Via Kos
~~~~~~~~
Payback is being served up at the WH gaggles lately, and it’s about bloody time. Apparently some members of the MSM merely misplaced their spines for a while. On Tuesday, in response to McClellan’s freelance editing of Newsweek, the Press Corp actually did their jobs, apparently not missing that the White House is only too happy to hand out assignments if they’ll let them:
Q [Terry Moran of ABC News]: With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it’s appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not telling them. I’m saying that we would encourage them to help —
Q You’re pressuring them.
It gets better and the Kos diary is a wonderful smackdown on the whole thing, highlighting how poor Scottie kept digging himself a bigger and bigger hole, but this last bit is so utterly priceless, I must point it out:
Q [Ken Herman of Cox News] In context of the Newsweek situation, I think we hear the caution you’re giving us about reporting things based on a single anonymous source. What, then, are we supposed to do with information that this White House gives us under the conditions that it comes from a single anonymous source?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not sure what exactly you’re referring to.
Q Frequent briefings by senior administration officials in which the ground rules are we can only identify them as a single anonymous source.
McClellan tried to deflect the issue again, but Herman went in, with surgical skill, for the kill:
Q With all due respect, though, it sounds like you’re saying your single anonymous sources are okay and everyone else’s aren’t.
Simply glorious.
I really wish there were some way to get politicians and there spokespeople to answer the damn question (and get reporters to ask tough ones). They should either answer the question or say “I can’t/won’t answer that.”
Love the last quote.
Any ‘liberal’ journalists out there willing to burn an anonymous administration source? that’ll teach ’em.
No, thought not.
So much for the librul, left leaning MSM.
Q. “Mr. McClellan, were you the source for the Newsweek story?”
Frequent briefings by senior administration officials in which the ground rules are we can only identify them as a single anonymous source.
Oh God, that’s glorious.
Wonder if it will go anywhere from here? (I mean: will the senior administration officials continue to be identified as a “single anonymous source” in the future, without anyone bothering to refer back to McClellan saying on behalf of the Bush administration that the media shouldn’t rely on “single anonymous sources”? Is irony dead, or only stunned?
Is irony dead, or only stunned?
Or pining for the fjords? (cross-subject, cue Slartibartfast)
“Anonymous sources” at the WH did not question the authenticity of the Rather memos, when CBS news went to the WH for confirmation.
“Anonymous sources” at the WH did not question the accuracy of Newsweek’s tip, when Newsweek went to the WH for confirmation.
However, once there was a question about either one, WH sources were perfectly happy to join in putting in the boot.
It’s a passive aggressive game. If the reporter is trying to get an independent confirmation, give them a non-confirming confirmation (a new twist on the old non-“denial denial”). Then, let someone else carry your water in casting doubt on the story, at which point you can pretend to be shocked and angered that your non-confirming confirmation was considered to be confirmation.
“Frequent briefings by senior administration officials in which the ground rules are we can only identify them as a single anonymous source.” omigod
Whores. Despicable, contemptible sluts. Think deeply about what is going on there, remembering the “two source rule” For years the WH has been getting the Press Corps to violate its own standards every day.
I have long thought one of the main methods of the WH is get a hammer on people, to enforce loyalty by blackmail and corruption.
It’s good that the press is sticking up for its own prerogatives here, but seen from another angle this is all so much navel-gazing wankery.
If the press didn’t publish the daily briefing, would Scott McClellan exist? And would anyone care?
And why ask the Bush administration how they’ve treated Muslim prisoners? Why has the mainstream media not asked people released from places like abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, or people with relatives in abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay?
Why has the mainstream media not asked people released from places like abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, or people with relatives in abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay?
It would require work and the answers would probably not be printable in the US. would not want to be called a member of the liberal media.
seen from another angle this is all so much navel-gazing wankery
True, except CB just tried to make hay (as did the Bush administration talking points, which are strangely similar) by claiming that Newsweek’s practice of relying on only one anonymous administration source was bad journalism. The arcane is made relevant only by such administration nonsense.
You guys really, really need a Jeremy Paxman. Unfortunately we can’t export him from the UK due to our arms control treaties…
You guys really, really need a Jeremy Paxman. Unfortunately we can’t export him from the UK due to our arms control treaties…
I generally agree, although his interview with Galloway was awful — and I say that as someone who doesn’t particularly like the nutter.
Having just read about Santorum’s speech, can we adjust ObsWi posting rules to reflect the decorum and comity required of Senators in debate on the floor of that Hallowed Institution?
I haven’t broken Godwin in days. I’m jonesin’.
I admire your restraint. Keep it up ;^)
“What, then, are we supposed to do with information that this White House gives us under the conditions that it comes from a single anonymous source?”
Same thing they should do with other single anonymous sources, shut up and not report them until you can get them from other sources. Especially when the issue in question is so ridiculously damaging. There is no way they would report something half as damaging about a person on a single anonymous source for fear of a libel suit.
The whole anonymous sourcing thing is ridiculous–especially when multiple high ranking journalists can think that Bill Burkett is an unimpeachable source.
The whole anonymous sourcing thing is ridiculous
Glad you agree some of the justifications for going to war with Iraq were ridiculous. Now, what are you going to do to hold the people responsible for those justifications accountable for what they did? Other than voting them into office again and then whinging about Newsweek, I mean.
What was anonymous about thinking Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons? He had done so before. He had successfully hidden an entire nuclear program from the international inspectors going into Gulf War I. He had spent the last decade thwarting inspectors, to the point that Clinton felt it necessary to attack him in 1998. The public information available suggested he was dangerous and increasingly unstable.
What was anonymous about thinking Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons?
Nuclear weapons? Where did that come from?
There were many and various allegations by the US about Iraq’s alleged weapons programs that were based on single anonymous sources, and that turned out to be false. I am quite sure that if you read a wide variety of news sources, you are already familiar with those allegations, and their falsity.
The difference with the Newsweek story, of course, is that by reading the Newsweek story, you would know that the accusation was based on an anonymous source, and that when listening to the US make its accusations (that turned out to be false) you would not.
Saddam had an excellent nuclear program running under the noses of the UN enforcement teams in the late 1980s. After the first Gulf War the were shocked (and ought to have been deeply embarassed) to find how close he was to actually getting a nuclear bomb. Throughout the decade following Gulf War I he obstructed the inspectors.
You are aware of all that I hope.
Way to ignore the issue. The issue, I will remind you, was that much of the evidence the US presented to the world about Iraq was evidence from single anonymous sources. From your statements, you don’t like those. Yet from your statements, sometimes you don’t mind them. You are inconsistent.
And, I will remind you, the difference between the Iraq intelligence and the Newsweek story was that with the Newsweek story you at least knew what you were getting.
If you would instead like to discuss Saddam’s nuclear programs in the 1980s, well I can certainly understand why you would want to distract people’s attention. If my arguments were completely contradictory, I would be trying to distract people’s attention away from them as well.
The nuclear programs that were successfully hidden from the world until Gulf War I are relevant because, um, they were successfully hidden. The chain of logic between that and Saddam repeatedly making it impossible for inspectors to work for an entire decade afterwards is not exactly a huge leap. None of that is based on anonymous sourcing.
As for distracting attention, I believe that you are the one who brought up Saddam and foreign intelligence services on a thread about reporters using anonymous sources. Perhaps you don’t want to talk about reporting and anonymous sourcing?
As for distracting attention, I believe that you are the one who brought up Saddam and foreign intelligence services on a thread about reporters using anonymous sources. Perhaps you don’t want to talk about reporting and anonymous sourcing?
Nope, you would be wrong. I do want to talk about that. And you would be wrong again when you say I brought up foreign intelligence services. I just scrolled up, I don’t see where I said a single word about foreign intelligence services. Correct me if I’m wrong, I have been wrong before and I have poor eyesight (really, I’m not being snarky, at least not yet).
I state that some claims by the US government were based on single anonymous sources. You counter with, “Ah, but here is a claim by the US government that wasn’t based on a single anonymous source”!
That is just incoherent. I do not understand what point you are trying to make, because, I believe, you are making no logical point.
To be fair:
Felixrayman was the first to bring up Iraq: “Glad you agree some of the justifications for going to war with Iraq were ridiculous” (that is, given the context, the justifications that were based on a “single anonymous source”).
Sebastian Holsclaw was the first to bring up nuclear weapons: “What was anonymous about thinking Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons?” (which is disingenuous, since the “evidence” for showing a nuclear weapons program in Iraq prior to the 2003 US invasion was, in fact, based on those “single anonymous sources” who were providing evidence based on forged documents or false statements).
We can turn this thread into a fight over Iraq: if we do, it will be felixrayman who originally introduced the topic, though Sebastian who turned it to a discussion of the lies used to concoct “evidence” of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program justifying invasion.
Jes- I’d ask you to marry me, but IIRC you are already spoken for.
“That is just incoherent. I do not understand what point you are trying to make, because, I believe, you are making no logical point.”
The point I am making is that:
A) Saddam had fooled the international community by hiding a nuclear program once before already as revealed at the end of the First Gulf War–a fact which you seem to be unaware of.
B) Because of A) the international community decided to make Saddam prove that his WMD programs–nuclear, biological and chemical–were destroyed.
C) Throughout the decade-long history of trying to enforce B) the international inspectors were constantly thwarted by games denying access to many sites and many people to the point that by 1998 the inspectors were basically stuck in their hotel rooms with Iraqi secret service handlers swarming around them.
D) Inspectors were prevented from working despite the fact that doing so triggered and maintained crippling sanctions against Iraq–strongly suggesting that it was more important for Saddam to hide something rather than have a well-functioning economy.
E) The inspectors had been prevented from returning since 1998–a five year span offering plenty of time to restart programs.
All of this is evidence which is as strong as you are likely to get on diplomatic issues unless you have some rather unrealistic ideas about intelligence gathering in an authoritarian state. None of the above is ‘single source’ anything.
Reporting third hand stories about predicting what is going to be in a government report without talking to any witnesses to the alleged event in question and without reading a copy of the report or at least talking to someone who wrote the report–and doing so with an anonymous source, is not the same at all.
Herman wasn’t asking a question to McClellan, he was playing a game of gotcha. He should know as well as anyone that the rules for “background sources” from the administration are different from other anonymous sources, in particular because everyone knows who those background sources are. Background sources are still speaking for the administration and administration policy, and they’re doing so in an official capacity.
Sources such as Isikoff’s are truly unknown except to Isikoff. Newsweek may find the source credible but we really don’t know who the person is, where he or she is coming from, what that person’s agenda is, whether that person has an axe grind, etc. That’s the problem with relying so much on the nameless.
What’s been bothering me the last few days is not so much that the press is adversarial, but hostile. Adversarial is fine, since that’s a role the press should play to hold powerful people accountable. Hostile is something else. The exchange involving McClellan, Moran and Bumiller was hostile. They crossed a line from being accountabilitizers (yeah, I know there’s a better word out there) to flat out adversaries. That’s a problem. Hostile doesn’t do anyone any good. It pisses off the subject and it reveals an agenda by the press. The agenda that Herman showed was “get the president”. What a pathetic story, and what a disengenuous post by Mr. Screw ‘Em.
I disagree Charles (and btw, it wasn’t Kos, but a diarist, so your last attack is misdirected). What changes the following, just because the source is “official”?
we really don’t know who the person is, where he or she is coming from, what that person’s agenda is, whether that person has an axe grind, etc.
True, except CB just tried to make hay (as did the Bush administration talking points, which are strangely similar) by claiming that Newsweek’s practice of relying on only one anonymous administration source was bad journalism.
