Entirely Redundant, I am.

Daniel Drezner states, far better than I did, the odd sense that many of us are ____ on Flushgate (choose one, and only one, cliche' to fill in the MadLib):  failing to see the forest for the trees; confusing the horse for the hay*; seeing the stars but not the sky**; and generally missing the boat.  Drezner writes:

Let me put this more bluntly: assume that the Newsweek goof was of the maximal variety -- i.e., despite Gitmo prisoner claims, it turns out that no Qu'ran was ever flushed down any toilet. Should it nevertheless be considered a major foreign policy problem that this report triggered significant protests in Afghanistan, a populace with good reasons to support the United States? In today's New York Times, David Brooks is right to point out the blogosphere's misplaced foci, and suggests that "radical clerics in Afghanistan" used the story to trigger outrage. What bothers me is that it was too damn easy for the clerics to whip up anti-American sentiment.

I leave it to my readers: am I overly concerned about this?

It would behoove us all -- particularly those of us who believe in an engaged U.S. foreign policy -- to be just as concerned as Drezner.  Success in the war on terror requires that we win the battle of ideas.  The fact that a single mistaken sentence in a newsmagazine blurb can derail our foreign policy efforts to such an extent that it requires repeated rebukes from the President and his senior staff -- well, let's just say that it's not a good thing.

As for the penalty that should be applied to Newsweek:  the most balanced decision I've read thus far comes from Jane Galt.  Go read the whole thing.

UPDATE:  And also read our own Charles Bird, if you haven't already; it's an insightful and provokative piece.

*I made that one up.

*OK, OK, made that one up too.  Hey, there are surprisingly few cliches' for such a situation.

Comments

[Justin Slotman]

Shoot--I thought you were doing Yoda-speak in the title and this was a Star Wars post.

[Jesurgislac]

What disturbs me is the repeated assertion that the Newsweek story is false.

The important part of the story was US soldiers desecrating the Koran. That part has been reported from several sources, none of whom were anonymous, all of whom were direct witnesses. There's no reason to suppose it was false.

The less important part of the story was whether the Pentagon had had an official inquiry into the desecration of the Koran: that part was confirmed by one anonymous source who later retracted his story. So we don't know whether he was lying or mistaken, but presumably he was one or the other for one version of his story. Newsweek has retracted that part of the story.

No one was rioting in the streets over whether or not the Pentagon has held an enquiry.

[Hal]

My lord. The interpretation where they flush the Koran down page by page never occured to Ms. Galt nor Von?

Are we just being stupid on purpose, or what?

[bob mcmanus]

"There's no reason to suppose it was false."

For the Washington Press Corps, it ain't true til the WH says it is true. Really. Otherwise, the highest status it can attain is "controversial" or "alleged."

"Success in the war on terror requires that we win the battle of ideas."

Sez you. I for one, will not characterize Cheney or Rumsfeld as "incompetent." What they got is what they want. OK, this means they have been lying, or spinning. That isn't news. But you should look at the situation holisticly, ask yourself about everything they wanted(for instance cheap war) and ask yourself why they might want what they have.

For instance, if they believe they won't ever be loved, because they are not going to withdraw support from Israel & the Sauds, they might accept being feared. A different kind of "hearts & minds" strategy.

[2shoes]

they might accept being feared.

Worked for the Soviet Union.

Oh...yeah...right.

[Jesurgislac]

Hal: The interpretation where they flush the Koran down page by page never occured to Ms. Galt nor Von?

Nor the interpretation where the toilet was not a flush toilet, but a bucket being used as a toilet? (The original prison cells at Guantanamo Bay were certainly not equipped with flush toilets: cages with buckets.) Where the verb "flushed" got into the story, I'm not sure. Possibly a misinterpretation of the story by the Newsweek staff writer who was not capable of envisaging anything but a flush toilet and who had never seen a Koran?

[liberal japonicus]

I thought you were doing Yoda-speak in the title and this was a Star Wars post.

My first thought was Dr. Seuss and Green Eggs and Ham.

Also, in light of the NYTimes article, Jane Galt's question:
Did some maniac stand there for hours, carefully ripping the pages into pieces a few at a time, the better to enjoy the anguished screams of the inmates?

seems to suggest the answer of yes. This is not to disagree with Von's point that this whole thing requires a much more thoughtful approach that the flushgate de jour one.

[123concrete]

"all of whom were direct witnesses. There's no reason to suppose it was false."

It is clearly true that none of the witnesses could have any motivation for following the AQ handbook. They are known to be upstanding and honest citizens without any prejudice.

There is also no doubt that they are all completely honest and would never try to promote their own agenda.

Obviously this is just the effect of the Bush administration policies. It is definitly Bush administration policies that have brought this about and not the humble Moslems that have been improperly imprisoned. One day they were just wandering around in the mountains of Afghanistan on a spiritual retreat shortly undertaken after 9/11 and the next they were arrested by the Americans.

Damn this abominable administration!

[Hal]

True enough.

[Jesurgislac]

123: It is clearly true that none of the witnesses could have any motivation for following the AQ handbook.

