 | Does a Retraction Mean It Did Not Happen? |
The big story early this week was that Newsweek magazine retracted a story it wrote about purposeful desecration of the Quran in front of Muslim prisoners by American guards at the prison in America’s Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. Reports of the abuse set off riots across Afghanistan, where civil order has been increasingly unstable due to the prolonged American military occupation of the country.
Republicans, including Bush Administration officials, have been quick to trumpet the Newseek retraction, saying that the retraction proves that no desecration of the Quran took place in Guantanamo Bay. Then, these Republicans extended their arguments by saying that, even if the story was true, it should not have been reported, because it damaged the international reputation of the United States.
These muddled Republican arguments put a bold mask on a weak grasp of the important subtleties of international relations and the American free press.
First of all, Newsweek’s retraction of its story was due to problems in the journalistic process, not because the stories of Quran desecration were proven to be false. Newsweek used confidential sources, and that’s a problem because such sources are largely unaccountable to the press, and are likely to change their stories when identified and pressured by their superiors in the government.
However, stories of Quran desecration by U.S. guards have also been reported by the International Committee of the Red Cross, independently of any work by Newsweek. “All information we received were corroborated allegations,” Simon Schorno, spokesman for the ICRC, told the Chicago Tribune. Schorno refused to describe the specific nature of the alleged desecration of the Koran by American guards in Guantanamo Bay, saying, “We’re basically referring in general terms to disrespect of the Quran, and that’s where we leave it.”
So, there is good reason to believe allegations of deliberate desecration of the Quran by American guards. We cannot know for sure that the allegations are true, but that’s part of the problem, not something for Republicans to be proud of. Abuse has happened at Guantanamo Bay because of unnecessary secrecy maintained by the Bush Administration. Even members of Congress are only allowed on guided tours of the facilities, with days of warning during which guards can clean up and cover up evidence of their dirty work. If the Bush Administration would allow reasonable scrutiny of its foreign prisons, there would not be any question of what is really going on in these prisons. We would know for sure. When the Bush Administration breaks the Geneva Conventions and then takes even American citizens prisoner without criminal charges, we all deserve to know what is happening to the prisoners.
The basic underlying problem that is not addressed by Newsweek’s retraction is that the Republican Party, and its communication wing on cable television, don’t really care what the truth is, so long as it suits the needs of the American government. Republican news personalities launched attacks against Newsweek’s story even before there was any doubt of the journalistic intergrity behind the story. These cable television talking heads launched their attack on the sole basis that what Newsweek reported didn’t make the American government look good.
The Republican Party and its supporters in cable news entertainment companies are quite willing to cooperate to promote a foreign policy through any means necessary. In their zeal to promote their vision for the world, they’ll gladly abandon law. They’ll abandon reason. They’ll abandon truth. The weirdest part of all is that they’ll abandon these basic principles in the name of morality and the defeat of evil.
In the new order, consistency is the enemy of homeland security.
Contact Us
For some reason, much as I’m disgusted at all the other things I’ve heard have been happening there, knowing that they attacked the religious book of these people in front of them deliberately for a reaction makes me feel sick…
Comment by HareTrinity — 5/20/2005 @ 7:37 am
It certainly reinforces the idea - perpetuated by American fundamentalist generals, among others - that Bush’s wars are wars against the evil of Islam, and against Satan himself.
Bush has refused to reprimand these generals, and has called the wars “a Crusade” himself.
Comment by jclifford — 5/20/2005 @ 7:53 am
Yeah, but the Qu’ran? This religious group takes much more care of their religious documents, it’s really treated like something holy…
Comment by HareTrinity — 5/20/2005 @ 8:32 am
Since when would tearing up and flushing an “old book”, as it has been called here, constitute abuse? Why do you care? The bible and Chritians are bashed here all the time but your more sympathetic to a religion that has a much more colorful history of violence? I smell politics there PW.