False, and simplistically so. The first problem was that source reportedly had seen reports but did not the actual materials in hand. The second problem was that so-called confirmations were really non-confirmations. As Jay Rosen wrote, “didn’t disconfirm” does not equal confirm. Stop distorting me, dm.
what a disengenuous post by Mr. Screw ‘Em.
The post wasn’t by Markos, Chas. Remember, hostile doesn’t do anyone any good, especially when the person in question didn’t even say it.
The government (like all governments) wants to control the media. The Newsweek smackdown is just an example of a rather blatant move on their part to do so.
Another example of trying to control the media is here. (Hope you can see the link).
Mr. Bird-
When Mr. McClellan starts answering all the questions he is asked and answers accurately, or explains why he cannot answer, then I will become concerned about how unfairly the press treats him. Until then, I have no sympathy for him. As long as his job title appears to be “White House BSer” he deserves no respect at all.
Charles: What’s been bothering me the last few days is not so much that the press is adversarial, but hostile.
*blinks* You know, the visible problem with the US press is not that it’s hostile, nor that it’s adversarial, but that it’s way, way too nice to the Bush administration.
The smacking down of Newsweek was hostile: when the only problem with Newsweek‘s story was that a single anonymous source said there had been an official enquiry into charges of Koran desecration – and the source then backtracked and said there hadn’t been – it seems that Newsweek was set up to take the fall for results of the widely-reported stories from several sources who were not anonymous and who are testifying to events in their direct experience.
Let’s run through the order of events.
1. The Bush administration sets up an illegal prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, where they can hold prisoners kidnapped from Afghanistan and elsewhere, outside the reach of US law, Cuban law, and (they claim) international law.
2. Many of the prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay are tortured by interrogators, and many are abused by their guards.
3. Eventually, due to serious international pressure from US allies, some at least of the kidnap victims have to be released, including nine British citizens. Once home and safe, the victims testify publicly about their experiences in Guantanamo Bay. These stories are widely reported, including such details as a female interrogator pretending to smear her own menstrual blood on a victim, and other interrogators desecrating the Korans that the prisoners were issued with.
4. Newsweek reports (via anonymous source at the Pentagon) that an official inquiry has taken place into the desecration of the Korans.
5. The anonymous source at the Pentagon retracts the story about the official enquiry.
6. The Bush administration starts claiming that Newsweek‘s story is false, focussing loudly on the detail that may not be true (that an official enquiry has taken place) while ignoring points 1, 2, and 3: and anti-American riots in Afghanistan are blamed on Newsweek‘s story.
Now, I presume that the people who work in the US media are as aware of the order of events as anyone, and they don’t like seeing the Bush administration smack down Newsweek as if Newsweek‘s reporting a story were the sole cause of anti-Americanism in Afghanistan – as if a media source were to blame for anti-Americanism by publicly reporting on the actions of the Bush administration.
If they’re hostile, it wouldn’t surprise me. That the only thing they feel able to do is this kind of mild smackdown of McClellan is disappointing, but the smackdown is funny. Laugh, and be grateful that the Bush administration still has a largely supine Press to support it even when they kick it around.
“It pisses off the subject and it reveals an agenda by the press.”
And in America, we mustn’t anger our officials. Because an Administration never has an agenda.
I know you didn’t write on politics prior to 2001, Charles, but I’m sure you objected equally to press that was “hostile” to President Clinton. You opposed the American Spectator, and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and the Washington Times, and the Weekly Spectator, and the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News “having agendas,” right? Just like you opposed The NY Times and Washington Post asking hostile questions of the Clinton White House and their “having an agenda” about Whitewater, the travel office, the FBI files, etc., etc.
LJ, Charles doesn’t have time to bicker and argue about who wrote what when he has a chance to whip out the “Screw ‘Em” meme again! TIme is money!
“He should know as well as anyone that the rules for “background sources” from the administration are different from other anonymous sources, in particular because everyone knows who those background sources are. Background sources are still speaking for the administration and administration policy, and they’re doing so in an official capacity.”
Like the senior administration officials that spoke to Mr. Novak about Ms. Plame?
Were I King of the World — or of All Media — I would refuse to print remarks of a cabinet secretary, assistant, anyone at the White House, etc. that are offered in support or explanation of Admin policy that are not on the record. Otherwise, you have the situation where a Colin Powell, say, or a Mike Green, is giving out explanations of policy (or more likely, hints, winks, and nods that assuage doubts in certain quarters about policies) that the government can deny, should it be in the President’s interest to do so.
It’s of course ridiculous for the biggest abuser of the single source rule to complain that the occasional whistleblower also violates it.
“Otherwise, you have the situation where a Colin Powell, say, or a Mike Green, is giving out explanations of policy (or more likely, hints, winks, and nods that assuage doubts in certain quarters about policies) that the government can deny, should it be in the President’s interest to do so.”
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Seriously, this is an awful notion. Think it through. Nothing can be printed that’s not on the record? A relatively minor, though actually major, point is that it makes all the difference in the world in diplomatic relations if someone officially speaks for the U.S. government when they say something, and if they don’t. So you’re saying that newspapers should lose much of their coverage of what our government thinks of foreign affairs.
More generally, it means no leaks. Period, by definition. So, no Pentagon Papers, no revealing of scandals save through official sources, no Sy Hersh, no printing of Abu Ghraib pictures save through the Pentagon, no hearing what people at EPA or any government agency think of the maneuvers of their political bosses… need I go on?
No use of anonymous sources without explaining why they’re being used in this specific case: that’s a reasonable standard. No use of anonymous sources, period: that would leave us horrifically uninformed, and please all Administrations endlessly; nothing likely could give them more control over the news.
Gary, in my capacity as King, I draw a distinction between what I’ll call sanctioned leaks and unsanctioned leaks. Ellsberg leaking documents, against the wishes of his superiors, I would have in a completely different category from Libby or Rove or whoever it was leaking Ms. Plame’s name to Novak to advance the wishes of his superiors. My ban would extend only to this latter category.
