Ghost of BiB Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Meanwhile... And, I'm pretty certain that there are several people who will say that THIS is an out and out lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Meanwhile... And, I'm pretty certain that there are several people who will say that THIS is an out and out lie. 345812[/snapback] He only did that because they threatened to fill him full of pig entrails. Mean ol' Pentagon officials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 He only did that because they threatened to fill him full of pig entrails. Mean ol' Pentagon officials. 345814[/snapback] Maybe he was afraid of being hit with another nerf ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Again, my issue wasn't with the content of the story. My issue was that running an unverified single-sourced story isn't journalism, it's rumor-mongering. 344895[/snapback] Not necessarily. It's a practice that should always be attempted, even three or four or more sources, obviously. But you cannot just automatically assume something is false because there is only one source. Who the two sources are may be a lot more important than the one source. Who the reporter is may be twice as important than the two sources. I am not excusing the Newsweek piece, but frankly, I would believe Michael Isikoff and his one anonymous source than the majority of the Newsweek staff and their two sources. One wouldn't discount one eyewtiness report of a shooting or a traffic accident in a trial just because it isn't double sourced, would they? Sometimes one source is all one can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 My problem is STILL that it didn't need to be published, true or not. They supposedly have smart people working at places like Newsweek. They should act like it. But, why worry about a paycheck 15 years from now? Today is today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 My problem is STILL that it didn't need to be published 345871[/snapback] I for one wish they'd explain how under current law the detainees are being denied due process, afterall, not all of them are terrorists, or at least they weren't when they went in. There's no telling how much animosity toward the US an innocent man would have if he were illegally detained for 3,4,5 or however many years it'll be. If he didn't maintain enough animosity to be a terrorist beforehand, he very well may after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 I for one wish they'd explain how under current law the detainees are being denied due process, afterall, not all of them are terrorists, or at least they weren't when they went in. There's no telling how much animosity toward the US an innocent man would have if he were illegally detained for 3,4,5 or however many years it'll be. If he didn't maintain enough animosity to be a terrorist beforehand, he very well may after. 345882[/snapback] Well...just have to kill him then. Maybe, he just might lead us to a few buds as well. People in that part of the world are "illegally detained" all the time. And, many have American Lawyers who have taught them the ropes. Damn, Chris-figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Not necessarily. It's a practice that should always be attempted, even three or four or more sources, obviously. But you cannot just automatically assume something is false because there is only one source. Who the two sources are may be a lot more important than the one source. Who the reporter is may be twice as important than the two sources. I am not excusing the Newsweek piece, but frankly, I would believe Michael Isikoff and his one anonymous source than the majority of the Newsweek staff and their two sources. One wouldn't discount one eyewtiness report of a shooting or a traffic accident in a trial just because it isn't double sourced, would they? Sometimes one source is all one can get. 345838[/snapback] Neither can you automatically assume something is true because it's single-sourced and a hot topic. Although I may be bitching about the lack of confirmation, I realize the real issue is always that a balance must be struck between the type of story, the ability of the reporter, and the amount of confirmation required (and the rush to scoop other outlets; I may hate the commercial aspect of the press, but I can't deny its effects are important). I would not suggest that a single eyewitness report on, say, a car accident is irresponsible necessarily (sometimes it would be)...but on a story as inflammatory and important as the one we're discussing doesn't it make more sense to hold off publication pending an independent confirmation? Hell, I wouldn't even buy a sandwich on a single recommendation from a coworker...but it's okay if Newsweek irrepairably damages national security on an equivalent basis? And if it IS okay for Newsweek to damage national security on the basis of a single-sourced unconfirmed story (i.e. "rumor")...why is it anathema when the US Government does it? I'm sensing a double-standard here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 People in that part of the world are "illegally detained" all the time. 345888[/snapback] Oh, well OK then. We'll just use the governments of the Mid-East and Asia as the the measuring stick. Constitution shmonstituion One of things that makes us different than them is that the US does have due process, in fact it is one of the major reasons that the American colonies entered in a revolution against England. And, many have American Lawyers who have taught them the ropes. Damn Chris, figure it outDamn Paul, you're not even close. They have not been allowed contact with the outside world. Their families don't know if they're dead or alive, and they have been denied counsel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Damn Paul, you're not even close. They have not been allowed contact with the outside world. Their families don't know if they're dead or alive, and they have been denied counsel. 345914[/snapback] You totally missed his point on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Oh, well OK then. We'll just use the governments of the Mid-East and Asia as the the measuring stick. Constitution shmonstituion One of things that makes us different than them is that the US does have due process, in fact it is one of the major reasons that the American colonies entered in a revolution against England. Damn Paul, you're not even close. They have not been allowed contacted with the outside world. Their families don't know if they're dead or alive, and they have been denied counsel. 