were confiscated and their operators jailed.

Why, you might ask? Because it was for the people. If people were allowed to print whatever they wanted, there would be chaos. Leaders might be attacked in print. The preference is clearly for order rather than justice.

You are arguing that the press should NOT be free, and that it should essentially be an organ of the state—a propaganda tool. Like it or not, NaplesX, that's what you're arguing here, and I don't think I need to point out that it is a profoundly unamerican position.

You're right, you know, when you keep telling people you're not a Republican. I don't think you are. You really seem to lean more towards unbridled fascism. Once again you miss the point. The US press is responsible to the US people.

Who has stopped the press from attacking Government officials? That is now the Liberal National pastime. Get real.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
Harald, sego, giant, et al.:

Why are you still talking? Seriously. I keep wondering why they would want to stand behind such easily debunked ideas myself.

Good call.

[NaplesX]

Another potential revelation, going against prevailing sentiments, hidden in a news story:

"Hood said his investigation "revealed a consistent, documented policy of respectful handling of the Koran dating back almost 2 1/2 years"."

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=617222005

and then there's this:

"Hood also said his investigation found 15 cases of detainees mishandling their own Korans. "These included using a Koran as a pillow, ripping pages out of the Koran, attempting to flush a Koran down the toilet and urinating on the Koran," the report said. It offered no possible explanation for the detainees' motives."

Misleading Headlines (lies):

Chicago Sun-Times - Quran was splashed with urine, U.S. admits
Reuters - U.S. jailers splashed Koran with urine - Pentagon
ABC - Jailers splashed Koran with urine - Pentagon
MSNBC - Pentagon details mishandling of Quran, Detainees’ copies of holy book kicked, splashed with urine

Kudos to CNN - Pentagon: Detainees, not soldiers, flushed Quran
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/03/guantanamo.quran/