Newsweek falsely reported that US interrogators desecrated the Holy Koran, causing fatal riots:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Newsweek magazine said on Sunday it erred in a May 9 report that U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, and apologized to the victims of deadly Muslim protests sparked by the article.
Editor Mark Whitaker said the magazine inaccurately reported that U.S. military investigators had confirmed that personnel at the detention facility in Cuba had flushed the Muslim holy book down the toilet.
The report sparked angry and violent protests across the Muslim world from
Afghanistan, where 16 were killed and more than 100 injured, to Pakistan to Indonesia to Gaza. In the past week it was condemned in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and by the Arab League.
On the Al Franken show today, the host made jokes about US desecration of the Koran, the Bible, the sayings of Confucius, and a few other holy books. It’s really funny when people are murdered by angry lynch mobs, isn’t it? (This kind of shit is the reason Franken failed as a comedian.)
Franken also lied about the use of the Senate filibuster against judges. While there are a few historical examples of the filibuster being used against certain judges – Abe Fortas was the last – these were not partisan or systematic uses like the use the Democrats are making of it today. Fortas had foes on both sides of the aisle, he wasn’t one of several judges being filibustered at the same time by the same party, and he was already on the court. Fortas, who later resigned for ethical problems, was a crony of LBJ who was proposed for a promotion to Chief Justice.
Franken was also lying about social security and promoting the “Franken donut”.
See Bill Quick for links on the Newsweek thing, as does Jeff Jarvis and Glenn what’s-his-name.
UPDATE: See this story about the Newsweek apology, especially interesting for those maintaining the story was true.
Newsweek apologized yesterday for an inaccurate report on the treatment of detainees that triggered several days of rioting in Afghanistan and other countries in which at least 15 people died.
And see the Newsweek non-apology apology itself, a marvel of cunning yellow journalism:
The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them “not credible.” Our original source later said he couldn’t be certain about reading of the alleged Qur’an incident in the report we cited, and said it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts. Top administration officials have promised to continue looking into the charges, and so will we. But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst.
“We’re sorry people died but maybe we didn’t lie.”
No, Newsweek, you lied and people died. Don’t publish this kind of crap without fact-checking it.
UPDATE Again: Newsweek finally retracts the story: “Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Quran abuse at Guantanamo Bay,” Whitaker said. Now will the dim-witted Al Franken retract his disgusting jokes?
It’s all very confusing to Joe Gandelman (and the rest of the world as well.)
What is rather difficult to figure out is whether the report was “inaccurately” reported because it was reported and factual and some folks didn’t like it, or whether or not there were some actual factual errors in what was reported.
And you’re totally way off base on the filibuster issue: remember the “blue slip?”
And yes, some of Clintion’s appointees were filibustered (On March 9, 2000, Frist participated in a filibuster of Richard Paez, President Clinton’s nominee to the Ninth Circuit, for example.)
Finally, as I’ve noted on my blog here, the Senate can make any rules it wants to deal with debate. They could, in principle,make rules to require unanimous consent for judges, or they could delegate the consent process to a Senator chosen at random. There is no constitutuional requirement that there be an “up or down vote.”
It so happens, though, that the current Senate rules call for 66 votes to change the rules. Thus, the Repubs would have to break the rules to change them.
Is it “rather difficult” to acknowledge that Newseek has admitted the Koran story was wrong? That’s where it stands right now. But Al Franken is still out there stoking the fires generated by this false story that’s already got 15 people killed. What a disgrace.
Richard Paez was confirmed and sits on the Ninth Circuit today.
Senate rules may permit filibuster of judges and they may not, according to interpretation. But to suggest that there’s a tradition of partisan filibuster and then to hold up a confirmed appointment as an example is, well, kind of weird. The “blue slip” is not, of course, a filibuster, but a means by which a Senator could block a home-state appointment. The last time I remember it being used the culprit was the evil Barbara Boxer.
No, Richard, it’s not a question of interpretation: it’s settled law, in fact.
Senate rules aren’t law, and the mass filibuster of judges by the minority party is in fact without historical precedent.
The constitutuionality of Senate rules was litigated at the Supreme Court level (see my original blog link’s reference), which indeed decided that the Senate is free to make its own rules except as where explicitly stipulated in the Constitution.
Hence, the filibuster is a matter of settled law.
As was the blue-slip.
As would be any of a myriad of other ways of approaching the issue.
To put it another way, Richard, the filibuster is the check against the executive branch failing to advise the Senate.
The extremist Republicans only want a rubber stamp consent function for the Senate, throwing out the “advise” function.
If the Bush junta were appointing less ideological nutjobs, there’d be no problem.
Back to Newsweek:
Since Newsweek got punked by their source, it would seem to me to be fair game for Newsweek to identify him. This would accomplish two salutary goals: first, it would give us a better idea as to how credible this source was in the first place and thus how much reliance Newsweek should have put on this uncorroborated story; and second, it should have the effect of making “anonymous sources” realize there may be personal repercussions if they punk reporters in the future.
I have been somewhat surprised that I haven’t seen many calls for the “outing” of this source.
John, your arguments about the constitutionality of Senate rules are idiotic because nobody is arguing that point. Many things are permitted by the Constitution that don’t amount to sound policy. There is no constititional rule against murder, for example; it’s covered under statute.
In the American system the majority rules as long as certain enumerated rights of the minority are not constrained. There is no enumerated right in the constitution for minority approval of judges.
Steven, you make a very interesting point.
Heh heh, as I’ve noted, there is no enumerated right in the constitution for majority approval of judges, either.
Actually there is an enumerated right regarding majority rule in the Constitution – it’s under the part about “democracy”. It’s actually a very interesting document.
Personally, I think the Reeps are being drawn into a cat-fight that they’re going to regret five or ten years from now when they’re back in the minority and President Clinton wants to appoint a passel of one-eyed man-hating lesbian judges of color. By then the filibuster will be gone and it will be too late.
But the present fight is about numbers, not law so don’t pat yourself on the back about the clever arguments you’re making that don’t matter.
Richard, is this really your idea of the antithesis of the religious right wing: “one-eyed man-hating lesbian judges of color”? Thank you from everyone who’d rather see acceptable legal minds on the bench!
Have you anyone in specific in mind? Please identify so I can run out and vet same for Hilary.
How about Lani Guinier, the quota queen that Clinton put up for the civil rights commission? She has two eyes, but is otherwise qualified to perform judicial activism.