Libertarian Librarian

Saying that the Newsweek report is responsible for at least 15 deaths is as stupid as saying that a bartender is responsible for the drunk guy going out on the road and killing another driver.
 

that analogy is logically flawed... and is in no way ..analogous.... a somewhat more accurate analogy would be comparing Newsweek to someone who goes into a crowded building and yells "Fire" because a five year old told them it was hot in there...then in the panic 15 people get trampled to death.
 

Newsweek is not responsible for the deaths. The deaths were caused by evil people who will use any excuse to kill people that are not identical to them. Besides, do you really believe the allegations are false? So you accept that the USA has photographed prisoners naked in pyramids, had leashes on their necks, etc., but don't believe any soldier has mutilated the Qu'ran knowing how dearly the prisoners hold it. I actually don't see anything wrong with the tactic.
 

I'm going to have to agree with Scott on this one. If anything, the people that are to blame is our government for not explaining to us (and the media) what type of religion we are up against.
I read an article that said that a man was shot to death because his wife had used the Qu'ran to block his attacks on her.
I give the religious right a lot of grief, but even they do not have as fanatical a view on the Bible (the actual physical copy, not the words) as what appears to be normal view of Muslims regarding the Qu'ran.
In the end, all Newsweek is guilty of is not realizing the incredible bias in the Arab world. (Damn, I used that b word.) The general attitude seems to be that eveb though Muslims are getting blown up by their own suicide bombers, but anything that a non-Muslim does is worse. (This makes for a tough group to win the 'hearts and minds' of.)
 

What? Newsweek publishes a story that includes a piece that any long-standing, reputable news organization/publisher should realize is going to be incendiary in the Muslim world (“confirming” its accuracy with a single, uncorroborated, anonymous source and the point that the Pentagon neither confirmed nor denied the allegation), and they shouldn’t be held responsible in some way for the riots that ensued based, at least partially, upon what was printed in their publication. The government should accept the blame, however, because they didn’t tell us what type of religion we were going up against.

What should the government had told us? Maybe that Islam is a brutal religion with a horrible record on the topic of human rights; or that Islam has always been a faith based upon the sword; or that Muslims have a tendency to violent reaction to any perceived injustice or violation of their faith. If the government would have made any such statement regarding Islam, the immediate backlash would have been to label the government as intolerant and/or bigots.

Newsweek, on the other hand, published its first issue in 1933 and has been under the umbrella of the Washington Post since 1961. They’ve covered the Middle East before. They have run stories on Muslim extremism based upon a printed insult against Islam (i.e. Salman Rushdie). They have been in the business of reporting on world events for decades. They truly should have known what could come of such an inflammatory claim in Muslim society.

I’m not saying that Newsweek is criminally responsible for the riots. The Imams and those opposed to the West in the Muslim world will use any excuse to whip up such furor. I do think, however, that Newsweek did show reckless disregard in printing about pages of a Koran being flushed down a toilet without solid sources or documented proof. If it was not disregard towards the safety of Muslims and U.S. forces in the region, then it was at least a gross disregard of journalistic standards.

Keeping that in mind, one could plausibly see Newsweek getting sued by a victim of the riots for consequential or compensatory damages on the grounds of reckless conduct, reckless disregard, liability (be it strict or vicarious), and/or negligence (be it comparative, contributory, or gross). I think that would be the best way to have Newsweek chastised; in a civil court and through the pocketbook.
 

wow..these comments are incredible...

first of all a bartender IS responsible for a drunk guy killing someone; as is the bar owner....many many courts have ruled on this...why are the really stupid comments always anonymous....

secondly mojo continues to make VERY good points on this blog site especially about how newsweek should be more worried about being liable in CIVIL court rather than criminal

thirdly ....why is troy always willing to give the media a pass??..why should newsweek or any media need the government to explain to them how dangerous attacking a religion will be....if anything the roles should be reversed..it is newsweek's job (and other media) to INFORM US of these kind of things
 

Mo joe nails it:

"I think that would be the best way to have Newsweek chastised; in a civil court and through the pocketbook."