I think much more anonymity of the WaPo and NYT is of the latter category than the former. And I think it is a bad thing if an Admin can lull a mostly lazy press corps into silence and/or complaisance with continual deniable assuagements.
I’ll never be King of the World, so the fine points of my Decree on Unnamed Sources need not be worked out.
All of this is evidence which is as strong as you are likely to get on diplomatic issues unless you have some rather unrealistic ideas about intelligence gathering in an authoritarian state. None of the above is ‘single source’ anything.
Some of the individual intelligence items were indeed from anonymous single sources. As an important difference, the public was not aware that those specific items were from single anonymous sources.
If you look at all of the information about the treatment of prisoners, the Koran allegation is not from a single source. If you just look at the Newsweek report, it is. If you look at all of the intelligence about Iraq, you can say that in general, it was not from a single anonymous source. But if you look at specific items that were mentioned to the public, some of those items were.
You are trying to have it both ways – again, being inconsistent.
Can we have an open thread?
I’m wondering what ya’ll thoughts are on this NY times story.
Done. Prompt service, if also rather shoddy.
Edward,
I wrote this much earlier but it looks like it got munched. If you’re going to link to a Kos diarist, then you should have written so.
What changes the following, just because the source is “official”?
No, because the press corps knows who the source is. Remember when Richard Clarke testified about giving press briefings on deep background? It wasn’t like there was just one reporter in the room. He wasn’t some nameless unknown. Isikoff’s source was exactly that.
You and the Kos diarist are also emphasizing the wrong thing. In the case of Newsweek, the real issue wasn’t the fact that there was a single anonymous source, it was poor quality of the information and poor confirmation of such.
I know you didn’t write on politics prior to 2001, Charles, but I’m sure you objected equally to press that was “hostile” to President Clinton. You opposed the American Spectator, and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and the Washington Times, and the Weekly Spectator, and the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News “having agendas,” right?
As long as you’re not conflating reporting and opining, Gary. If opinion writers are hostile, that’s one thing, because they’re upfront about it and they’re not in business of reporting the news but analyzing it. If reporters are behaving with hostility while wearing their “objective journalist” hats, that’s another story. The harsh “reporting” by the PTR, AS and WT during the Clinton era did not ultimately do credit to them, and they are not towering pillars of credibility today.
Jes,
I can’t get beyond your premise #1, that holding detainees at Guantanamo is illegal or that Afghan detainees were “kidnapped”, so there’s really no point going beyond your interpretation of events.
“But if you look at specific items that were mentioned to the public, some of those items were.”
Ok, and in your opinion how does that impact the reporting of Koran flushing? Or how does that impact the way you see it?
Are you saying that Bush intelligence sources should have been identified?
Are you saying that the newspaper sources should now be identified?
What exactly is the parallel you would like to draw.
As I’ve said before, I am not interested in saying that Newsweek shouldn’t have gotten better confirmation before running with the story. But as I’ve also said, this sort of stuff has been reported before. That said, have you all seen this story?
Charles: I can’t get beyond your premise #1, that holding detainees at Guantanamo is illegal or that Afghan detainees were “kidnapped”, so there’s really no point going beyond your interpretation of events.
Well, I’m getting rather bored with having to point out that Article 5 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, to which the US is a signatory, specifies “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”
In short, all of the detainees had to be treated as if they had the status of prisoners of war until the US had determined each detainee’s status by a competent tribunal. Failure to do this made their detention illegal.
“Kidnapping” seems the only appropriate word to describe taking someone by force, illegally, and keeping them in detention, illegally. If you have a better word for it, do tell.
Nevertheless, whether or not you accept that the US was acting illegally in detaining prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, the question of how they were treated is a separate issue. Dismissing point 1 does not dispose of points 2 and 3.
or that Afghan detainees were “kidnapped”
You must be aware that far more nationalities than Afghan were taken to Guantanamo Bay, and that many of them were not taken from a war zone.
As for example, Mustafa Ait-Idir and Saber Lahmar, two of the men kidnapped from Bosnia in January 2002 and taken to Guantanamo Bay, despite having been found innocent of the crime of which they were accused by the Bosnian supreme court. cite
Or Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil el-Banna, kidnapped from the Gambia (which they were visiting on a business trip from the UK) in November 2002, apparently for the crime of flying while Muslim. cite
However, even if you wish to assert the legality of taking people without any evidence that they have ever even committed a belligerant act, and holding them prisoner for years – that is still a different issue from asserting that the US has a right to torture or abuse them.
“Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”
The key phrase is “should any doubt”. No doubt, no tribunal. However, for fairness reasons, I do believe the U.S. should have conducted timely tribunals for all detainees.
If you’re going to link to a Kos diarist, then you should have written so.
Charles,
Based on your description of the post as “disengenuous” one would have assumed that you actually clicked through and read the whole thing, where, if you had, it would have been impossible to not see who the author was. But perhaps you’re comfortable tossing out disparaging condemnations like that without actually reading an entire post…different standards, I guess. ;-pppp
Besides, “Via….” hat tip links often identify only the blog, not the individual authors, so I reject your attempt to deflect responsibility here.
You and the Kos diarist are also emphasizing the wrong thing. In the case of Newsweek, the real issue wasn’t the fact that there was a single anonymous source ….
Puh-leaze. McClellan was crystal clear what the real issue here was for the White House (and more than a little bitchy about it):
As Kos quoted (yes, THE Kos this time, so you can use your Mr. Screw ‘Em macro this time, but he’s actually just quoting someone else, so you might want to hold off ;-p), Think Progress shows us what the real, real issue SHOULD BE:
As one of the commenters on Think Progress noted, Newsweek actually found it appropriate to issue an apology for the results of their actions. The nation, our allies, indeed the world, still waits in vain for the Bush Administration to do the same.
The key phrase is “should any doubt”. No doubt, no tribunal.
