| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
Hooded Iraqi detainee – did the NYT get duped?
This past weekend, the NYT ran an interview with a man who claimed to be the hooded person standing atop the box in the series of Abu Ghraib photos that first caught the nation’s attention last year. The AP is reporting today that there are questions coming out as to whether or not this man is who he says he is:
NEW YORK – The New York Times is investigating questions raised about the identity of a man who said in a Page 1 profile that he is the Abu Ghraib prisoner whose hooded image became an icon of abuse by American captors.
The online magazine Salon.com challenged the man’s identity, based on an examination of 280 Abu Ghraib pictures it has been studying for weeks and on an interview with an official of the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command. The official says the man the Times profiled Saturday, Ali Shalal Qaissi, is not the detainee in the photograph.
In an e-mail to the Times, Chris Grey, chief spokesman for the Army investigations unit, wrote: “We have had several detainees claim they were the person depicted in the photograph in question. Our investigation indicates that the person you have is not the detainee who was depicted in the photograph released in connection with the Abu Ghraib investigation.”
“We take questions about our reporting very seriously, and we will carefully investigate Salon’s findings,” Susan Chira, the Times’ foreign editor, said in Tuesday’s editions.
And what organizations did the NYT consult with in order to confirm Qaissi’s identity? Chira informs us:
We spoke with representatives of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, who had interviewed Mr. Qaissi and believed him to be the man in the photographs.”
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International?
Little Green Footballs gets it right:
When the Times wants to check a story about Abu Ghraib, they don’t call anyone in the US government. They call Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, two of the most politicized left-wing NGOs in the world.
Yep.
Read more via Mediacrity
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
23 Responses to “Hooded Iraqi detainee – did the NYT get duped?”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
“We take questions about our reporting very seriously, and we will carefully investigate Salon’s findings” Susan Chira, the Times’ foreign editor, said in Tuesday’s editions.
- As long as it looks like there may possibly be some damaging info for the MSM “get Bush” campaign. Otherwise they could care less.
- Its a lot easier to get “duped” when you have a single minded “agenda” to the expense of any modicum of fair and balanced reporting. Same ole same ole from the left-wing media.
- I can’t say they’ll be missed when the checks from Soros run out.
- Bang’s Fangs
Little Green Footballs is hilarious – they think NYT would find MORE reliable sources in the US govt than in the “lefty” Human Rights Sources and Amnesty International? Thanks for the laugh of the day! lol
Hmm. When it comes to who I trust to verify the identify of a detainee, I’ll take the word of the USG over Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International any day. Your mileage, however, may vary.
The Abu Ghraib story is already out there, is it not? The US has nothing to gain by denying the man’s identity.
“irresponsible journalism”? Point made!
“When the Times wants to check a story about Abu Ghraib, they don’t call anyone in the US government. They call Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, two of the most politicized left-wing NGOs in the world.”
Why doesn’t the US militar tell us who they think it is?
- With the apparent demise of the phoney “Bush lied” WMD meme, I need to change the score card to 0 and 24, with Plamegate poised in the wings for resolution. Based on some of the recent “disclosures”, I’m waiting for that one to blow up in the lefts faces too. If it wasn’t for the Iraqui war, the asshats wouldn’t have anything to screech about, and that ones a mine field because they keep looking like enemy agents everytime they obstruct the process. Over all, as has been said, BDS and some of the missle-mouths among the Dimbulbs are “the gift that keeps on giving”….
- Bang’s Fangs
“Why doesn’t the US militar tell us who they think it is?”
Hey Andrew, perhaps it’s more of that Geneva Convention stuff that makes it “illegal” to post his name????
Any lawyers here?
Raj is hilarious – Amnesty International, which sees gulags under every bed, is considered a more credible source than the US government.
“Hey Andrew, perhaps it’s more of that Geneva Convention stuff that makes it “illegal” to post his name????”
oh boy. that’s right. we can string him up, not not tell you who he is.