The story COST INNOCENT LIVES. PW, what is sick is to suggest that the problem with the story was the process and not that it could not be proven false. Your logic is beyond me. It is not up to someone to prove something false when that something hasn’t been proven true to begin with. what happened to innocent until proven guilty? What about the prople who died because a FALSE STORY was printed?
Confidential sources are also a problem, but not by your twisted way of seeing it. Un-named/confidential sources are a problem because THEY, nor the who they tell, can be held responsible in almost all cases. To suggest what you did is ridiculous.
Comment by Hoosier Texan — 5/20/2005 @ 8:45 am
… Which is why you’re so torn up about the 100,000 Iraqis and 1,700 Americans who died because of a FALSE STORY, right?
Next time you comment, Hoosier Texan, read the post you’re commenting upon. Peregrin Wood is pointing out that the International Red Cross (what, you’re going to say these are conspirators in liberal media bias?) has independent reports of Koran desecration. So it’s not at all clear that the story is false.
WMD, on the other hand…
…so be consistent, man. I’m waiting for you to condemn George W. Bush and the push for war against, in, on, around and through Iraq.
Comment by J. Matthew — 5/20/2005 @ 8:53 am
You know, Hoosier, you’re showing great illiteracy when you rant on that using confidential sources is a problem that Peregrin refuses to accept.
Peregrin wrote: “Newsweek used confidential sources, and that’s a problem…” So, how can you write that Peregrin has a “twisted way of seeing” things that prevents him from accepting that problem? You’re just plain not making sense here.
Peregrin has written a very nuanced article here, which you seem to be having a knee-jerk, right wing politically correct reaction to. You appear to have skimmed the article, looking for inflammatory keywords, and then written against a strawman you’ve concocted in your imagination, a classic dishonest debating tactic.
Comment by Truman — 5/20/2005 @ 9:30 am
As an atheist, I am bothered by the purposeful desecration of the Quran by our government. That’s not because I think the Quran is a holy book, but because I think our government should not be in the business of promoting OR suppressing independent religious thought.
That means I’d be against purposeful attacks on Christian Bibles by our government too - not because I respect the Bible, but because I respect the right of people to engage in whatever kind of religious foolishness, Christian, Muslim or whatever, that they want to.
I know that’s a difficult principle for you to understand here, but I know for a fact that it’s a principle that everyone who writes for Irregular Times, including Peregrin Wood, stands for.
You don’t have to be for religion to be for the right of people to practice it.
Comment by J. Clifford Cook — 5/20/2005 @ 9:41 am
I’ll also point out that you’re claiming to speak for all Christians again here, as if all Christians belong to your conservative side of the religion.
We consistently criticize the Bible, and we criticize religion in general, including Islam, and we criticize the policies of fundamentalists Christians.
That’s not the same as bashing Christians in general. You’re not aware of this, I’m sure, but we’re actively helping a liberal evangelical in the midwest to gain elected office right now, and we’ve worked for other liberal evangelical Christian candidates before. That’s because, even though we don’t agree with their religion, we agree with the policies that they have aligned themselves with as an expression of their particular Christian beliefs.
Whenever you talk about Christians, Hoosier, you really only seem to be talking about right wing Christians. Or, are other Christians not REAL Christians in your book?
Comment by J. Clifford Cook — 5/20/2005 @ 9:47 am
Good point. The policies of right-wing Christians do not match the policies of every Christian. Questioning those policies and the poor reasoning behind them does not mean you are bashing the entire Christian faith. And, yes, poor reasoning: Beatitudes Christ does not match up with the Macho Christ that so many conservatives seem to worship. Beatitude Christ blessed the peacemakers and the poor, hung out with the sinners, ranted about the Pharisees, and said not a word about homosexuality, but plenty about not casting any stones.
Comment by random42 — 5/20/2005 @ 10:52 am
Well, considering that I am not a right wing Christian, I guess I am not speaking for them. They go way too far for my taste.