Given that many of these people were subsequently released — for which I have to surmise is because they aren’t actually terrorists or Al Qaeda members — perhaps their custodians should have expressed a little more doubt, huh?
Well, Phil, they were certain they were guilty until they decided that they were innocent. Doubt never entered in the picture, and no doubt, no tribunal. Really quite simple.
Charles: The key phrase is “should any doubt”. No doubt, no tribunal.
That is indeed the way the Bush administration interpreted it: but a clear reading of the Geneva Convention proves them wrong. The Bush administration clearly doubted that their prisoners could be included in the categories specified under Article 4. That doubt might or might not have been proven correct by competent tribunals required by Article 5: but the Bush administration simply decided to ignore the law and effectively declare all their prisoners guilty without trial.
Since some at least of their prisoners later proved to be innocent victims, I think pragmatically, as well as legally, their decision to ignore the law and go for what they wanted has long since been proven to be incorrect on all levels.
Charles: However, for fairness reasons, I do believe the U.S. should have conducted timely tribunals for all detainees.
In other parts of the world “for fairness reasons” is known as “justice” or “the law”, but still. Okay.
Whether or not you think the Bush administration was legally in the right when it arbitrarily detained hundreds of people with no due process, it is still a separate issue whether it then had a right to have those people tortured and abused.
“I wrote this much earlier but it looks like it got munched. If you’re going to link to a Kos diarist, then you should have written so.”
You’re scolding people because you can’t be bothered to check a link, and you made a false assumption? Mm. That’s one way to go. Possibly not the best, though. I may have missed this rule (“you should”) in the blogging handbook, though.
As Jay Rosen wrote, “didn’t disconfirm” does not equal confirm.
Someone — might’ve been Jay Rosen, might’ve been someone else — noted that this looked like a new gambit by the Administration, where Administration sources would no longer confirm reports, only “not disconfirm” them, in order to maintain plausible deniability. We’ll have to see how this plays out.
[Also, didn’t Newsweek run the story by two Pentagon sources, neither of whom “disconfirmed” it?]
Go Press Corps Go!
Ken Herman of Cox News nails Scott McClellan and the White House.With all due respect, though, it sounds like you’re saying your single anonymous sources are okay and everyone else’s aren’t….
Puh-leaze. McClellan was crystal clear what the real issue here was for the White House
Edward, by bolding part of McClellan’s statement, you showed exactly your wrong focus. Instead of this…
…it should have been this…
Charles, it seems to me that you are focussing on exactly the wrong issue. It’s really not important to the world at large whether or not the Pentagon did or didn’t conduct an official inquiry into the widely-reported incidents of US soldiers desecrating the Koran at Guantanamo Bay – reports from multiple named sources, incidentally, no “single anonymous source” BS.
(No, I take it back. It is important, in that if the Pentagon didn’t conduct an official inquiry, plainly the Pentagon is not actively pursuing US soldiers who abuse helpless prisoners – not unless there’s photographs in the public domain to push them along. But this doesn’t seem to be in your focus of interest either.)
But in terms of what this does to America’s reputation, Newsweek‘s story may have been the first time you heard that US soldiers were desecrating the Koran in Guantanamo Bay, but to others who follow international news, it’s been widely available information since the first victims were released from Guantanamo Bay, able to report on their treatment there. News to you: not news to the Islamic world.
Focussing on the bureaucratic detail of did the person who leaked to Newsweek really have access to the report he said he did at first, or didn’t… that’s really not an important part of the story.
“News to you: not news to the Islamic world.”
Isn’t this a bit of a contradiction? If it wasn’t news, why the riots last week, and not at all the earlier news releases?
(In other words, the proximate “cause” seemed to as much to be that Pakistani soccer hero making his speeches, and the resulting publicity, as it was Newsweek.)
Gary: Isn’t this a bit of a contradiction? If it wasn’t news, why the riots last week, and not at all the earlier news releases?
I thought it had been established that, contrary to the WH’s claims, the riots in Afghanistan had no connection to the Newsweek story?
Jes, what seems in the Newsweek story to be news is that the US government is said to be preparing to admit to that which it had previously not admitted outright. I don’t think the admission — as opposed to the practice — is the cause of any riots, and so I don’t think Newsweek is actually responsible for any of the harm. I especially think this is the case, because I think the original item correctly quotes the source — any publication can get burned, and stories about secret government activity are notoriously difficult to confirm.
The government claims that the Newsweek story is “demonstrably false:” Maybe so, but I don’t think the falsity of the alleged practice is demonstrated without declassification of all the interrogation records of each of the prisoners who have claimed to be witnesses to such activities. Obviously, the impending nature of the supposed admission IS demonstrably false: the government will stick to its story now, and will continue to find ways to deny it as long as ways can be found. (Ie, placing a Koran in a bucket of piss is not “flushing.”).
“I thought it had been established that, contrary to the WH’s claims, the riots in Afghanistan had no connection to the Newsweek story?”
You have different standards for what’s “established” and what isn’t than I do.
How would it be even logically possible to establish “no connection”? What’s your proof of the negative?
Notice that “no proof of the establishment of a connection” is not at all the same as “proof of the establishment of no connection.” But you claim the latter, not the former. So, go ahead, cite your proof for this “establishment,” please.
Then there’s still my question, which you didn’t answer. “If it wasn’t news, why the riots last week, and not at all the earlier news releases?” Do people generally riot because something isn’t news to them?
“I thought it had been established that, contrary to the WH’s claims, the riots in Afghanistan had no connection to the Newsweek story?”
You have different standards for what’s “established” and what isn’t than I do.
How would it be even logically possible to establish “no connection”? What’s your proof of the negative?
Notice that “no proof of the establishment of a connection” is not at all the same as “proof of the establishment of no connection.” But you claim the latter, not the former. So, go ahead, cite your proof for this “establishment,” please.
Then there’s still my question, which you didn’t answer. “If it wasn’t news, why the riots last week, and not at all the earlier news releases?” Do people generally riot because something isn’t news to them?