345914[/snapback] Uh...yes, many of them have. Not on CNN? That wouldn't fit the story line. I thought due process was a right given to citizens? where, in the Constitution does it guarantee due process to undeclared enemy combatants? You think we are that stupid? Yeah, there might be a handful here and there caught up, but we wouldn't be holding any old Joe Snuffy just for kicks. No way to convince you, I know-but this is war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Neither can you automatically assume something is true because it's single-sourced and a hot topic. Although I may be bitching about the lack of confirmation, I realize the real issue is always that a balance must be struck between the type of story, the ability of the reporter, and the amount of confirmation required (and the rush to scoop other outlets; I may hate the commercial aspect of the press, but I can't deny its effects are important). I would not suggest that a single eyewitness report on, say, a car accident is irresponsible necessarily (sometimes it would be)...but on a story as inflammatory and important as the one we're discussing doesn't it make more sense to hold off publication pending an independent confirmation? Hell, I wouldn't even buy a sandwich on a single recommendation from a coworker...but it's okay if Newsweek irrepairably damages national security on an equivalent basis? And if it IS okay for Newsweek to damage national security on the basis of a single-sourced unconfirmed story (i.e. "rumor")...why is it anathema when the US Government does it? I'm sensing a double-standard here... 345906[/snapback] That is why I said I am not excusing the Newsweek story. I am just bitching at you. As far as the Newsweek story goes, I think one source, if all that a reporter like Isikoff can get, would be enough to print the story depending on all of the other reporting he had done. If he thinks it is legitimate, and he himself is legitimate, then run the story. BUT... not THIS story. I agree with you, this particular story probably should not have been run, or at least the telling or re-telling of the flushing the Quran should not have been mentioned. It's too inflammatory. I don't have the answer for what to do, and how far a reporter can or cannot go, but a person well educated in that part of the world would likely have been able to forecast the backlash. So I believe Isikoff should not have written that story the way he did, and Newsweek should not have run that story the way they did, whether he had one or two or three sources. But then again, our always-thinking administration sees nothing wrong with doing and saying equally offensive things to Muslims that incite equally dangerous and deadly responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 You totally missed his point on that one. 345920[/snapback] Yeah, that too. What a Machiavellian world it can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 27, 2005 Share Posted May 27, 2005 But then again, our always-thinking administration sees nothing wrong with doing and saying equally offensive things to Muslims that incite equally dangerous and deadly responses. 345924[/snapback] Like "This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a long time..." Still, I percieve a difference between the media's (not just Newsweek's) "We heard a rumor, let's run with it!" attitude and a "Holy sh--, did Howdy Doody just say that out loud?" White House moment. Our Commander-in-Chief can't change who he is, but the media can and I think should strive to place the "investigative" back in "investigative reporting". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted May 27, 2005 Share Posted May 27, 2005 Uh...yes, many of them have. Not on CNN? That wouldn't fit the story line. Fit the storyline? You mean like storyline in the "World According to the Pentagon" or "Desperate Rumsfelds?" Yeah, they always tell the truth. I thought due process was a right given to citizens? where, in the Constitution does it guarantee due process to undeclared enemy combatants? Uhmm... The whole Fourteenth Ammendment thingy which states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Supreme Court has ruled that "within its jurisdiction" includes any person, citizen or otherwise, detained by the United States, be it here or overseas. You think we are that stupid? We? You hearing voices in your head again? Yeah, there might be a handful here and there caught up, but we wouldn't be holding any old Joe Snuffy just for kicks. Again, detaining innocents (much less beating them to death) goes against the very ideals of our Republic. No way to convince you, I knowWrong. Several times I've changed my opinion based upon new information or new perspectives. The problem in this case is that I wll not take a perspective where we selectively grant rights, and I have yet to see information strong enough to make me abandon (or even suspend) our country's ideals. but this is war. 345922[/snapback] No, it's not. It's a military action, but war hasn'y been declared. If it was a declared war, I wouldn't have a problem with the detainees at Gitmo because they'd be POWs. But Congress hasn't made a Declaration of War in 64 years. That's the last time we were at war. I know, it sounds like a matter of semantics, but it's not. We are a nation of laws, and I'm not comfortable with the government arbitrarily suspending individual's rights when it's convenient or easy. With a Declaration of War, mechanisms are in place to do what they're doing now, but without a Declaration of War, the government is breaking the law. I mean, if we're willing to suspend the 14th Ammendment at the whim of the leaders of this country, what's to stop them from doing the same with the First Ammendment? Or the Second Ammendment? Or any of the Ammendments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 27, 2005 Share Posted May 27, 2005 The Supreme Court has ruled that "within its jurisdiction" includes any person, citizen or otherwise, detained by the United States, be it here or overseas. 