Since all the witnesses were prisoners who had been released because not only was there no evidence they were al-Qaeda, there was not even any evidence that they had ever committed a belligerant act against the US, one presumes they don't even have access to "the AQ handbook".

One day they were just wandering around in the mountains of Afghanistan on a spiritual retreat shortly undertaken after 9/11 and the next they were arrested by the Americans.

To be precise, three of the witnesses were young men from Tipton in the West Midlands, who were visiting relatives in Pakistan when the US attacked Afghanistan. They were released because they was literally no evidence linking them with al-Qaeda or with the Taliban: they had been arrested because they were visible foreigners in a country where every adult man wears a beard.

You can read their testimony here: cite - the sections dealing with the US soldiers' behavior towards them as Muslims are 71-75.

[double-plus-ungood]

It is clearly true that none of the witnesses could have any motivation for following the AQ handbook. They are known to be upstanding and honest citizens without any prejudice.

There is also no doubt that they are all completely honest and would never try to promote their own agenda.

Let me anticipate the thought processes that went through the minds of these individuals. It's a bit tricky, as some have been held in solitary without a chance to coordinate their stories with their fellow prisoners, and have reported the acts to their lawyers. Still others have reported this after having been released as they were judged to be not terrorists nor associated with terrorist organizations, which makes their motivation a bit difficult to figure out. Still, never mind, it may be that they may have been terrorists all along but were released in error, which is disturbing for another reason. Or they may have become terrorist after being released, which is a possibility.

However. One would assume that these disparate individuals were looking for some kind of story or tale that would cause trouble for their enemy, the great satan America.

Tales of torture? Already been done.

Murder? Nope, 36 counts of death under interrogation, with two new one from Afghanistan today.

Rape? Already allegations of that floating around.

Taking families hostage? That too has already been taken.

Abusing children of prisoners in order to elicit information from the parent? Nope, that's been done as well.

Ah ha! Putting a holy book in the crapper! That's the ticket.

[Gromit]

123concrete: It is clearly true that none of the witnesses could have any motivation for following the AQ handbook.

So you didn't get the torture memo, but they got the AQ handbook? Just trying to keep score here.

[Gary Farber]

Y'know, there actually are AQ "handbooks," with chapters on withstanding interrogation, what to do when captured, etc., and excerpts have been published in newspapers, and everything, for years now. There's nothing silly about mentioning that, even in informal language. Let's not get carried away, even if you're responding to someone full of false and insulting assumptions.

[Catsy]

Gary, I appreciate your logical mind and attention to detail as much as anyone, but don't you think it speaks ill of your priorities to largely pass on taking apart, as you put it, a comment "full of false and insulting assumptions" in favor of waxing pedantic about a minor part of responses that were otherwise essentially correct?

I realize that much of your schtick revolves around being contrarian, but it is occasionally tiresome and counterproductive in situations like this.

[Gary Farber]

"...but don't you think it speaks ill of your priorities to largely pass on taking apart, as you put it, a comment 'full of false and insulting assumptions' in favor of waxing pedantic about a minor part of responses that were otherwise essentially correct?"

No. I'm uninterested in discussing things will people choosing to act as absurd trolls. But if multiple sensible people jump on what is actually a reasonable remark, it seems worth pointing out they're going astray. I don't think that's at all pedantic, but rather, that it's helping sensible people away from wasting time on pursuing a point in which they're getting a little carried away on, and are wrong about. Those are indeed my priorities, particularly in not wasting time on people uninterested in reasonable debate, or on refuting ludicrous "points" almost no one here would be taken in by. YM is entitled to V, and I regret you find it tiresome (particularly since you're one of the posters here I am most often in agreement with, and in admiration of, Catsy).

[Gary Farber]

Incidentally, Catsy, since you're bringing up the no doubt entirely fascinating-to-everyone topic of my methodoly for responding, it may or may not be slightly helpful if I mention that, while more often than not I figure out who is writing a comment before I get to the ID, I actually make a bit of an effort to not notice who the author is until after I've a fair idea of my reaction and general response (which is usually pretty much immediately); as well, while I'm in no way fanatic about it, and obviously am going to, and do, recall quite frequently what some folks' past positions on a subject have been, to a fair degree, I commonly forget, and, frankly, often don't really pay much attention to remembering who said what. To a rather small, and utterly imperfect, degree, this is part of my making at least some minor effort to address ideas and facts more than personalities.

[Gary Farber]

"I'm uninterested in discussing things will people choosing to act as absurd trolls."

I really should slow down and proof more. "I'm uninterested in discussing things with people choosing to act as absurd trolls."

[Bruce Baugh]

I really wish that there could be a general moratorium on sarcasm in talking about this. It's important - I don't wish to waste my effort figuring out someone else's game, on top of dealing with the appalling situation.

[Jack Frost]

can i jump in on this argument? Those that were released making these accusations were indeed RELEASED. Which means either one of two things: 1) The United States knowingly released Al Queda/Taliban terrorists trained to make accusations according to that AQ handbook (which still makes this administration look bad) OR 2) They were released because they were and ARE truly innocent of what they were imprisoned for, thus, had no training in making false accusations against the US, to this degree/specificity

[CaseyL]

I just skip the trolls. Responding only encourages them, and in no time at all they've hijacked the thread.

This Quran-down-the-can story is the AWOL memos redux: Raise a huge stink over an inconsequential aspect of the subject, in order to not only distract from the substance of the story, but also to attack the news organization that ran the story. There's even the same non-denial denial from the WH.

[Jack Frost]

yes, and to add to my post, I think that it is one of this administration's objectives to discredit influential "liberal" publications. The WH jumped on this little error too fast in comparison to the sea of allegations on abuse

[123concrete]

Gromit,

"The manual practically taunted the interrogators, saying prisoners had little to fear in U.S. custody, that Americans were weak and disinclined to use the harsh methods employed by Middle East countries.

Indeed, it urged prisoners to bait American interrogators into physical confrontations, saying bruises or broken bones witnessed by the Red Cross could create an international outcry.""

I'm assuming you are familiar with that... Now please show me a memo from the Bush administration where it says killing and torturing innocent people is okay.

[lily]

I thought von's point was that the demonstrations show that there is a willingess to believe the worst of us in the places where we need to be winning hearts and minds and that the presence of this negative predisposition is a problem. And he is right. Note the demonstration in Iraq today. The story of the torture/murder of the Afgan taxi driver also isn't going to be dismissed lightly in the Middle East.
The only way the US can have any positive influence in the MIddle East is if we are seen as occupying the moral highground, not in the sense of any specific religion, but in the sense of human decency and of exemplifying in our behavior our stated ideals.
The argument over the veracity of Newsweek's story distracts from the issue of believability of the story. It is veey sad that the previous actions of Amerricans in Afaganistan, Iraq, Gitma, and other places have made the story believable.

[Catsy]

hose are indeed my priorities, particularly in not wasting time on people uninterested in reasonable debate, or on refuting ludicrous "points" almost no one here would be taken in by.

That's fair. Just be aware that it frequently comes across (rightly or not) as a reluctance to engage in shredding the arguments most in need of shredding, in favor of distracting people making essentially correct arguments with a discussion of minutae. This, for lack of a better way to put it, has a tendency to piss people off.

YMMV.

[KCinDC]

Catsy, I see your point, but I think Gary might agree with me that trolls don't actually make arguments and their statements don't require shredding. Sometimes ignoring is the best policy.

[Gary Farber]

"Sometimes ignoring is the best policy."

It's one of the prime lessons, if not the prime lesson, of Usenet.

(Along with "don't argue which is superior, Mac or PC or Linux, or Kirk or Picard.")

[ral]

von, I agree. I wrote in Charles' thread (sorry, before I read yours):

Let's remember, this is Afghanistan, where we were once welcomed by people, suddenly freed from the Taliban, playing music in the streets of Kabul.

...Three years after the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban we have anti-American riots. This does not indicate a problem at Newsweek.

Perhaps my meaning was unclear? I am afraid we may be losing Afghanistan. We have mostly abandoned it; in my view, besides being morally bankrupt, it is a horrible lost opportunity.

[bob mcmanus]

"it is a horrible lost opportunity."

Possibly in the Rumsfeld/Cheney neo-neo-con strategy book, very weak enemies are cheaper and more manageable than strong allies. They diverted money from Afghanistan to Iraq very early...possibly an impeachable offense, among the myriad others. They never had much use for Afghanistan other than the oil pipeline and torture chambers.

[Jackmormon]

How bad are/were the riots in Kabul itself? From my backreading on the subject (admittedly cursory) it sounded like the worst violence was in the Pakistan-border area, the area of the most Taliban sympathizers. As far as I can tell, the coalition (and the Afghan govt) has only claimed ever to control Kabul.

I agree with Von's general concern that the riots indicate a malaise within project of reconstructing Afghanistan in general, but from everything I read before and during the military operations, the regionalism of the country suggests that public outcry and violence should be taken in local context, as well.

Shorter me: if there were riots in Kabul itself, that would have been a really bad sign.

[Frank]

I'd be interested to see a cite of the al queda training manual, preferably including where to find jucy quotes encouraging al queda troops to lie to the media and provoke interrogators. IIRC the cosmic iguana is the site where I saw a claim that the al queda manual says no such thing.

[liberal japonicus]

Frank,
Google says here's the translation of parts of the AQ manual, though I haven't gone thru it myself

[Anarch]

Ta for the link, LJ. A couple of points of interest to the present discussion:

* Lesson Eleven, beginning on page 17 of the third part, details the "Overt" ways in which the operatives may obtain information, including the licensing of torture and the like. Nasty stuff.

* Lesson Eighteen, beginning on page 18 of the fourth part, lists what "brothers" should do when indicted and brought to trial. The first couple of edicts are the following:

1. At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators] before the judge.
2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.
4. The brother has to do his best to know the names of the state security officers, who participated in his torture and mention their names to the judge. [These names may be obtained from brothers who had to deal with those officers in previous cases.]
6. During the trial, the court has to be notified of any mistreatment of the brothers inside the prison.

It's not at all clear from this translation, but I think that the manual is proceeding from the premise that any "brother" captured by "State Security" will automatically be "mistreated" or tortured; hence the point of part 1 should be regarded as instructing the reader to ensure that this mistreatment is announced, rather than being made up out of whole cloth. That's certainly the impression I get from reading the other instructions, at least.* My cursory reading does not, however, allow me to say that with any great confidence, and I can easily see the other perspective.

* I'm not sure what "once more the brothers must insist..." means in 1) either. When was the first time? Under what auspices? And so forth.

[Frank]

Thanks LJ. Anarch very impressive. It'll take me some time to look through this junk tho.

[Jackmormon]

Since this is at least ostensibly an open thread, could anyone give me a clue as to why, hen I read a thread to which I have posted, Gary Farber and I are blue and everyone else is red? (I'm running Mozilla off a Dell.) Heck, it's an open thread; this has been niggling at my brain for weeks.

[Jackmormon]

I would like to get an answer, but I can' (*yawn*) wait for one. Tomorrow?

[Anarch]

Since this is at least ostensibly an open thread, could anyone give me a clue as to why, hen I read a thread to which I have posted, Gary Farber and I are blue and everyone else is red?

Probably because you've visited the links embedded in both your names (both your blogs, IIRC) and you haven't visited/clicked on ours?

[moe99]

I'm sorry but provocative is spelled w/ a 'c' not a 'k'

Until that is fixed, the poster has zero credibility w/ me.

[Jay C.]

"Since this is at least ostensibly an open thread, could anyone give me a clue as to why, hen I read a thread to which I have posted, Gary Farber and I are blue and everyone else is red?"

You know, Jm, I was going to try to volunteer an analysis of the political makeup of ObsidianWings and some of its posters and commenters, but then I realized you talking about the links.

Time for an Emily Litella moment.......

PS: Anarch is right, I think: it has to do with the type of connection the name-link makes, and whether or not you've visited it: I know on my computer, the main "blue" name-links I get are Tacitus, Slartibartfast, and Von - so I guess the political interpretation is off-base.

[Jay C.]

"Since this is at least ostensibly an open thread, could anyone give me a clue as to why, hen I read a thread to which I have posted, Gary Farber and I are blue and everyone else is red?"

You know, Jm, I was going to try to volunteer an analysis of the political makeup of ObsidianWings and some of its posters and commenters, but then I realized you talking about the links.

Time for an Emily Litella moment.......

PS: Anarch is right, I think: it has to do with the type of connection the name-link makes, and whether or not you've visited it: I know on my computer, the main "blue" name-links I get are Tacitus, Slartibartfast, and Von - so I guess the political interpretation is off-base.

[liberal japonicus]

The blue links are to web pages (usually someone's blog) and the red ones are to email.

[cleek]

Success in the war on terror requires that we win the battle of ideas.

i agree.

but Newsweek is far far down the list of obstacles.

[Jackmormon]

(*feels a bit silly*)
You're all quite right. That's a great cat picture, Cleek.

[cleek]

That's a great cat picture, Cleek.

it's tough to take a bad one, with a model like that. :)

[otto]

Is there a double standard here with some of the discussion lately regarding the validity of the Koran flushing claims made by former detainees? If their incarceration and interrogation needs to be justified, it is because they have valuable info that we can accurately get out of them. But when they say something that perhaps tarnishes our self-image, they are entirely untrustworthy. If they are unreliable in one instance, how can we trust their info to help us with the GWOT?

[otto]

In re 123concrete’s comments:

-“Now please show me a memo from the Bush administration where it says killing and torturing innocent people is okay.”

Although you have hedged your bet with the use of the word “innocent,” and killing is mentioned nowhere, there are quite a few memos from the Bush administration that advocate the use of torture (“counter-resistance techniques”). You may want to check out the correspondence between the Dept. of Justice, WH, Dept. of Defense, SouthCom, and Gitmo between the winter of 2002 through the spring of 2003. It’s all there and surprisingly clear. I posted a thumbnail sketch of what transpired based on the available memos at Discourse.net (20 May 2005 “Bad Times for the Republic”) if you are interested. All of these memos can be read/downloaded at George Washington University’s “The National Security Archive” website (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/index.html).

Question: Why do any of us suppose that Geneva Conventions were not extended to GWOT detainees, even if they were non-state actors from “failed states”?

[Anarch]

More on Quran abuses at Guantanamo, straight on the heels of Newsweek's craven capitulation.

[SombreroFallout]

Daniel Drezner's whole premise warps the discussion, hip-checking it off the real issue. He writes:

"assume that the Newsweek goof was of the maximal variety -- i.e., despite Gitmo prisoner claims, it turns out that no Qu'ran was ever flushed down any toilet"

But WHY would anyone assumem no Koran ever met a toilet?!?

Valid, published accounts say otherwise. What we all know of the military's approved interrogations methods indicate otherwise.

[Jesurgislac]

SombreroFallout: But WHY would anyone assumem no Koran ever met a toilet?!?

If the audience is largely right-wing and pro-war (as Drezner's audience largely seemed to be, last time I hung out at his blog) one might make that assumption publicly in order to ensure that your audience would read on, rather than just looking at it and going "Daniel Drezner assumes that terrorists* tell the truth and the Pentagon is lying!" and turning them off immediately.

Daniel Drezner is making a good, sensible point, and framing it to catch the attention of the audience he knows he has.

*For too many people assume that simply having been locked up in Guantanamo Bay automatically means the victim of such imprisonment must be a terrorist. This belief is not confined to right-wing hawks, unfortunately.

[SombreroFallout]

Gary Farber: Catsy has a valid point. Your insistence that "handbooks exist" consumed a considerable-to-large portion of this thread with officious, explanatory text.

The Koran-in-Toilet story has been corroborated by at least one military interrogator at Gitmo. Treatment degrading to Muslims has been documented by innumberable sources. The 'handbook thing' is a red herring taking attn away from how we conduct our business and the consequences of that.

And it's HARDLY hard to believe: what with the menstrual blood, the dogs, the nakedness -- all designed to offend, pollute, violate, humiliate, degrade Muslims. And that intention is in the documentary record. So how is the Koran-in-Toilet story hard to believe. Tell me that.

So the existence of handbooks is utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. It is a fact -- since you're seemingly concerned with facts -- that the CIA and the Red Cross both stated that 60% to 70% of Gitmo detainees are innocent.

So the real question is, how would any human being react to the institutionalized program of torture and humiliation, upon their release? By busily making up stories? Innocent or guilty is irrelevant to the story --- except that either way, such policy damages our country. It generates disgust and hatred, endangering Americans abroad, soldiers in the field, and the country in general:

It is U.S. policy and practice that rioting Afghans (etc.) respond to, not a sentence in a Newsweek article. And this Islamic reaction is irrefutable proof that current interrogation policy is counterproductive and a loser's tactic in the war for hearts and minds. It doesn't work. Just as professional military interrogators keep telling you.

Quite frankly, the GITMO policies CREATE terrorists.

From the NYTs, 5/20: "Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time."

So even at Bagram, innocent Muslims died because innocent or guilty doesn't matter to the torturer.

123concrete: There are indeed such US memos giving the a-ok to humiliation and torture. Gonzales, Bush, Rumsfeld, Sanchez, Miller. The documentary evidence has appeared in newspapers, and have recently been published verbatim in a book.

[liberal japonicus]

123concrete:...

This has been pointed out on a different thread, but 123concrete is no longer with we the commentating, so attacking him is now really the same as attacking a strawman. (this is not disagreeing with any of your points SF)

[Gary Farber]

SombreroFallout writes: "Gary Farber: Catsy has a valid point. Your insistence that 'handbooks exist consumed a considerable-to-large portion of this thread with officious, explanatory text."

I wrote 56 words on the topic of a "handbook" on May 20, 2005 08:11 PM, two days ago. You've already written far more on the topic, a dropped topic, and then included a comment lecturing a banned person. Beg pardon if I don't follow your exemplar of productive, and to the point, netiquette.

[SombreroFallout]

Jezurglisac:

I can guess why he phrased it that way, but that still accedes much terrain to a discussion that is not factually grounded.

In fact, Drezner wrote:
"Should it ... [be a] problem that this report triggered significant protests in Afghanistan...?"

von wrote:
"The fact that a single mistaken sentence in a newsmagazine blurb can derail our foreign policy efforts..."

Both sentences state falsely the cause-and-effect at work here. It is U.S. policy and practice that caused those riots, not Newsweek. It helps no one to cede that factual grounding for the sake of abstract debate: it lends affirmation to right-wing hawks, and cedes the debate-grounds, a fatal strategy.

But it's not an abstract issue. The Newsweek story is almost certainly true. And the crime is that Newsweek apologized at all, and that they depended on craven anonymous Administration sources as final arbiters of truth, rather than multiple credible sources from elsewhere. Rather than, you know, journalism.

The Muslim outrage is understandable: had the reverse happened to a Christian in Saudia Arabia, Pat Robertson would have led the torch-bearing mob of villagers. It's just wholesome political expression, and as such it's an opportunity for Bush to respond by reforming current policy to conform to American values, and adhere to humane treatment of human beings. That way, at least, the country would have some chance of winning the battle -- be it military, hearts and minds, or political.

So no, I don't buy the idea that misleadingly describing the facts (at best), just to keep the debate in the abstract, serves anyone well.

[ral]

Frank Rich's column in today's NYT takes the analysis further:

Given this context [Boykin, other desecration reports, other abuses], the administration's attempt to pass the entire buck to Newsweek for our ill odor among Muslims, including those Muslims who abhor jihadists committing murder, is laughable. Yet there's something weirdly self-incriminating about the language it uses to do it.

[Anarch]

It is U.S. policy and practice that caused those riots, not Newsweek.

Dude, I'm a certified dyed-in-the-wool liberal and even I'm cringing at that sentence. Spare some responsibility for the Afghanis and Pakistanis who sparked the riots, ok?