Comment by Hoosier Texan — 5/20/2005 @ 10:58 am
So, if the desecration took place, was it the wrong thing to do? Wouldn’t that make the Bush Administration, and not Newsweek, responsible for those deaths and the destruction of American credibility abroad?
Comment by jclifford — 5/20/2005 @ 1:24 pm
Oooh, can we have a word count on what people argued against Hoosier’s claims before, and how many words he replied with?
He must have accidentally MISSED all the points put forward by other people, that’s why he’s not explaining himself. Yes.
And as for people destroying the Qu’ran, I’m not for people deliberately ripping up Bibles or torching churches in front of Christians just to upset them, either.
Comment by HareTrinity — 5/21/2005 @ 1:19 am
It strikes me that Bush is working from different standards of whether it’s OK for the press to report something based on reports from anonymous sources. Here’s what I mean:
1. In the run-up to war, Bush claimed that British intelligence had information that Saddam Hussein had sought to buy uranium in Africa. British intelligence’s source? Anonymous.
But the mainstream U.S. press went along with the story. They reported that George Bush said that British intelligence said that an unnamed source said that Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Africa (i.e. someone said someone said an anonymous source said so). That was O.K. with Bush.
In fact, when it was revealed that the unnamed source was a forgery, he wasn’t mad at the press. Shucks no! In fact, he told the press that he himself was “technically correct,” because British intelligence DID say that an unnamed source said something, even though the unnamed source was an outright forgery.
2. In the run-up to the Iraq War, Colin Powell went to the U.N. and told the whole world that he had “reliable intelligence” that said that Saddam had mobile weapons laboratories. His source? Anonymous. The press went along with the story, and dutifully told us what Colin Powell said an anonymous source said.
When it turned out Powell’s source was an unreliable drunk codenamed “curveball,” and no trace of a mobile weapons laboratory was ever found in Iraq, was Bush mad? Shucks no.
Guess it was OK with Bush for the press to report what someone said an anonymous source said–as long as that someone was saying what Bush said he should say. Know what I’m saying?
3. In the aftermath of the war, Newsweek said an anonymous source said the Koran had been desecrated by U.S. forces at Guantanamo.
Was that OK with Bush? Gosh No! Even though the report hasn’t been proven false, and has been corroborated by the Red Cross and former prisoners, Bush was very, very mad!
Why? Well, pay close attention kiddies, because here’s where it gets tricksy: It’s OK for the press to print a false story if it’s based on something Bush says someone says an anonymous source says, or if it’s based on someone saying what Bush says he should say about what an anonymous source says. But it’s very very bad for the press to print a story that may or may not be true, based on what an anonymous source says. See?
This rotten, convoluted lesson in right and wrong has been brought to you by the man who restored moral clarity to the white house (not!): George W. Bush.
Comment by Michael — 5/21/2005 @ 11:50 pm
Hm. No response from Hoosier Texan. What a surprise. The story gets even better. Read an update at: http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2005/05/20/update-david-corn-koran-desecrate/
And then, I believe, there’s even more specific, credible information coming out this morning from the Los Angeles Times. Peregrin is in the process of writing a short review of that information right now, I think.
Blame Newsweek? Looks like they were onto something after all.
Comment by jclifford — 5/22/2005 @ 4:41 am
[…] had been exposed as false. However, as I have already explained in previous articles, the International Red Cross has provided independent information abou […]
Pingback by Irregular Times: News Unfit for Print»Blog Archive » How Was This Koran Desecration Newsweek’s Fault? — 5/22/2005 @ 5:38 am
[…] 217;s article from this morning about newly revealed allegations of systematic, purposeful desecration of the Koran by American guards at the Guantanamo Bay […]
Pingback by Irregular Times: News Unfit for Print»Blog Archive » Update on Red Cross Reports on Koran Desecration — 5/22/2005 @ 5:41 am