An editiorial by David Tell in this week’s Weekly Standard argues that the only way the US can lose the Iraq war is to lose the will to fight it—which in itself isn’t anything different than what a lot of pro-war writers as have argued. But what I found interesting was this bit toward the end of the piece. From “Truth or Consequences”:
On October 24, the ACLU made public an analysis of several dozen autopsy reports and related documents obtained from the Pentagon by means of a Freedom of Information Act request for records concerning foreigners detained in Afghanistan and Iraq. The deaths-in-custody of 44 such detainees were detailed in those documents, according to the ACLU’s press release and accompanying explanatory chart. According to the original documents themselves—which are posted on the ACLU’s website—the actual number of deaths involved appears to be only 43. But never mind about that. More to the point—the intended point being, in the words of the press release, that “U.S. operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogation”—was the contention that the Pentagon itself had labeled 21 of these 43 deaths “homicide.”
That number wasn’t even close to accurate. The documents show that military medical examiners attributed 19 of the 43 deaths to natural causes, 2 others to factors as yet “undetermined,” called one further death an “accident,” and left the “manner of death” box in 8 case files entirely blank. There were 13 official “homicides,” not 21. And documents associated with at most 5 of those homicides contain even the vaguest hint of possible wrongdoing by American personnel. The other 8 appear to have been “homicides” only in the technical sense that mortuary physicians use the term—to indicate any nonaccidental death resulting from human agency, whether sinister or innocent.
And what would an entirely innocent homicide look like, you ask? Innocence is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but try this on for size: Two of the very same “homicides” the ACLU has for two months now been content to cite as evidence of “widespread” human rights abuses involve wounded Iraqi insurgents captured after armed engagements with American troops. Both men were evacuated to U.S. hospitals where surgeons attempted to save their lives. But neither man survived his injuries.
Not the sort of thing they investigate on “Law and Order.”
And not the sort of thing that American newspapers and television networks any longer investigate either, apparently. The ACLU’s October 24 press release was extensively covered in the press. And its “21 homicides, many under questionable circumstances” datum has since become a “fact,” inevitably cited in an endless stream of stories about our current government’s peculiar propensity for torture and other such subhuman activities. No one seems to have noticed that the whole thing is bogus.
But hey, so what–right? Untruthful charges like these could help “shorten the war.” How dare the vice president complain about them.
[my emphases].
In a mini-debate I had with Matt Welch over “propaganda,” Matt took me to task for suggesting, flippantly, that what the US was doing by paying to place positive stories in Iraqi newspapers was hardly different in kind from what we see in the LA Times or the New York Times most days—the difference being that those venues tend to run negative stories, and they aren’t paid in cash. Which, I suppose, makes them sluts rather than whores.
But one of the examples I suggested to Matt was the propensity of the US media to run as “news” the news releases of various interest groups with a pointed political agenda (The anti-gun lobby comes to mind)—which is the dissemination of propaganda in almost the same sense that the US military is accused of disseminating information during their psyops information campaign. The difference is, what the US military put out was largely factual, and it was done in service of fighting a war and, presumably, saving US lives by beating back negative propaganda put out by the enemy (not to mention to combat long-cultivated anti-US feeling in the region).
For its part, the ACLU was certainly guilty of engaging in an intentional anti-war propaganda incident by having knowingly releasing faulty and inflamatory data. But how do we respond to the media who ran with the ACLU’s press release as if it were verified hard news?
The way I see it, there are only two conclusions we can draw from their decisions: 1) either the press was too lazy to do its own legwork and, because it was predisposed to believe the worst about the military under a Republican administration—and because it is often ideological aligned with the ACLU, whom it trusts—it ran with the story, not knowing it to be faulty; or 2) those media outlets who relied on the ACLU and did recognize flaws in the data knowingly conspired to pass anti-war propaganda to their readerships using the imprimatur of their news organizations. And either way? They had the laziness excuse to fall back on.
They were simply duped—much like the Democratic party was duped into voting to give the President authority to go to war.
The irony is, there are, I’m sure, a number of anti-war progressives who expressed HORRIFIC OUTRAGE over the story of paid placement of factual US news in Iraqi newspapers who will argue that the ACLU and the papers who ran their press release were acting in good faith because they really really really and truly believe the war to be wrong, and the ends justify the means.
And what’s frightening is not so much that they’d do it. It’s that they’d believe they were acting honorably.
And… scene.
Maybe, I suspect they’re just on the other side.
DON’T QUESTION THEIR PATRIOTISM, CORVAN!!
I don’t have to. They do it themselves, every time they open their mouths.
… they’d believe they were acting honorably.
::sigh::
I wish I could still believe that. It was in a much nicer world than this one. But that, as they say, was long ago in a far country.
Regards,
Ric
Factual army press releases are propoganda.
ACLU dishonest press releases are speaking truth to power.
If you can’t see the difference you’re just not “Progressive” enough.
TW “bring”…nope, nothing there.
So this story will be front and center at Andy Sullivan’s blog, right?
Patriotism is like breathing. People know it when they see it. If you have to explain that then your not.
Heh.
Where’s PIATOR? I’m sure he/she/it has an “interesting” take on this story – it’ll take PIATOR sixteen or so eight paragraph comments to make its point, but, hey, who’s perfect?
It was in a much nicer world than this one. But that, as they say, was long ago in a far country.
It was, indeed. It was a country in which morals were not yet relative, in which oral still meant something you washed your mouth out with, and in which it was not yet a crime to sing Christmas carols in public.
Well this is of course one of the big complaints about the press right now, that they basically just report on other people’s press releases (or their anonymously-sourced equivalents), get a reaction for “balance” and call it a day. I think the “lazyness” excuse is overwhelmingly the best explaination, combined with the fact that the press sees as its primary purpose being a check against government–regardless of whether the sources of those “checks” come from the government itself (opposition party apparatus, etc). Another underlying problem is that the press tends to report to a story (manufactured from the Total Media Zeitgeist), rather than report to an objective reality. And it’s not just conservatives/Republicans who have issued these complaints–you’ll see this in a lot of the liberal/Democrat critiques of the press during the Clinton era as well. Liberal critiques of the press today–those which aren’t demanding media be *more* partisan–are also asking the press to have less bland he-said/she-said wishywashyness and report in black-and-white/moral/intellectual absolutes. Which I think is interesting.
the pentagon hasn’t done well in describing this process. for example, some of the material placed in iraqi publications consisted of how-to-report-the-presence-of-terrorists-in-your-neighborhood. That led to leads that in turn produced the capture or killing of terrorists.
might be worth a few dollars, don’t you think?
If the Pentagon did better would the press listen? Or would they treat him like Joe Lieberman? At some point the press has to bear some responsiblity for failing to do its job, doesn’t it?
“It” like Joe Lieberman, sorry.
More propaganda straight from the mill.
Reuters twists Bush’s statement that 30,000 Iraqi CITIZENS (including civilians, military police, insurgents, translators, etc.) have died as a result of the initial incursion and continuing violence, into a statement that ALL the dead were CIVILIANS:
How many journos and lefty bloggers will latch onto this figure, like the bogus 100,000 from Lancet? Purely out of “laziness”, of course … I’m sure agenda never enters the picture.
(h/t Mudville Gazette)
You don’t understand. It’s not propaganda if they repeat it long enough and loudly enough.
Acting honorably? Frightening indeed.
Some of the most evil acts of betrayal in this century were committed by people thinking they were acting honorably and in the best interest of all. Klaus Fuchs thought he was when he handed over the very most sensitive information for the design of the atomic bomb to the Soviets. So too claimed the Rosenbergs (cf. Richard Rhodes) although at least Fuchs did finally realize the error of his ways.
And now we have these miserable no-talent *ssclowns who refuse to learn from history selling us down the river again.
Jesus wept.
tw: major clusterf*ck.
There is no way that the NYT and Wash. Post have to be as fat as they are. They’re just pretending to know more than they actually do.
If they published less news, maybe they wouldn’t have to make stuff up, print press releases etc.
And readers could then actually read the whole news section! It’s a win-win situation!
And what’s frightening is not so much that they’d do it. It’s that they’d believe they were acting honorably.
“Sophie, Sophie, certainly you may see your little boy…Do you think I am some kind of monster?”
Ah, humanity.
APF,
one issue here, the stories the press runs with are mostly left leaning. The right leaning stories are buried or downplayed.
They are dishonest about their agenda AND sometimes dishonest about the truthfulness of the story.
Jeff, I read the docs. Thanks for the links.
But I don’t get quite the same answers as you. For sure, the data is confusing, with multiple reports covering the same death, However, by quick count where the detainee died after interrogation, I get something like 8 deaths with the smell of abuse. Some of which were listed as homicides, some as blank or pending.
So how many does it take, Jeff? Or do you take the position that deaths as a result of interrogation are appropriate and necessary? Or is your only beef that the ACLU overstated their case? That doesn’t seem to bother you when the administration does it, why should it bother you if the ACLU does it? Certainly the ACLU can’t send 100s of thousands of Americans to war. Unlike, say, the administration with which we are currently saddled.
Just so it’s clear, I am a member of the ACLU. I happen to like their first amendment work. So will you, whenever the pendulum swings and Dem’s are villifying dissent.
Jake
Am I allowed to ask at what point the ACLU became engrossed with actions in Iraq?
WTF?
I have a suggestion–go bug Robert Mugabe or the thuggies in Rangoon (oops, Burma has a swinging new capital–http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific) and catch a dose of real repression.
TW–“piffle”–As in synonym for “news release.”
Of course the ACLU was acting in good faith. I mean this is an issue that has nothing to do with Americans or their civil rights.
A fine upstanding organization that one.
Wishbone beat me to it. It won’t happen again. Curse you wishbone, curse you!
Villifying dissent is not the same as say, locking people up or shooting them for it, Jake. And a little vilification is called for now in the current environment.
Liberals, as P.J. O’Rourke once wrote, are spoiled brats. You prove it.
One more thing–go to the aclu website (http://www.aclu.org) and find anything that mentions that their mission is related to ANYTHING outside the U.S.
If the Boy Scouts shouted support for the Iraq War, do you think the left would shout “Stay in your lane!”?
That’s outrageous. The ACLU has become nothing but a group of “Tokyo roses”. Is there anyway the government could have them shut down once and for all?
Jake, do you practice being dense? Because from reading your comment, I can only figure you’re intentionally missing the point.
Nope. Not with the current atmosphere as generated by the leftards.
No, villifying, demonizing dissent, just leads to dumbass wars.
Wherein LOTS of people get locked up, tortured, and/or shot.
Jake
Examples, please. I ask because you haven’t shown yourself as having a strong grasp on history.
And you seem to have ignored wishbone’s comment:
Nope. Not with the current atmosphere as generated by the leftards.
Isn’t there a way we could use the Patriot Act to do it? The ACLU at this point are, in fact, enemy combatants. Surely, there must be a way to use that to have them disbanded. I’m not suggesting putting anyone in jail, just shutting down the organization.
RICO the ACLU!
Would the RICO laws apply to the ACLU as well? (rubbing his hands with glee)
Sorry if libs can’t take the heat of NAMECALLING, Jake.
Compare and contrast: Dubya’s reaction to slipping poll numbers (stay the course) and Kerry’s reaction to “quagmires”–“I voted for it before I voted against it.”
It’s called courage. And just because you and the rest of the quackery think Iraq was a mistake does not mean the President is obliged to cave (there was an election, remember?). Rather than give credit for deposing a tyrant and one of the most destabilizing men on the planet–you fixate on body counts, which (and I’m no cold-hearted chickenhawk–so don’t start) are low by any measure of modern warfare–almost three years in.
And in a startling revelation to you and the leftards at the ACLU, when American servicemen and women commit a crime–they’re held accountable. Saw it myself and if Captains in the US Navy are that harsh at their masts, I can only guess what happens at a court martial.
Finally, I want to flash back to the beginning of the war. If we had taken no action, the sanctions regime would have crumbled, Saddam would be rearmed and his weapons programs would be going full bore again. How many MORE would have died in that scenario? I’ll take preemption anyday over head-in-the-sand wishful thinking that relies on the benificence of dictators.
