[robertpaulsen]

"Are you saying that you don't see a difference between dying for a lie, and dying for something truthful?"

The one who is doing the dying doesn't see a damn bit of difference.

Posters are upset because people died due to shoddy reporting. I say their outrage is misdirected. The story should never had been reported, true or not.

Certainly if the story were true, the same number of innocents would have been killed. Would posters have been upset with Newsweek for reporting a true story? Sounds to me like they wouldn't, even though the same number would have died since the murderers were reacting to the story, not the acual event.

A little hypocritical?

[Miss Marple]

I think I see your point. If this had been true, it would have been the action of one over-zealous and out of control interrogator, not the policy of the US government. Any actions like this, particularly when they are not policy, should be investigated by the Pentagon but NOT published, especially in an international magazine.

However, to me, the problem with your point is that Newsweek doesn't even have the excuse that this is something that should be brought to the attention of the American public, since it was FALSE to begin with.

Even assuming they thought it was true, they obviously did not check with the Pentagon beforehand nor did they verify their source. They simply ran with it and gave no thought (or worse, maybe they did) to the violence that would ensue from this story.

[AFPhys]

Coming in late --- didn't read your original give and take, but I agree with you, apparently. This is an example of a story that ought not have been published. As I said in one of my posts in the last 20 or so minutes - with "Freedom of ..." comes "Responsibility for ..."

Newsweek ought to be charged with criminal charges of manslaughter for the NEWSWEEK MURDERS. They ought to be charged by the US military with treason and cleaving to the enemy in time of war.