That said, within the confines of "American responsibilities for the riots" you're close to right: certainly, our governmental foreign policy and practices are far more responsible for the riots than anything Newsweek might have put forth.

The Newsweek story is almost certainly true.

It is certainly plausible that Quran abuse happened in Guantanamo, yes. I've offered several links to that effect. The sourcing on the Newsweek story is, however, completely broken. That's a subtle, but crucial, distinction.

And the crime is that Newsweek apologized at all, and that they depended on craven anonymous Administration sources as final arbiters of truth, rather than multiple credible sources from elsewhere. Rather than, you know, journalism.

A little strident, but yeah, that one I more or less agree with :)

[SombreroFallout]

Gary Farber wrote:
I wrote 56 words on the topic of a "handbook" on May 20, 2005 08:11 PM, two days ago. You've already written far more on the topic, a dropped topic, and then included a comment lecturing a banned person. Beg pardon if I don't follow your exemplar of productive, and to the point, netiquette.

56 words or not, then or now, it functioned to police someone making a valid, on-topic, point. Handbook-or-not is irrelevant to the issue of our own conduct. So while your response (to me, quoted) is at best a confrontational slight, if you will, it fails to address the point. Doesn't it?

And the point was not length, but the function of your comment, wasn't it?

And seeing that the topic was obviously not dropped, that I did not lecture, but provided facts, and that banned or not, who knew? Plenty of people are still willfully ignorant on that issue.

To be frank, it's not about "netiquette," sir: you presume to lecture (read: and attack), yet still omit to respond to the issue raised, substantively. If your feelings are hurt, well, take care, the stakes for sticking to the issue (cause of Muslim rage, journalistic sourcing) are high, and in fact ARE the issue, given the cheap, tawdry media/political spin generated by the Newsweek debacle. Of which the apology is the larger, grosser incompetence.

So, hey: there's a timber in yer eye.

[SombreroFallout]

Anarch:
Ordinarily, I'd agree w/your comment re rhetoric. But reporting is not a "crime" either, so I used the word in the nonlegal, rhetorical sense. That should be clear. As for "craven," well, if they're so brave, and the words that fall from their lips are such Foundations of Truth, then why isn't it on the record?

The obvious conclusion is that Newsweek got played, and played badly. They relied on a single source, and got burned. That their sourcing broke down hardly merits an apology. It merits full reportage of those multiple other sources for the same story, and insistence that the White House address the issue. I've read that the Pentagon source twice was silent on those aspects. Their objection is belated -- and highly disingenuous/uncreditable.

And finally, dude, I don't consider myself liberal, not in the sense you use it.

The fact is that outraged Muslims were responding to much-reported U.S. policy and practice. Right? Those practices sparked or caused those riots. And don't think I haven't spared some credit for Muslim leaders (thank you very much). If a few Afghan/Pakistani leaders read Newsweek('s printed 'proof' of what everybody 'knows' to be true) to a crowd of followers, in order to put political pressure on Washington, D.C. to reform, it's only understandable. Pat Robertson would do the same thing.

Look, there's nothing worth cringing over, Anarch. You should really get over that impulse. After all, the central lesson of the American Revolution is that political tyranny begets and causes politcal response and outrage. King George III learned the hard way: a colonist/citizen tossed a crate of tea in Boston Harbor, and the British bureaucrat saw that as the crime. It's not a matter of perspective. Unjust policies beget popular outrage and politically strengthened opponents. Amputated avenues of political redress beget less than legal responses.

Next you'll be telling us that the Boston Massacre was the responsibility of "disorderly colonists" and criminal incitement from outside the country.

Nice response, though, I appreciate it. But do give me more credit for precise use of language. (p.s. - I may be progressive, but I'm more conservative than any current Repub) I contend that I was not strident, but calling a spade a spade or using rhetorical language just inspires one to recollect that this is not an abstract debate.

[liberal japonicus]

And seeing that the topic was obviously not dropped, that I did not lecture, but provided facts, and that banned or not, who knew? Plenty of people are still willfully ignorant on that issue.

I think you are conflating me and Gary here, SF. I do think all of the regulars here saw 123 run out of town on a rail, as it were, and unless you are suggesting us regulars are willfully ignorant (which I'm sure you weren't, cause to know us is to love us) I think that we are under no misconception about anything offered up by him. If there are any other newbies lurking about, if they thought 123 made valid points and then suddenly was cut off in mid rant, I'm sure they will be educated.

Anyway, on behalf of the welcoming committee, welcome to ObWi gulch, where your IP address is only a stranger once.

[Jesurgislac]

sombrero: von wrote:
"The fact that a single mistaken sentence in a newsmagazine blurb can derail our foreign policy efforts..."

Both sentences state falsely the cause-and-effect at work here.

Yes. And I do believe that Daniel Drezner's post was dealing with that cause-and-effect - that even if the Newsweek story had been wholly false, and if it were the trigger for riots in Pakistan and Afghanistan, then (granting these two postulates) it still says something very serious about US foreign policy that this would be possible.