Gary, I don’t think they were rioting “because of” the article, but rather the Newsweek article was a convenient bit of evidence for a contention they were protesting anyway. As to when and whether protests become riots, I think this is like Tolstoy’s discussion in W&P about when and how a loss becomes a rout.
Then there’s still my question, which you didn’t answer. “If it wasn’t news, why the riots last week, and not at all the earlier news releases?” Do people generally riot because something isn’t news to them?
You’re assuming a causal connection there, Gary. Jes’ point was that there was no such causal connection (or, if you want to be hypertechnical about it, that no causal connection has been established).
Insofar as I can tell, having read a number of these reports, there were two distinct sets of riots that happened at roughly the same time, one in Afghanistan proper and the other in Pakistan and along the Afghani-Pakistan border. The latter riots, which were large-scale and are generally the ones being reported on, were probably triggered by both the Quran abuse story and the Washington Times cartoon portraying Pakistan as an obedient doggie (from cites of those who claim to have been the masterminds behind the riots); the former, much smaller-scale, appear to have been unrelated, or at most loosely related, and seem to have been triggered by the arrest of a prominent jihadist in Kabul (?) last week. YMMV.
I’m not sure who your quote marks are quoting, but I’m wondering why you’re addressing me, and quoting someone else, someone who wrote something about “because of” something. Who are you quoting, and why tell me? (Ditto I said nothing whatever about “when and whether protests become riots.”)
“You’re assuming a causal connection there, Gary.”
By asking the questions? I don’t think so.
I asked: “If it wasn’t news, why the riots last week, and not at all the earlier news releases? Do people generally riot because something isn’t news to them?”
If you can tell me what casual connection these questions assumed, I’d better understand what you’re suggesting. They’re questions about someone else’s casual connections in their assertions, and I’ve made no assertions whatever, myself. I’m pretty sure I’ve not said one darn thing about what “caused” the riots, but if I’m wrong, please let me know what I’ve said. Thanks. Perhaps I’m forgetting; I’m feeling rather dizzy and unwell this morning (and last night, too, which is why I’ve not gotten to a response to Sebastian about his 6 judges), presumably a medication effect. But I’m still pretty sure I’ve not made any assertions at all about the riots.
Gary: “If it wasn’t news, why the riots last week, and not at all the earlier news releases?” Do people generally riot because something isn’t news to them?
I’ve never been directly involved in a riot, Gary, but I have been involved in several public demonstrations which could, had the police force been of the standard that it evidently was in Afghanistan and Pakistan, have turned into riots.
Public demonstrations are not usually sparked by the very first report of something appalling, no matter how appalling it is. Even if there is a causal relationship between the Newsweek article and the riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan (a relationship which I believe to have been at least strongly disputed by local US representatives) that would certainly not argue for the Newsweek article being the first news about the desecration of the Koran at Guantanamo Bay to reach Afghanistan or Pakistan.
But in any case – as I believe I’ve provided cites on another thread discussing this story – it is practically impossible for this Newsweek story to be indeed the first story about desecrated Korans to find its way to outraged Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan: witnesses have reported publicly about US desecrating the Koran on separate occasions since December 2003. That’s just a matter of fact. It’s not that this was a secret until Newsweek broke the story.
Sorry, that should be US soldiers desecrating the Koran.
Gary
Turn down the Auto-Banter settings on your Auto-Blogger. I think they are set on 100% ;^)
The latest Harper’s has a first person account by a former Gitmo prisoner. A Palestinian, he was kidnapped, imprisoned, tortured, and released with papers that say he was not found to be a threat to the US. The torture he was subjected to included rape with a wooden stick. He also saw the Koran being desecrated, although not by flushing down a toilet. In the last paragraph of his account he speaks to the US and says that this country should stand for everyone’s freedom, not just our’s.
When he was released, a soldier read a prepared statement to him that included no apology, just the rationalization that mistakes happen in a war. I wonder how the soldier felt reading that statement? The way I feel is that the Bush administration has betrayed our ideals and left us with no moral high ground upon which to stand. We can’t claim to be promoting democracy while rationalizing the abuse of anyone and especially not of people who are innocent. The (latest) justifiction of the invasion is that we are showing Middle Easterners the way to democratic civil society and showing our committment to bringing democracy to them. But, as the abused Palestinian pointed out, freedom isn’t just for us.
The latest Harper’s has a first person account by a former Gitmo prisoner. A Palestinian, he was kidnapped, imprisoned, tortured, and released with papers that say he was not found to be a threat to the US. The torture he was subjected to included rape with a wooden stick. He also saw the Koran being desecrated, although not by flushing down a toilet. In the last paragraph of his account he speaks to the US and says that this country should stand for everyone’s freedom, not just our’s.
When he was released, a soldier read a prepared statement to him that included no apology, just the rationalization that mistakes happen in a war. I wonder how the soldier felt reading that statement? The way I feel is that the Bush administration has betrayed our ideals and left us with no moral high ground upon which to stand. We can’t claim to be promoting democracy while rationalizing the abuse of anyone and especially not of people who are innocent. The (latest) justifiction of the invasion is that we are showing Middle Easterners the way to democratic civil society and showing our committment to bringing democracy to them. But, as the abused Palestinian pointed out, freedom isn’t just for us.
Oops.
By asking the questions? I don’t think so.
Sorry, I don’t buy that at all. The act of asking a question is not an a priori innocent act, free from all vestige or trace of personal opinion. One is perfectly capable of smuggling in implicit hypotheses in the act of asking a question, as I’m sure you’re well aware. That might not have been your intent, I’ll certainly grant you that, but it’s what you’re doing here.
If you can tell me what casual connection these questions assumed, I’d better understand what you’re suggesting… I’m pretty sure I’ve not said one darn thing about what “caused” the riots, but if I’m wrong, please let me know what I’ve said.