So does Gym Jim:

"first of all a bartender IS responsible for a drunk guy killing someone; as is the bar owner"

But no one spiked Isakof like Ann Coulter did:

"When ace reporter Michael Isikoff had the scoop of the decade, a thoroughly sourced story about the president of the United States having an affair with an intern and then pressuring her to lie about it under oath, Newsweek decided not to run the story. Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek, followed by The Washington Post.

"When Isikoff had a detailed account of Kathleen Willey's nasty sexual encounter with the president in the Oval Office, backed up with eyewitness and documentary evidence, Newsweek decided not to run it. Again, Matt Drudge got the story.

"When Isikoff was the first with detailed reporting on Paula Jones' accusations against a sitting president, Isikoff's then-employer The Washington Post -- which owns Newsweek -- decided not to run it. The American Spectator got the story, followed by the Los Angeles Times.

"So apparently it's possible for Michael Isikoff to have a story that actually is true, but for his editors not to run it."...

The evidence is clear: Newsweek made a partisan effort to damage the White House. In the past, they have made partisan efforts to support a democrat White House.

Kind of like CBS's "fake but accurate" memos.
 

Hey, Isikoff's one of yours. you can have him.

I have little use for Newsweek.

It should be noted, however, that the story of mutilation of the Koran was reported in various places over the last year or so; this wasn't a new allegation, and the previous reports have never been disputed. As a matter of fact, the Pentagon declined to dispute the story when offered the chance by Newsweek. If you say Newsweek 'should have known' that the report would spark violence, shouldn't the Pentagon?

But that's neither here not there. How about getting your panties in a bunch about this: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?hp&ex=1116648000&en=6cca0512a38427c3&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Manufactured outrage about a dubious causality of a back page article is fiddling while Rome burns, when atrocities are being regularly committed.

Go ahead, burn Newsweek. Basically, their reporting has been reliably slightly right of center; it only demonstrates that the eventual goal is suppression of all alternative and differing viewpoints, and you had better not step out of line.

But where is the causality for brutally torturing and killing a prisoner, who in the end was believed to be innocent? Was that Newsweek's fault? Did Michael Moore order him strung up?

Do you really think the friends and family of this man feel any gratitude towards those jailers, or to America?
 

It should be noted, however, that the story of mutilation of the Koran was reported in various places over the last year or so; this wasn't a new allegation, and the previous reports have never been disputed. As a matter of fact, the Pentagon declined to dispute the story when offered the chance by Newsweek. If you say Newsweek 'should have known' that the report would spark violence, shouldn't the Pentagon?

JIH: I believe the Pentagon has a policy of neither confirming or denying any rumors. As for Newsweek, they've been around forever. They've been reporting news forever, including news from the Middle East. If they don't know what they're doing, they should quit.

You ever actually try to flush a book down a toilet? It won't work, a typical book is too big and too inflexible to fit down a toilet. Perhaps that should have been a clue?

But that's neither here not there. How about getting your panties in a bunch about this: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?hp&ex=1116648000&en=6cca0512a38427c3&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Manufactured outrage about a dubious causality of a back page article is fiddling while Rome burns, when atrocities are being regularly committed.

Hysteria. This is a 2002 story, taken entirely from a military report, all participants have been prosecuted.

1) The Times is quoting a confidential file--so they can make anything they want up without fear of contradiction, generally.

2) The article is peppered with quotes that could easily have been taken out of context. But the quotes that are most damning generally come from relatives, detainees, or interpreters--who from the article are likely detainees themselves, and have much incentive to exaggerate.

3) There seem to be about four or five quotes that lead to the notion that this prison allowed beating terrorist suspects, which is not something the Geneva Convention covers. Those i.d.'ed with self-damning quotes are Sgt. Thomas V. Curtis, Specialist Jeremy M. Callaway, Specialist Willie V. Brand, and Specialist Brian E. Cammack. How many were charged? Seven soldiers have been charged, including four last week. Brand has been charged. Cammack has been charged. Curtis has left the service. Callaway did not seem to incriminate himself, though he established this unit sure did knee folks in the thigh regularly.

Seems to me that the service is policing itself. And the timing of an article about the service on this subject is more than suspect, since it has been old news for two years already. Gall contributed to pieces in the New York Times, 3/4/03; Washington Post, 3/5/03; BBC, 3/6/03; Guardian, 3/7/03; Independent 3/7/03. Ruhallah is Gall's interpreter.