I agree that it's worth pointing out that the Newsweek story was, in all important particulars, almost certainly correct: US soldiers desecrating the Koran at Guantanamo Bay have been widely reported for at least 18 months.

But how many times is it worth pointing this out in one thread when it's not being seriously disputed?

[Anarch]

Oy. Ok, in order:

But reporting is not a "crime" either, so I used the word in the nonlegal, rhetorical sense. That should be clear.

It was, nor did I say you were legally in error: I said you were strident. That much, at least, doesn't look like it's getting contradicted any time in the near future.

As for "craven," well, if they're so brave, and the words that fall from their lips are such Foundations of Truth, then why isn't it on the record?

Strawman + false binarism = me not replying. If you'd like to address arguments I've actually made, I'll be more than happy to respond.

The obvious conclusion is that Newsweek got played, and played badly. They relied on a single source, and got burned. That their sourcing broke down hardly merits an apology. It merits full reportage of those multiple other sources for the same story, and insistence that the White House address the issue. I've read that the Pentagon source twice was silent on those aspects. Their objection is belated -- and highly disingenuous/uncreditable.

That their sourcing broke down indeed merits an apology: both for the sloppiness of the sourcing and the sloppiness with which the story was written. I agree that the Pentagon source was disingenuous as I noted in this thread at 1:32pm. I have further noted that I found Newsweek's latest apology to be "craven capitulation" to the White House's pressure. Ironically, therefore, we're pretty much in agreement on this issue... which is why I wrote "but yeah, that one I more or less agree with" in my response. It would have been nice if you'd acknowledged that.

And finally, dude, I don't consider myself liberal, not in the sense you use it.

I'm sure you'll edify me what that might be.

The fact is that outraged Muslims were responding to much-reported U.S. policy and practice. Right?

Actually, as of this time, it's not entirely clear what they were responding to. [A point made rather extensively in that same thread thread, which I really do recommend you read at some point.] There were a number of different factors, including: the Washington Times cartoon; the Newsweek report; the arrest of a prominent jihadist in Kabul; and some kind of long-term Afghani resistance movement plans. And that's just what we know about right now. Certainly some of those fall under the umbrella of "responding to much-reported U.S. policy and practice"; I'm just not sure how much, or (for that matter) how wide-ranging you consider the "policy and practices" to be.

Look, there's nothing worth cringing over, Anarch. You should really get over that impulse.

The only thing I'm cringing at right now is your rhetoric. Would you mind dialling it down a few notches? For example, this...

Next you'll be telling us that the Boston Massacre was the responsibility of "disorderly colonists" and criminal incitement from outside the country.

...is just silly. First, it presumes again that responsibility is zero-sum, Manichean, binaristic, blah-di-blah-di-blah, all of which I've railed against repeatedly. [Again, I'd recommend reading some more threads on this site.] Second, it presumes that you've constructed an equivalence (or at least a meaningful correspondence) between the actions of KGIII and that of the US government; and if the previous paragraph is supposed to be that equivalence, I'm not buying it. Third, it presumes an equivalence between the motivations of those who rebelled against Great Britain in the 18th century and those who instigated the protest-cum-riots last week; that, too, I'm not buying. Fourth, it presumes a contextual similarity that is entirely lacking, unless you're going to argue that there was an 18th century Taliban we're all overlooking. And fifth... it's just dumb. I understand you're exaggerating for effect but do you really think I'm about to make that argument? If not -- and I'm going to assume not, since I'm assuming you're crediting me with at least a modicum of intelligence -- then presumably I have a reason for disputing the logic you're using to deduce this hyperbole from the original hypothesis, and maybe it would be more productive to ask me about it rather than to impute it to me directly?

Depending, of course, on whether you want productive debate or not. YMMV.

Anyway, that about wraps it up. If you want to tone down your responses, I'll be happy to debate this further. If you want to continue slinging brickbats in my direction, I have more important things to be doing.

[SombreroFallout]

So perhaps I've stepped in it a bit, ok. And even into the middle of a conversation. If it appears I mis-attributed positions, etc., to specific posters, I retract that. It wasn't my intent.

Anarch:
I hadn't meant to sling brickbats in your direction.

I meant to say my rhetoric was not as strident as you took it. That does deal with the substance of your complaint.

Not all of my comments were intended to take issue with something you'd said. Sorry for any uncomfortable overlap.

I should have paused, rather than responding right away. Thanks for the points of agreement.

We seem to agree about the complexities of: "the umbrella of 'responding to much-reported U.S. policy and practice.'" I had been suitably informed....

Although I agree that Newsweek is responsible for their sourcing -- taking Bush Admin sources as first or final arbiter of truth lacks much integrity (by several measures) -- that doesn't equate to guilt requiring apology. Or rather, it doesn't equate to hanging this ALL on Newsweek.

They do indeed owe us an apology, but for single-sourcing, for ignoring other longstanding sources, for abandoning a largely true story instead of backing it up, and for not outing that source. I told them as much.

But as I understand it, they ran it by their source. No objection was raised. Does that not mean much responsibility falls to that source?