Oh good grief. The entire structure of those two questions hinges on the implicit assumption that there’s a causal connection between the release of the Newsweek report and the riots, provided I’ve read your anaphor correctly and the “it” and “something” both refer to stories of Quran abuse (as per Jes’ 11:36am post). Take away that assumption and they parse to semantic gibberish, or maybe just the mother of all non sequiturs.*
I admire your attempts at Solomonic neutrality — well, I admire them aesthetically, at least — but they’ve failed here. You’ve taken a stance, whether you will it or no; being tetchy with me isn’t going to change matters one whit.
And I hope you feel better soon.
* There is, of course, another alternative, which is that you’ve carefully constructed and demolished a strawman of your own devising, but I consider you too honest a debater to employ that tactic.
Jes writes: “But in any case – as I believe I’ve provided cites on another thread discussing this story – it is practically impossible for this Newsweek story to be indeed the first story about desecrated Korans to find its way to outraged Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan: witnesses have reported publicly about US desecrating the Koran on separate occasions since December 2003.”
Good thing I’ve never said a single word otherwise, innit? Or said a word about what was or wasn’t a “first report” on the topic?
I take it the short version of your answer, Jes, to my question “If it wasn’t news, why the riots last week, and not at all the earlier news releases?” is that they rioted because it wasn’t news. Let me know if that’s incorrect, please.
Cute about Autoblogger, LJ. Is Sullivan actually a millionarie?
Two things, Gary. First, I apologize for my tetchiness in my previous post. I’m a bit under the weather myself and, although it’s nothing as compared to your travails, it’s nevertheless making me more short-tempered than it should.
Second:
I take it the short version of your answer, Jes, to my question “If it wasn’t news, why the riots last week, and not at all the earlier news releases?” is that they rioted because it wasn’t news.
OK, look: I don’t know if it’s intentional or not, but that’s a big ol’ neon sign screaming “Causal Link!” right there, of exactly the kind I was talking about earlier.
Gary: Good thing I’ve never said a single word otherwise, innit? Or said a word about what was or wasn’t a “first report” on the topic?
Well, your question “If it wasn’t news, why the riots last week, and not at all the earlier news releases?” Do people generally riot because something isn’t news to them?” to me certainly strongly implied that you assumed that the Newsweek story was indeed “new news” and that was why the riots last week. Hence my answer.
“The entire structure of those two questions hinges on the implicit assumption that there’s a causal connection between the release of the Newsweek report and the riots….”
It asks if a postulate (or two, perhaps) is true, sure. But since the possible answers are open-ended, and include “no” to the second question — which is what Jes essentially answered with — it’s not the equivalent of an assertion.
“…but I consider you too honest a debater to employ that tactic.”
Thank you kindly. Look, I’m not particularly interested in any of the questions or arguments about the Newsweek article, which is why I’ve, as is often not the case, said anything much about them one way or another. I think the “cause” of riots tend to require non-short analyses of multiple contributing factors, and I’ve no interest whatever in trying to parse out and try to assign relative weights to them here, as that strikes me as, for me, an exercise both dreary and inevitably more arbitrary and subjective than not in any case.
That certainly doesn’t mean I can’t wonder what other people are thinking when they do make firm assertions about what are or are not “causes.” I’m in no position to weigh the relative “causes,” myself (although I’m not hesitant to say that a major one would involve the choices of those involved in the riots), but clearly Jes feels she is (as do many others, with an array of varying premises).
Questioning her firm assertions requires no counter-assertion whatever. Asking if a premise, or any number of premises, is/are right or wrong, doesn’t require asserting that any, or any given one, is in fact correct.
And since I don’t actually believe that any given one is solely correct, I don’t see how it can possibly be correct to either claim that I hold any such belief, or respond as if I’d said I hold any such belief. Maybe I’m just muddily missing something there.
Apologies for being tetchy, to which I plead guilty, m’lud. I often do when people start arguing with me over things I’ve never said or thought. I do find that aggravating, since it’s just another form of faulty mind-reading.
And now I feel dumb for addressing this at such length. Enough about me; what do you think of me? (Don’t answer, thanks.)
“Look, I’m not particularly interested in any of the questions or arguments about the Newsweek article, which is why I’ve, as is often not the case, said anything much about them one way or another. ”
Damn, that was muddled. My apologies. It should read “Look, I’m not particularly interested in any of the questions or arguments about the Newsweek article, which is why I’ve, as is often the case, not said anything much about them one way or another.”
“Why now?”
A possible explanation is Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s recent announcement of a a long-term strategic partnership — including the possibility of a long-term U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.
This is not much to the liking of Pakistan, which has interfered in Afghanistan’s affairs for many years (not least in supporting the Taliban before 9/11).
Many of the students in Afghanistan are from Pakistan. One may ask, “why go from Pakistan to Afghanistan to study?” The facilities in Afghanistan are, to put it mildly, inferior to those in Pakistan.
To be sure, the Newsweek article was seized on as a means to excite protest, but it was neither the first nor a particularly noteworthy suggestion of some kind of religious desecration.
Gary, sorry I have disregarded your “don’t answer” request. This topic interests me, as does what you write.
Gary: I often do when people start arguing with me over things I’ve never said or thought. I do find that aggravating, since it’s just another form of faulty mind-reading.
Actually, understanding what people mean by reading what they write is not a form of mind-reading.
If you find that your writing frequently conveys to people opinions you think you have never said, and know you’ve never thought, which appears to be the substance of your complaint here, the problem is your writing skills, which perhaps need to be considerably revised.
Asking loaded questions is a perfectly valid skill in debate (sometimes an irritating one, but who am I to complain about irritating debaters?) Asking loaded questions, and then protesting that you never said or meant the load conveyed by the questions, is either a sign of desperate incompetence (since one must assume that you cannot even perceive that it is a loaded question when it is pointed out to you) or, well, just plain dishonesty.
I assume you wish to claim incompetence.