As soon as the ACLU treats all civil liberties with equal fervor, instead of cherrypicking the ones they like, I’ll listen.
Q: How does the ACLU count to 10?
A: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6…
Q: How does the ACLU count to 10?
A: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6…
LOL. The one right that really matters, they have no interest in.
The Patriot Act might not be necessary, as there appears to be provisions within the 1893 War Provision Act that would allow the State Department to take over the ACLU, in the interest of defense of the nation, of course.
I’ve been reading a little about it on some of the legal blogs, it sounds plausable, and there are rumors that its going to happen before Iran is stomped.
Smithy, would RICO work against ACLU?
Not sure, but the Patriot Act’s greatest contribution is that it provides a buffer between those who would abuse the Constitution (ACLU, for example) and those who would act to protect Americans. Since wartime issues place the government’s powers outside of, or beyond, the conventional Constitutional “restrictions”, the Patriot Act can leverage those wartime imperatives and apply full force to combatants and people who are outside of the Constitution’s protective cover. It’s a direct response to the do-nothing mentality of the “I was against it before I was for it” crowd.
Michael Ledeen  You see? You see? THE PENTAGON LIED – IRAQIS DIED!
Can I get my law degree now?
some of the material placed in iraqi publications consisted of how-to-report-the-presence-of-terrorists-in-your-neighborhood. That led to leads that in turn produced the capture or killing of terrorists.
We should probably have a bit more of that sort of thing in our own newspaper, frankly.
vilifying, people.
I like L’s, Slarti.
Except when they start the “L” word itself.
Jake’s too stupid to remember that the Democrats already did “vilify” dissent in every war they’ve taken the United States into, including having “dissenters” criminally prosecuted.
We know what real suppression of dissent looks like from Democrat examples, Jake. Grow up, ‘cause it ain’t happening today.
dis·sent
intr.v. dis·sent·ed, dis·sent·ing, dis·sents
1. To differ in opinion or feeling; disagree.
Like the Republicans do to the Democrats.
vil·i·fy
tr.v. vil·i·fied, vil·i·fy·ing, vil·i·fies
To make vicious and defamatory statements about.
Like the Democrats are doing to the Republicans.
The pendulum doesn’t have to swing anywhere, Jake, if you understood the definitions of the words you are using you would realize it is happening right now.
I think RC nailed it, you are either disingenuous or an idiot.
No worries, SPQR,
As Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, Jake and his ilk call everything fascism, repression, and torture…except real fascism, repression, and torture.
B Moe:
Hypothetical–Do you think the ACLU would take Joe Lieberman’s free speech case?
Or that Jake would recognize someone who, you know, has the courage of his convictions unlike all those Dems who were duped into voting for it before they voted against it?
I think some of the problem is the fact that headlines like, “crime prevented” don’t exactly demand publication, unless it was by a child, or a dog, or celebrity (but I repeat myself) or something. News organizations in the US also take their cues re: newsworthyness from places like the NYT, which really /has/ made it clear in some cases that it has a real ideological agenda and will leverage its position as paper of record to push that agenda (“flood the zone”). There’s also the point that the underlying mission/ideology of being a check against government is itself a “liberal” position.
If Jake pops back up will some one ask him if restoring Saddam Hussein to power is a legitimate goal for the Iraqi insurgency. He ignored that question in the last thread. He did say he thought the insurgency was a legitimate reaction to Saddam’s removal, though. I’m just trying to figure out exactly what he believes.
Most likely Jake is just another libruhl that is unable to fully understand his own position, let alone the position of his betters. Once Jake grows up a little, maybe he’ll start to realize that his desire for an Islamic America was only his juvenile knee-jerk reaction to his Bush Hatred.
I’m not sure youth is much of an excuse when it comes to backing mass-murderers.
Why isn’t anyone asking the fundamental question: why is the ACLU expending member donations on a project that appears to be outside the scope of its mission statement? Elaboration here.
It would be nice if the ACLU was interested in defending all liberties, and not just left-wing ones. Right now, conservative values are being trampled, but heaven forbid that we stand up for those values, because then we’re being “intolerant”. And yet liberals can do and say anything they want, hiding behind freedom of speech and expression. Yeah…freedom of speech…as long as you agree with THEM.
Wouldn’t be the first time the Left has accused Chimpy W. Hitlerburton of “duping” them. Evidently they don’t believe in the old saying “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” (Or, in a supreme irony, they actually subscribe to Bush’s famous misquotation of that saying.)
The Left doesn’t seem to grasp the implicit message about themselves that they are sending to the American public by complaining about being deceived by the President on multiple occasions, namely that they are a highly gullible lot.
ina propagada davida
Opponents who claim to have been duped by the administration are making a very impressive argument: “I’m dumber than Bush!”
I’ve posted a response to David Tell’s article here. I hope it’s okay with you that I post that link, but if not, I apologize. And, as requested, I’ve added Protein Wisdom to my blogroll.
Link away!
What most people don’t seem to understand about the “insurgency” and violence in Iraq (and, indeed, in many places around the world) is that it very much is due to the presence of foreign (US) troops, but not in the way that they think. It’s not an issue of “how dare they invade my homeland, let’s band together and throw out the foreign oppressor!” Indeed, when you look at the facts on the ground you see that the public sentiment in Iraq for kicking out Coalition troops ASAP is a mere blip (less than 10%), also you see that the “insurgents” contain an unusually high proportion of non-Iraqi fellows (though even were this not true it would hardly make a difference).
The truth is that if the US left immediately, Iraq (or at least the fragments of Iraq that would establish themselves) would probably become a fairly peaceful place fairly quickly. But not because the “insurgents” would stop fighting, quite the opposite. Because they would win, and because they would then be in charge, ruling by fear and intimidation. There would be no more car bombs in the street. Rather, there would simply be the peaceful, quiet knock on the door at 1AM, followed by a quick trip to the mass-grave, where everyone would be executed efficiently, cleanly, and orderly.
This is the “peace” that the anti-war protestors so desire. Not the absence of violence, torture, oppression, and mass-death but simply the absence of disorder and chaos. Commit genocide if you must, but please, use your indoor voice.
TW: “whether”, as in “Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer / The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, / Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, / And by opposing end them?”
Re: Ampersand’s post (linked above in the comments).
Not having access to Nexus Lexis myself, I relied on Tell’s characterization of the report being picked up as “widespread.”
I’ve emailed Mr. Tell for some clarification.
The text of my email:
I would appreciate it if some of you would click on the link to Tell’s editorial, navigate the the bottom where it says “respond to this article,” and put in your own requests for a follow-up comment or two.
Thanks.
It strikes me that the ACLU would hardly have any motive to release a statement  i.e., “put out a press release”  unless they hoped it would be picked up and promulgated widely by the Mainstream Media. The alternative would be that they hoped it would be seen by as few people as possible, which is of course, pretty darn silly.
The crux of the matter is NOT how well the MSM has disseminated the ACLU’s distorted statement, but that the distortion has been issued, consistent with the decades-long history of disinformation and the MSM’s enthusiastic abetting.
Jake, you’ll have to explain their first amendment work to me.
The first amendment states that CONGRESS WILL MAKE NO LAW…???
How does what the ACLU litigate have anything to do with anything in this statement. Where did Congress make a Law respecting religion??
How can the courts rule on it if Congress didn’t pass it??
The ACLU is a Communist front organisation that has a single purpose of destroying the peoples faith in its own institutions.
Is that what you like about their first amendment work Jake?? The fact that they are working for the Communist disruption of our country Jake?
Jake, are you now or have you…..
You flippin’ MORONS need to read a little history about what was MEANT when all this stuff was written. What was MEANT was exactly what it SAYS. There were 6 colonies with State Supported Religions when the Bill of Rights was signed. Don’t you think that might have been an issue if the First Amendment meant what the ACLU is trying to tell us it means??
Of course, Activist Judges have completely rewritten the Constitution to say that the Congress can pass laws regulating anything on the face of the earth because it is in some extremely strained relationship with something that might have a connection to Interstate Commerce>
You MORONS need to go back to what is written and if you don’t like it Pass AMENDMENTS as the Constitution allows. Of course, if that is too tough for you just have it entered as passed like they did with the 16th amendment even though they were a couple stated short!!