Rohde, of course, has published some hack pieces before, but this is a little more subtle--his prior work was the June 9, 2004 hack piece on Abu Ghraib with this gem: "While nudity as a disciplinary or coercive tool may be especially objectionable to Muslims, they are hardly the only victims of the practice. Soldiers in Nazi Germany paraded naked prisoners in daylight…"

Alain Delaqueriere belongs in his own special category. He was part of the Slimes' FOIA ghoul squad which requested and reviewed all the 911 calls from the WTC on 9/11.

Go ahead, burn Newsweek. Basically, their reporting has been reliably slightly right of center; it only demonstrates that the eventual goal is suppression of all alternative and differing viewpoints, and you had better not step out of line.

When at the gym I grab old copies of Time and Newsweek and read them while bicycling. I'd urge others to do the same, read an issue two or three months old. It is amazing how hysterical and how wrong these people are once times goes by and facts crystallize a little. As for being right of center, you'd have to be left of left to have that perception.

Do you really think the friends and family of this man feel any gratitude towards those jailers, or to America?

I think they hate us. Anyway. Going back to the 70's.
 

Regarding gym and mojo's comments, I think the government needs to tell us what we are up against. The media has their own responsibility to know what the hell the rest of the world is like (don't they have reporters there). (I apologize if my ramblings didn't made that clear.)
And regarding responsibility for the riots, neither Newsweek or the US government or anyone in the US is responsible. The responsible ones are the ultra-religious in those countries that continue to push for their people to live with "Dark Ages" philosophy. I'm fine if they want to live in the 1300s (where kings/dictators are sons of god), but then they have to quit using 21st century weapons.
 

The government has told us who we were up against. Some examples are:

"The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

"They have ambushed American and British service members -- who stand for freedom and order. They have killed civilian aid workers of the United Nations -- who represent the compassion and generosity of the world. They have bombed the Jordanian embassy -- the symbol of a peaceful Arab country. And last week they murdered a respected cleric and over a hundred Muslims at prayer -- bombing a holy shrine and a symbol of Islam's peaceful teachings." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030907-1.html

"We've also seen images of a young American facing decapitation. This vile display shows a contempt for all the rules of warfare, and all the bounds of civilized behavior. It reveals a fanaticism that was not caused by any action of ours, and would not be appeased by any concession." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html

The videos of the brutal beheadings and other murders of hostages by Islamic terrorists have been available on the internet for some time. The Beslan school massacre killed hundreds of civilians in the course of a terrorist act committed by Muslim separatists. This and more has been available and reported, but none of it has jolted us into the realization of who we are facing.

Instead, we continue to have hand-wringing stories revisiting the very few abuses that were committed by U.S. personnel (abuses that involve government cases against those responsible), or stories with unsubstantiated claims of U.S. abuse that are acceptable because they seem plausible. All the while the successes of our forces in theater go widely unreported and the concept of revisiting the atrocities committed by the terrorists and their allies is dismissed as something that would be xenophobic or just stir-up ill-will towards Islam.

I agree that those who fomented the populous to riot in the Muslim world following the Newsweek story are directly responsible for the damage and deaths, but there is a plausible question of partial civil culpability on the part of Newsweek due to their publication of that piece. I don't think that the civil case will be forthcoming, but there would be a foundation for such a case in civil court.

The problem here is that we have a press that won't revisit or show the brutality of the terrorist acts for fear of riling Americans against innocent Muslims, yet press organizations seem to have no problem whatsoever in publishing stories, unsubstantiated or otherwise, that rally Muslims against Americans. If the Newsweek story had been something that caused riots against Muslims in Dearborn, MI, do you think CAIR would file a civil case against Newsweek for damages sustained in those riots on the grounds of reckless disregard and vicarious liability? I think that CAIR would; and Newsweek would settle.
 

OK, last paragraph from Mojo got almost there for me. Yes, the media is getting away with riling up Muslims against the US, but the real problem is how easy they get riled up. I have come to expect this behavior from extremist (from any religious sect), but what kills me is the attitude of 'normal' Muslims.
In the end, we wouldn't care about any of this if it wasn't for the oil. I say we drill all of Alaska and tell the environmentalist that they can deal with the terrorists themselves if they have a problem with it.