A possible explanation is Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s recent announcement of a a long-term strategic partnership — including the possibility of a long-term U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.
Which is something of an oddity given news reports of an internal US memo claiming Hamid Karzai “has been unwilling to assert strong leadership” in the fight against the opium trade.
Jes writes: “Actually, understanding what people mean by reading what they write is not a form of mind-reading.”
Quite so. Misunderstanding what people mean by misreading what they write, and assuming one nonetheless knows what they meant, however, is. Mind, it’s only the second part that makes it so, not the first alone.
“…the problem is your writing skills, which perhaps need to be considerably revised. […] is either a sign of desperate incompetence (since one must assume that you cannot even perceive that it is a loaded question when it is pointed out to you) or, well, just plain dishonesty.”
Thank you for your input. I merely shall point out that yet other hypotheses are available, as are other readings of what I wrote.
“I assume you wish to claim incompetence.”
Perhaps. Thanks again for your kind, and accurate-as-ever, assumption.
Gary, I did not intend to imply that ‘because of’ was an actual utterance of yours. Quote marks were for emphasis, not quotation.* In any event, I thought that causality was absolutely implicit in the question, and having re-read it still think my interpretation was a reasonable read. Sorry to have gotten it wrong. Hope you’re feeling better.
* It’s long past time for me to learn how to write in this format — bold, italics, links — I’ll try to learn the coding, although as to word choice, I’m afraid you people will see no improvement.
I’ll again link to this.
Italics are with an “i” tag, bold with “b.” Not complicated.
Thanks, I really needed that. I’m still not clear on all the linky things — there are so many choices — but I’ll fool around with it some.
Further experimenting, here’s an article on the GBBA . As some of you know from my solicitations, I’m in on this. They need more lawyers, and anyone interested ought to drop me a line.
Gary: I merely shall point out that yet other hypotheses are available, as are other readings of what I wrote.
As a professional writer, Gary, I learned a long time ago that when one person misreads what I wrote, it may be their fault: when three people misread what I wrote, and misread it the same way, it’s my fault, and I need to rewrite to clarify. (Further, I learned that when even one person misreads what I wrote, I need at least to reconsider whether what I wrote was as clear as I would want it to be.)
It was not an easy lesson to learn, but I consider it to be the key step. A writer who blames readers for not understanding what she or he wrote is never going to be as good a writer as they are capable of being.
It is exasperating when bad writers blame readers for “not understanding”, but bad writers are exasperating in so many ways. It is rather more than exasperating when good writers refuse to admit they miswrote, and instead insist that the reader must be wrong in misunderstanding – because this refusal means the writer will never be capable of being as good a communicator as a good writer should want to be.
But discussing this point further gets into major meta territory. You either know or you don’t know that you asked a loaded question: you’re not willing to admit to it, either way.
“As a professional writer, Gary, I learned….”
Thank you again for yet another tip. I, myself, have absolutely no experience whatsoever with professional writing, professional writers, or professional editing, so I couldn’t possibly be aware of these fresh and exciting new insights.
I do hope you will grant granny another egg soon.
Cute about Autoblogger, LJ. Is Sullivan actually a millionarie?
I’m sure that if he’s not, he believes he soon will be, thanks to the power of blogdom.
I’m also assuming that ‘cute’ is not a favored description for you. (Come to the land of Wa to find out what it is like to be surrounded by cute) I just wanted to make the point, in a playful way, that Anarch and Jes are making. My apologies if it came off as insulting you as that was not my intention. O daijini.
“My apologies if it came off as insulting you as that was not my intention.”
No, I simply meant “cute.” I recognize that I’ve been switching back and forth between modes from, say, my last two comments and this one, as well as with a few others. I do so to varying degrees depending upon what sort of comment I’m addressing, and understand that this can be unclear, and my apologies for that. I felt no insult at all from you, LJ. Nor from Anarch.
Gary: so I couldn’t possibly be aware of these fresh and exciting new insights.
Well, while you’re in this cooperative, accepting mood, Gary, I’ll add yet another word of advice: When you make a mistake, it’s always better just to quickly acknowledge “I screwed up” than to endlessly explain why it wasn’t really a screw-up.
Oy. All right, let’s break this down as quickly and simply as possible:
Gary: Four people (Jes, myself, LJ and CharleyCarp) have now said that they read your remarks as containing an implicit presumption of causality. Based on that sampling alone, it should be clear that even if you intended no such presumption — as I think we’re all willing to believe — you nevertheless wrote unclearly and gave the impression of a loaded question. For my part, I’d just ask that you be more careful about such questions in future; and in return, I’ll try to be less tetchy and not so quick on the trigger.
Jes: We get it. We really do. You feel (understandably, IMO) annoyed at Gary for the loaded question. You’ve made your feelings known far and wide. Now could you please drop it? You’re not winning any converts here and whatever point of moral principle you think you’re upholding… you’re not. You’re really, really not. Just smile, nod, and accept that the point has been made as well as it’s going to get made.
Now can we please just do the blog equivalent of kissing, making up, and getting on with our lives?
What exactly is the parallel you would like to draw.
Hold on there, Trigger, you were the one that said, “The whole anonymous sourcing thing is ridiculous”.
Now, it seems (I could be wrong), you only think anonymous sourcing is ridiculous depending on whether the political ideology of the person doing the anonymous sourcing matches your own. Sometimes its ok…when the anonymous source provides evidence for something you want to believe. You don’t mind that, and have in fact made excuses for it above. Sometimes its not ok, when the anonymous source provides evidence for something you do not wish to believe. And you have argued against that information being disseminated.
I may be misreading the totality of your comments, so just come out and tell me, is anonymous sourcing ok, is it not ok, or is it ok when it supports your case and not when it doesn’t?
And more importantly, do you see the difference between a piece of information based on a single anonymous source that was described as being based on a single anonymous source, and a piece of information based on a single anonymous source that wasn’t described that way?
Cause that’s an important difference I think you’re missing.