Cited as Symbol of Abu Ghraib, Man Admits He Is Not in Photo (NYT caught red-handed in another lie!)

New York Times ^ | 03/18/2006 | KATE ZERNIKE

[Greg o the Navy]

In the summer of 2004, a group of former detainees of Abu Ghraib prison filed a lawsuit. One claimed to be the man in the photograph -- wires attached to his outstretched arms. The trouble was, the man in the photograph was not Mr. Qaissi.

[Greg o the Navy]

Here's yet another reason why the President should use his emergency powers to shut down the Times and its Al Qaeda sympathizing brethren in the MSM.

[clawrence3]

OMG! That was not even the man from the photo?! I remember that front page article - I agree that the NYT should be shut down.

[onyx]

HAR!
Good post.

[the invisib1e hand]

Here's yet another reason why the President should use his emergency powers to shut down the Times and its Al Qaeda sympathizing brethren in the MSM.

There is no need. Losing credibility like a ballon that's been untied loses air is about the worst thing that can happen to them.

[the invisib1e hand]

balloon, that is.

[Dallas59]

Well....It was a man....

He looka lika Man...Ya know

[clawrence3]

It would help to send a signal to others in the media wondering if they could get away with treason as well! I wonder if they will print this retraction on the front page?

[Echo Talon]

Sounds like a John Kerry war crimes story.

[clawrence3]

The retraction is not on this Front Page:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/pageone/scan/index.html

(Maybe tomorrow it will be?)

[martin_fierro]

Based on an amused spectator's list Send FReepmail if you want on/off MSP list
The List of Ping Lists

[Greg o the Navy]

Nothing would make me happier than to turn on FNC tomorrow morning and see video of troops ringing a shuttered NYT building. The Bonus Video: Punch Sulzberger, Maureen Dowdy and their co-treasonists being frogmarched into a capital treason trial. Fantasy? Yes. But there's no law against dreaming.

[martin_fierro]

This week, after the online magazine Salon raised questions about the identity of the man in the photograph, Mr. Qaissi and his lawyers insisted he was telling the truth.

You know you're lame when SALON is catching your errors.

[stylin19a]

once again...MSM provides news that' fake but accurate

[jazusamo]

It says a lot about a paper when you say you're not surprised a story is false and I'm not surprised.

[Waco]

All the fake-but-accurate-news that's fit to print. Will CBS sue them for plagerism? Ha!!!

[the invisib1e hand]

It would help to send a signal to others in the media wondering if they could get away with treason as well! I wonder if they will print this retraction on the front page?

well, sure. and we could lock up everyone who says such things. then we'd have exactly what our enemies want us to have -- a dictatorship.

Demanding a retraction is an excellent idea. Let the readership, let the responsible participants in the marketplace of ideas, including the bloggers of repute who see themselves as saviors of truth in media, call upon the NYT to come clean -- to print the retraction.

Top down solutions rarely work. We've got ourself a war -- let's fight it.

[mcenedo]

and a late Friday release as per usual with bad news for the left.

[conservative in nyc]

Yes, the article is on Page 1, according to the official "Editor's Note"/correction on page A2:

Editors' Note

A front-page article last Saturday profiled Ali Shalal Qaissi, identifying him as the hooded man forced to stand on a box, attached to wires, in a photograph from the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal of 2003 and 2004. He was shown holding such a photograph. As an article on Page A1 today makes clear, Mr. Qaissi was not that man.

The Times did not adequately research Mr. Qaissi's insistence that he was the man in the photograph. Mr. Qaissi's account had already been broadcast and printed by other outlets, including PBS and Vanity Fair, without challenge. Lawyers for former prisoners at Abu Ghraib vouched for him. Human rights workers seemed to support his account. The Pentagon, asked for verification, declined to confirm or deny it.

Despite the previous reports, The Times should have been more persistent in seeking comment from the military. A more thorough examination of previous articles in The Times and other newspapers would have shown that in 2004 military investigators named another man as the one on the box, raising suspicions about Mr. Qaissi's claim.

The Times also overstated the conviction with which representatives of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International expressed their view of whether Mr. Qaissi was the man in the photograph. While they said he could well be that man, they did not say they believed he was.

[conservative in nyc]

It's a Saturday front-page article correcting the previous Saturday's front page story. We can say a lot of bad things about the New York Times (like how they published a false story to begin with), but at least this time, they put their correction where it belongs - on the same page (front) as the original article.

[clawrence3]

I'd like to see if it is as prominent as last week's headline and picture.