TelePolis writes how the war against terror has been a self-fulfilling prophesy; and that the US government is holding back new pictures from Abu Ghraib that a court ordered them to release... ¹
I agree with the last quote on that page:
The public must be informed of what is being done in our name. It is this Administration that has put our troops at risk and caused world-wide anger by fostering policies that promote torture and refusing to hold those responsible publicly accountable. Barbara Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights
#USA
(Please contact me if you want to remove your comment.)
⁂
I wonder who started to investigate the issues in Abu Ghraib first...
– Anonymous 2005-07-26 22:21 UTC
---
And you should quote the NY Times correction on this article here as well. It was an article was EXACTLY the opposite of what you wrote.
The money quote from the correction: The government was given until Friday TO BLACK OUT some identifying details in the material, NOT TO RELEASE it.
But it doesn’t matter. Hate Bush, be happy.
– Berend de Boer 2005-07-27 00:48 UTC
---
Since I cannot read every single paper on the planet, there obviously no duty for me to know and quote a correction article you may have seen. I guess we’ll see on Friday what happens.
– Alex Schroeder 2005-07-27 08:48 UTC
---
I still wonder what *the exact opposite* of “the US government is holding back new pictures from Abu Ghraib” is. The original article I wrote says:
Das Pentagon hatte dies bislang unter anderem aus dem seltsamen Grund verweigert, dass eine solche Veröffentlichung gegen die Genfer Konventionen verstoße, da die Bilder die misshandelten Gefangenen zeigen. Der Richter hatte daher dem Pentagon aufgetragen, die Gesichter der Gefangenen unkenntlich zu machen.
I guess I should correct my sentence therefore and write: “The US government has been holding back new pictures from Abu Ghraib but a court has now ordered them to be released.”
As for “hating Bush”, perhaps you should read some more before believing that I think it’s all Bush’s fault.
– Alex Schroeder 2005-07-27 09:54 UTC
---
I don’t think you understood the correction of the NY Times. Here more details: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011150.php
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011150.php
And I suppose you will be writing a correction as well...
– Berend de Boer 2005-07-27 23:19 UTC
---
Article is here the correction is appended at the end of the article.
I must say that in this case, the NY Times should have made more than a little correction appended to the article. (maybe they did...)
(Strangely I can access the article from google without registration)
– PierreGaston 2005-07-28 06:39 UTC
---
Berend, I don’t read the NY Times. So I did not read the original article, and I did not read the correction. I quoted the Telepolis magazine. Now that Pierre has given me a direct link, I read the article. I’m still not convinced of your view of the story, and the powerline article does not exactly help. It seems to be hyperbolic about it.
The Telepolis article said that the government was holding back pictures, and that the judge ordered them to be released. They did not write what the NY Times article says. They did not write that the government defied an order or refused to cooperate.
As I said above, I do agree that the original wording of *my* post was bad, because it gives just the impression of the NY Times article since it is so easy to mentally insert an “even though” in there, eg. “the US government is holding back new pictures from Abu Ghraib that<*del> even though* a court ordered them to *be* release/d/”.
I explained that up above. I don’t think I need to do anything else. This is all the correction I find necessary at the moment.
– Alex Schroeder 2005-07-28 09:17 UTC