345939[/snapback] Where? I never heard that. Can you cite a case. Seriously, I'm not asking because I disagree, I'm asking because I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 27, 2005 Share Posted May 27, 2005 Fit the storyline? You mean like storyline in the "World According to the Pentagon" or "Desperate Rumsfelds?" Yeah, they always tell the truth. Uhmm... The whole Fourteenth Ammendment thingy which states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Supreme Court has ruled that "within its jurisdiction" includes any person, citizen or otherwise, detained by the United States, be it here or overseas. We? You hearing voices in your head again? Again, detaining innocents (much less beating them to death) goes against the very ideals of our Republic. Wrong. Several times I've changed my opinion based upon new information or new perspectives. The problem in this case is that I wll not take a perspective where we selectively grant rights, and I have yet to see information strong enough to make me abandon (or even suspend) our country's ideals. No, it's not. It's a military action, but war hasn'y been declared. If it was a declared war, I wouldn't have a problem with the detainees at Gitmo because they'd be POWs. But Congress hasn't made a Declaration of War in 64 years. That's the last time we were at war. I know, it sounds like a matter of semantics, but it's not. We are a nation of laws, and I'm not comfortable with the government arbitrarily suspending individual's rights when it's convenient or easy. With a Declaration of War, mechanisms are in place to do what they're doing now, but without a Declaration of War, the government is breaking the law. I mean, if we're willing to suspend the 14th Ammendment at the whim of the leaders of this country, what's to stop them from doing the same with the First Ammendment? Or the Second Ammendment? Or any of the Ammendments? 345939[/snapback] Oh crap. You are grabbing. This is fun. Let's see you defend second ammendment rights this hard based on your interpretation of rights and jurisdictions (You DID bring it up, though...good shot). and, let's not forget the fact that "war" hasn't been declared. A nation of laws? That ended about 64 years ago too. We're rolling the dice, in a way Campy. Thanks to the way the world is, and how it got to be that way, we don't have much choice. We're down by ten with 5 minutes on the clock. And we don't have the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 27, 2005 Share Posted May 27, 2005 Like "This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a long time..." Still, I percieve a difference between the media's (not just Newsweek's) "We heard a rumor, let's run with it!" attitude and a "Holy sh--, did Howdy Doody just say that out loud?" White House moment. Our Commander-in-Chief can't change who he is, but the media can and I think should strive to place the "investigative" back in "investigative reporting". 345938[/snapback] Apparently, the media has really learned a thing or two recently. Five cases of Quran mishandling substantiated5/26/2005 7:43 PM By: Associated Press (PENTAGON) – U.S. officials say they've substantiated five cases in which military guards or interrogators at Guantanamo Bay mishandled the Quran. But the prison's commander says there's "no credible evidence" that the Muslim holy book was flushed down a toilet. Brigadier General Jay Hood says a prisoner reportedly complained to an FBI agent in 2002 that a military guard threw a Quran in the toilet. But Hood says the prisoner told his investigators that he's never seen the Quran desecrated at Guantanamo. Hood says investigators had identified 13 incidents in which Guantanamo guards or interrogators allegedly mishandled the Quran. Hood says five of those incidents were substantiated and three appear to have been deliberate. A spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said at the news conference that at this point it should be clear that any mishandling of the Quran was largely accidental. Copyright 2005 Associated Press, All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed Does "no credible evidence" really mean "incredible evidence"? I especially like the part about the prisoner who saw the Quran thrown in the toilet, but told his investigators that he's never seen the Quran desecrated. Ummm... doesn't desecrated mean treated with contempt, or shown a lack of respect specifically with something religious? I suppose taking the crap in the toilet isn't the bad part, it is the flushing. Well, if anyone should know, it would be a crap throwing monkey. I also really liked the last paragraph, for its comic value. Apparently, it should be clear that any mishandling was largely accidental. That's good stuff. http://rdu.news14.com/content/headlines/?ArID=69831&SecID=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted May 27, 2005 Share Posted May 27, 2005 Where? I never heard that. Can you cite a case. Seriously, I'm not asking because I disagree, I'm asking because I don't know. 345942[/snapback] Sorry for taking so long to respond - I was looking for the video Hammer mentioned http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=24648&st=0. And I couldn't even find it, or at least not the version he talked about. Anyway, I wasn't 100% spot-on on attributing it to the 14th, but it has virtually the same effect and that must've been where I drew the parallel in my mind. Either way, the 14th as it's written is still the crux of it to me. Rasul et al v Bush et al. To summarize, it states that the Gitmo detainees possess the same rights as any other person (not citizen, but person) held against their will. In this case, the specific right is Habeus Corpus. They also quoted a 1953 opinion by Justice Robert Jackson: "Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runneymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 27, 2005 Share Posted May 27, 2005 Sorry for taking so long to respond - I was looking for the video Hammer mentioned http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=24648&st=0. And I couldn't even find it, or at least not the version he talked about.Anyway, I wasn't 100% spot-on on attributing it to the 14th, but it has virtually the same effect and that must've been where I drew the parallel in my mind. Either way, the 14th as it's written is still the crux of it to me. Rasul et al v Bush et al. To summarize, it states that the Gitmo detainees possess the same rights as any other person (not citizen, but person) held against their will. In this case, the specific right is Habeus Corpus. They also quoted a 1953 opinion by Justice Robert Jackson: "Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runneymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." 345982[/snapback] Well, you worry about their rights. I'll see what I can do to keep an airliner off the top of your head. Fair trade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts