Posted on 06/18/2006 9:08:20 PM PDT by pissant
The New York Times has developed quite a reputation for springing “weekend surprise” stories, to circulate widely and set a media meme, before those with more complete information return on Monday to start to disassemble the story’s veracity.
The Saturday NYT’s, online Friday night, carries “Contradictions Cloud Inquiry Into 24 Iraqi Deaths.” And, so the “contradictions” do. However, the New York Times, citing two anonymous sources, inadequately identified or qualified, proceeds to contradict most of the defense of their actions presented so far by some of the Marines via their lawyers.
Many of the assertions and “witnesses” headlined for two weeks by the New York Times and other major media about what happened at Haditha have been undermined by subsequent coverage in blogs and by contrary, compelling accounts just emerging from some of the Marines through their lawyers. So, the New York Times takes another tack at undermining the Marines, citing two anonymous informants whose qualifications are quite inadequately supported.
The article begins soberly:
What really happened in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005? On that day, marines killed 24 Iraqi civilians, including 10 women and children and an elderly man in a wheelchair. But how and why it happened and who ultimately bears responsibility are matters of profound dispute.
Interviews with marines who were present that day or their lawyers, Iraqi residents who witnessed the attack and military investigators provide broadly conflicting accounts of the killings. This article, based on those interviews, does not resolve those discrepancies. But it does lay bare the task facing investigators as they try to square the accounts with ambiguous forensic evidence, and suggests that the work will be hindered by the passage of time, the tricks of memory and the fog of fast-paced action at several different locations in Haditha, a tense Euphrates River valley city, seven months ago.
The narrative is presented of several Marines present who have spoken through their lawyers. The conflicting contending views of several self-proclaimed Iraqi “witnesses” is briefly presented, although the speciousness of several formerly highlighted in the media is not explored.
The “bomb” dropped by the NYT’s account, however, is in its presentation of what is presented as “initial findings” of the investigation by the military.
However, investigators have found evidence that the men in the taxi were not fleeing the bombing scene, as the marines have told military officials. Investigators have also concluded that most of the victims in three houses died from well-aimed rifle shots, not shrapnel or random fire, according to military officials familiar with the initial findings.
The houses where the killings took place show no evidence of the violent room-clearing assault described by the marines and their lawyers, the officials said.
The bodies have not yet been exhumed for autopsies, and defense lawyers can be expected to challenge the narrow use of photographic evidence on these points.
That car, described as a “taxi” in the media, as if one can visualize a Yellow Taxi with a cab light on top, is only later identified by “Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, the leader of the squad…He said he had seen a white car, now usually referred to as a taxi, containing a driver and four young men. The marines suspected that those men were spotters for the bomb.”
Without exhuming the bodies for autopsy, which the Iraqis’ families refuse, it is impossible to determine the type of damages done them and by what weapons. The article states the following, without noting the “morgue director” is an Iraqi known hostile to U.S. forces, and the “death certificates” similarly prepared.
The wounds of the dead Iraqis, as seen in photographs and viewed by the morgue director, were not consistent with attacks by fragmentation grenades and indiscriminate rifle fire, Colonel Watt found. The civilian survivors said the victims were shot at close range, some while trying to protect their children or praying for their lives. The death certificates Colonel Watt examined were chillingly succinct: well-aimed shots to the head and chest.
Here’s where the key problem pops up in the NYT’s account. It is based on “two people briefed on the investigation.” One is identified as a “Defense Department official… who would only discuss the continuing inquiry on the condition of anonymity because the matter remains under investigation.” The other is merely identified as “A second person who has been briefed on the inquiry.”
First, the way the article is written, it may appear that a Colonel Watt is one of these informants to the NYT’s, but is actually being cited -- whether accurately or out-of-context or not -- by one of the anonymous sources. One informant may be a “Defense Department official”, but is not identified as civilian or military, or of what rank. The other may be anyone of whatever background.
Second, these two anonymous sources are not further qualified in the article for how much of the investigation and how currently they are aware. Nor, are they qualified in the article as how knowledgeable about the incident, the investigation, or combat conditions in Iraq they themselves are.
Third, although it is noted “the matter remains under investigation”, their leaks are not qualified by how far along the investigation has proceeded, and how tentative or even superceded, or contradicted by other facts, their leaks may be.
Fourth, but of course of little importance to the NYT’s, is that these two anonymous sources are completely out of line in leaking: for the act of leaking itself, for adding to the prejudgment of our Marines before the investigations are complete, and for the prejudicial damage they may be doing to any case that may result, all of which is contrary to military regulations and elemental decency.
In short, the New York Times has done a fairly transparent job of just adding more “fog” as it tries to further undermine the Marines’ defense.
PING
More fisking of the putrid NY TImes article.
They've stolen Rather's Fake But Accurate scam. Will Dan sue? Stay tuned.
I think Rather has a case to be made...
But Free Republic never sleeps. We can tear apart MSM lies any time day any day of the week.
Good piece. The NY Times insinuate and imply repeatedly that these Marines are guilty as the despicable Murtha did a month ago on the word of anonymous sources.
The NY Times is beneath contempt and Murtha is a man without honor.
Maybe it's Murtha. He requested a briefing by the DoD and then went straight to the media. Maybe he is feeding details to the NYTs that are still classified?
I'm betting that he is taking but a tiny grain of truth, then making up gigantic lies of mountainous proportions to support that crap that he saying about the troops & the war!
The NYT KNOWS he is a lying traitor, but they, along with the rest of the MSM & the DNC don't care...I think they all truly believe that lies or truths mean nothing as long as their goal is accomplished. They believe they are sooooo superior to us that any means justify the end!
Amen!
From your keyboard to God's "to do list". The sources are probably CIA and/or State!
Stay tuned and be stuned!!!
Heh Heh, anyone, anytime, anywhere, beware!!!!
ping
25 years overdue as well.
FR is like the eye of Sauron.....'cept not as evil. ;o)
You could reverse the depictions and it would still be true.
Ooops, post 16 was 'sposed to be to reply to PC's post 5.
IMHO, until some tort attorney steps in, this nonsense will always be with us. The deliberate, or negligent reporting or manufacture of "news", by professional journalists, has very real emotional and financial liabilities to the misrepresented soldiers and their families. I regard it as "journalistic malpractice"...it is not responsible for society and our nation to continue to tolerate this. These attempts to manufacture 'news' have an associated product liability, where proven false.
It would not suprise me at all. Or Wesley Clark.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.