Posted on 05/17/2005 9:24:40 AM PDT by Spacewolfomega
You can call Newsweek to voice your complaints at (212)445-4000. Demand that the magazine be held accountable by requesting that Isikoff either be fired or his resignation accepted. If you or your business have a subscription to Newsweek, threaten cancellation if they do not comply within a week from today (5-17-05). This sort of irresponsible reporting must be accounted for. Only all of our efforts can help bring this about. Thank you.
Thanks. That was a great editorial.
First, given that these kinds of allegations had been printed numerous times, your statement that mass rioting and killing would've been expected by anyone is a bit of a stretch.
Second, your "whether true or not" line is telling. You apparently think it would've been a crime even if the story was 100% true. Not just a crime, but a capital one.
Jeez.
mens rea. find it here.
"They didn't need a report of Koran desecration to take to the streets and blame the United States while enthusiastically taking innocent lives. This is what they do."
- Andrew McCarthy, NRO
Proximate foreseeable cause plus failure to support mens rea defense by producing "credible source." Find it here.
And they do more of it when inflammed by yellow journalism. The perpetrators themselves cited the Newsweek story as pretext for the atrocities.
As for the cause of the rioting, I'll refer you to the JCOS. They don't seem to think it was Newsweek. I'd think they'd know a little more than Scottie about what is happening on the ground. Then again, that Paki cricket star did reference Newsweek. Wonder who put him up to it, hint, hint.
If this were not so, I could shoot you dead in the presence of numerous credible witnesses and then defend myself successfully by insisting that prosecution prove I knew what I was doing.
That's not how it's done.
Getting a story wrong is not a crime. Even making a story up is not a crime. Weekly World News, anyone?
And your contention that 'proximate forseeable cause' is 'clear' - meaning that they should have known that an inaccurate story [the substance of which had been reported in numerous media outlets in the past two years, most notably ARAB media] would lead to rioting and killing - is far from a certainty. And I'm sure our own government's statement that the article didn't cause the rioting would weigh pretty heavily in defense.
I'm sure you are having fun on the bandwagon, but you do nothing more than justify the insane behavior of Muslim extremists by blaming anyone else for their actions.
There was also the following statement from Condoleeza Rice, who may also know something about what sparked these riots --
No news outlet has the right to defame a citizen with impunity.
I'm thinking 'torch-light procession'... tar & feathers... wooden rails... de-pantsing... pink-belly... bitch-slap...
You forgot "titty twisters" and "Indian head-burn."
Sh_t... the old days. We had another form of greeting we gave... you punched a dude as hard as you could on his upper arm. I mean HARD!
It was like a free-shot... if you winced at all... you were a pussy.
The problem with that is that no specific individual has been defamed (which would be hard to do if this incident didn't take place). Even then, no sort of punitive monetary damages could even begin to compensate for the increased threat this blunder poses to us.
It's hard to argue with that, wc. However, those individuals responsible for interrogation are known to others, such as their fellow servicemen, commanding officers, spouses, parents, friends, etal. In that circumstance, there is no need for the story to identify them by name, since those who know them will realize who the subjects are.
Hey, you catch on quick. Just because something is true doesn't mean that its publication is justified, or even legal (of course, if you think our nuclear technology should be serialized in Popular Mechanics, perhaps you disagree).
In this case; this act, if true, would have been a tremendously boneheaded thing for someone to do, and rightfully subject to punishment within the military structure; however, the consequences of publicizing the particular act would far outweigh the "public's right to know" mantra. However, as much as I enjoy watching you build straw men, I didn't say it was a capital crime.
As for your statement that these kinds of allegations had been printed numerous times, perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide some citations? I'm not talking about the America-is-mean-to-Muslims type of general accusations that are bandied about, based on treatment of prisoners who have committed violent acts. Those can only be relied upon to stir up the usual crowds.
I'm talking about a specific insult to Islam in general, so fundamentally incendiary that it would be highly offensive to those Muslims who have been cooperating with us; something that could quite conceivably turn them against us.
"The irony is that Isikoff is one of their most conservative reporters"
Yes. Didn't Isikoff break the Monica story?
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.