To me, it’s not who you trust, it’s lack of due diligence by the NY Times. Salon.com seems to have stepped up to the plate with some due diligence and people like Andrew want to continue with negligence. That my friend Andrew is IRRESPONSIBLE. Why would you want to be irresponsible?
Why not shoot for due diligence? Get the job done right! It’s our country’s future at stake here not the reputation of either a Army official or Human Rights Watch person that may or may not have done the proper legwork.
If you Andrew want to continue believing an organization that FAILED then you can but you must PROVE that the picture is of the interviewee and you can’t. Can you?
“Why not shoot for due diligence? Get the job done right!”
The times did contact the military. And the military said it wouldn’t tell them. The AP article quotes:
“The newspaper also said it spoke with the man’s lawyers, and contacted the military, which said the Geneva Conventions prevented it from commenting about the identity of anyone in a photograph.”
Due diligence much?
Wait a minute! If the military had revealed the man’s identity to the Times, the MSM would flay them alive for violating the Geneva Convention. Sounds like “heads I win tails you lose”.
- So of course in the absence of corraboration the “responsible” thing to do is run with the story, particularly when you’re foaming at the mouth with ideas of “getting Bush”. Got it Andrew.
- NEXT!
- Bang’s Fangs
“So of course in the absence of corraboration the “responsible” thing to do is run with the story, particularly when you’re foaming at the mouth with ideas of “getting Bush”. Got it Andrew.”
It was corroborated as much as could be.
I don’t see what the ‘get bush’ angle is. Nobody denies this happened. The damage to our country — and this man — have already been done.
All that is at stake is the guy’s identity. Which will, I’m sure, come out at the trial — he is suing.
Seriously Bang – you got anything left in your arsenal of deceit?
Sorry I’m late to the party on this one guys. I need to get over here more often.
- Lets see…. 37 days of Abu Graibe NYTrash front page photos, blowing it up as much as possible to make it sound like “widespread abuses within the US military”, when in fact it was a handfull of people out of 140,000 soldiers.
- Left-wing media bias. Nawwwwwww . Where would anyone get that idea.
- I’ve got more in my “arsenal” than an Army of asshats with their lies could deal with, and dats a fac jac!
- Bang
The guy in the hood is/was the head of saddams secret police.
Ya jac, it’s hard to believe your omnipresent omniscience let you down again. You must be a disappointed donk. 0 out of 22,23,2 …. !
My name is splodidope and I’m the real hooded DETAINEE.
My name is splodidope and I’M the real hooded detainee.
My name is splodidope and I’m the REAL hooded detainee.
Will the real hooded splodidope, STAND UP PLEASE!!
For those who are old enough to have gone through all twelve years of school and gotten a masters, twice, What is the name of this popular TV show from the 60’s?
All kidding aside, why should any normal person care which Islamic terrorist had a hood or not. At least it had a head to put a hood on, which is certainly more than can be said for “The religion of pieces”, if they get their chance. Those young Christian girls, if offered the opportunity to model hood and gown or get dead, might’ve gone for the hood, especially if there’s a chance of payment for services rendered. Not to mention the other hundreds they’ve already murdered, by their due process!
I’ll trade any one of you whiny Islamo puke sympathizers a year at club GITMO for a single day at the hands of these terrorist asshats begging to be exterminated.
You socialists would love it!
And if he does attempt to file a lawsuit, hang the lawyer along with him!
“And if he does attempt to file a lawsuit, hang the lawyer along with him!”–f.h.
Oh, no! The lawyer would sue for a silk (rep weave) rope and an Armani hood…
“And if he does attempt to file a lawsuit, hang the lawyer along with him!”
He already filed it. Something tells me your sadism isn’t what the law is going to listen to.
Sadism? Your case is a little further along than I thought. I’ll have to get back to you on what the meaning of meanings are. I’ve got to go learn some kids thet what thay needsta no!