Anarch wrote:
"which is why I wrote "but yeah, that one I more or less agree with" in my response. It would have been nice if you'd acknowledged that."

Ok, trying here. Reread, and I hope, acknowledged.

*BUT* -- I'll say I didn't intend to make a one-to-one, contextually corresponding, mirror-image relationship between 1776 American and 2005 Iraq. In fact, maybe my comment shouldn't have been directed to you. If so, ouch.

Yet I humbly submit that the chain of responsibility and political ramifications of injustice wielded from afar both still hold. I would assert that 'Folks' have shunted responsibility for "sparking" the riots from Newsweek to Afghan/Pakistani leaders. Is that fair, regardless of political persuasion? Or context?

In 1776, the colonists who tossed crates of tea in the harbour surely broke some laws. Yet they responded to injustice wielded from afar. In 2005, Afghan/Paki leaders sought political redress by raising the issue among their people (begging your leave, but I haven't done deep research on specific details there). Did they cross some legal lines? I bet they did. Are they spear-carriers for Lady Liberty? Perhaps not. But I suggest, respectfully, that they rightly request redress, and pragmatically shore up their political base in the process.

A British bureaucrat would rashly accuse citizens of crimes against the Crown (no stridency here), yet refuse access to redress in the system. An American pundit (not lookin' for posters here) would look to pin it on Afghan/Paki leaders, rather than seek a root cause, in American policy. Enforce the little laws, hard it's easier. Ignore the political grievance.

In either case, refusal to deal with legitimate complaints re injustice & lack of representation resulted in increased political opposition and anger.

It's a matter of real political redress, in terms of access/responsivenes. It's a matter of occupation from afar, and respect or violation of local customs/taboos.

One does not have to boast of a stranglehold on Lady Liberty's torch to react to blunders that are bound to inflame the populace. Outright violations of cultural taboos will incite opposition regardless of political system. So I say, occupation, injustice, violation of local sentiments/culture/interests will all yield ... bitter fruit.

[CharleyCarp]

Next you'll be telling us that the Boston Massacre was the responsibility of "disorderly colonists" . . .

That was basically the defense presented by the soldiers' lawyer, John Adams. He claimed the soldiers were acting in self-defense against a mob of "saucy boys, Negroes and mulattoes, Irish teagues, and outlandish jacktars."

The soldiers were acquitted. By a Boston jury, no less.

Wonder how Lynndie England and would do with a Baghdad jury? With Johnnie Cochrane having joined John Adams for Closing Argument, I wouldn't like her chances.

Anyone able to enlighten me on what exactly Adams meant by "saucy boys?"

[Gary Farber]

"Paki." I'm assuming you are unaware that this is commonly considered a derogatory usage by many, at least if used by non-Pakistanis, so I mention it with the thought that you might like to know.

[CharleyCarp]

Here is the exact http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/bostonmassacre/adamssummation.html> quote

We have been entertained with a great variety of phrases, to avoid calling this sort of people a mob.-Some call them shavers, some call them genius's. -The plain English is gentlemen, most probably a motley rabble of saucy boys, negroes and molattoes, Irish teagues and out landish jack tarrs.-And why we should scruple to call such a set of people a mob, I can't conceive, unless the name is too respectable for them: The sun is not about to stand still or go out, nor the rivers to dry up because there was a mob in Boston on the 5th of March that attacked a party of soldiers.-Such things are not new in the world, nor in the British dominions, though they are comparatively, rareties and novelties in this town. Carr a native of Ireland had often been concerned in such attacks, and indeed, from the nature of things, soldiers quartered in a populous town, will always occasion two mobs, where they prevent one.

Actually, defenders of Lynndie England, and the others, would do well to steal Adams' lines about Killroy . . .

[CharleyCarp]

I can't resist another excerpt from Adams' summation in Rex v. Weems :

. . . This witness certainly is not prejudiced in favour of the soldiers, he swears, he saw a man come up to Montgomery with a club, and knock him down before he fired, and that he not only fell himself, but his gun flew out of his hand, and as soon as he rose he took it up and fired. If he was knocked down on his station, had he not reason to think his life in danger, or did it not raise his passions and put him off his guard; so that it cannot be more than manslaughter.

When the multitude was shouting and huzzaing, and threatning life, the bells all ringing, the mob whistle screaming and rending like an Indian yell, the people from all quarters throwing every species of rubbish they could pick up in the street, and some who were quite on the other side of the street throwing clubs at the whole party, Montgomery in particular, smote with a club and knocked down, and as soon as he could rise and take up his firelock, another club from a far struck his breast or shoulder, what could he do? Do you expect he should behave like a Stoick Philosopher lost in Apathy? Patient as Epictatus while his master was breaking his leggs with a cudgel? It is impossible you should find him guilty of murder. You must suppose him divested of all human passions, if you don't think him at the least provoked, thrown off his guard, and into the furor brevis, by such treatment as this.

[Flush bible, koran, torah,...]

True, False, lets see what the fuss is all about. Now you can flush any holy book at flushaholybook.com