Newsweek and the Bell that Cannot Be Unrung

[Guest guest]

Newsweek magazine and reporter-writers, Mark Isikoff and John Barry forgot the most important and one of the oldest clichés in the business, “You can’t unring a bell.” They also forgot one of the most memorable slogans in WW II, “Loose Lips Sink Ships.” As a result, over 15 people are dead in Afghanistan and many hurt. Riots continue in Muslim countries. All this is due to that fact that Newsweek reported that U.S. investigators found evidence that interrogators had flushed a copy of Muslim's holy book down a toilet in an attempt to rattle detainees. Just the thought that it is impossible for a book to be flushed down a toilet, without tearing it into shreds first, apparently did not give its editors pause for thought.

 

When a country is in a war and our troops are risking their lives, media should know that one does not give the enemy any information that it can use to kill Americans or slow down the chance for our troops to finish the job so they can come home! Even if they protest that their readers have a right to know, we have a right to ask, “Know what?” The media was generally on our side during WW II, unwilling to help the enemy. Now, many times we read or view days in advance what may be thestrategies of our military. While we do not want government censorship, prudence and discretion should be the order of the day for the press in time of war.

 

Sure, we need to know those things that affect us personally in our homes and at work. This is called “information value.” The space or time in media devoted to “news” is determined by importance and value to the readers or viewers. Rumors, gossip and alleged information from an unidentified source do not meet this criterion.

 

This war is different from any that we have ever faced. Not just because this is a war of terrorism rather than one between nations, but because this is the first war in which we have had so many anti-Americans living among us. Many are scouring our media daily to find anything that can be used to slow us down in the Middle East. Once found, it takes only minutes before it is spread worldwide on the Internet and broadcast over Al-Jazeera.

 

Dan Feder, a syndicated columnist and a former op-ed writer for nineteen years with the Boston Herald, wrote last month, “A random survey of a dozen mosques in six states and DC (undertaken by Arabic speakers) found 57 documents promoting hatred of Christians and Jews, as well as explaining the imperative to subvert the United States and other Western societies. An article in The Wall Street Journal reported: “The documents stress that when Muslims are in the lands of the unbelievers, they must behave as if on a mission behind enemy lines. Either they are there to acquire new knowledge and make money to be later employed in the jihad against infidels, or they are there to proselytize the infidels until at least some convert to Islam.”

 

While Newsweek has retracted its story, the Arabs are already calling it a cover-up. In an apology in this week’s issue of Newsweek, its editor wrote “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.”

 

And yet, the bell-that-cannot-be-unrung peals throughout the Middle East and the world, heard by mourners and Muslims alike.

[Kulapavana 0]

well, these people (Muslims) are not as stupid as US media paints them.

 

The US govt is not saying it's agents did NOT flush a copy of Koran down the toilet. They merely point out Newsweek has no proof they did.

 

and the argument that the book would not flush down without being ripped apart - and hence the story is a lie - is simply hilarious!!!: a mere placement of the Koran (one book or one page) in the toilet is an act of desecration - it does not have to GO DOWN... that is pure propaganda and spin arguments, and Muslims are not falling for it - proving here they are smarter than an average bear... that is "beer" drinking Joe Sixpack who falls for govt sponsored such BS all the time... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Guest guest]

and you will see who is more even minded and compassionate.

 

By way of comparison, recall that three years ago Palestinian Arab terrorists occupied the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Priests reported that "gunmen tore up Bibles for toilet paper," according to the Daily Camera of Boulder, Colo. The Chicago Tribune noted after the siege that "altars had been turned into cooking and eating tables, a sacrilege to the religious faithful." Xtians in the U.S. responded by declining to riot and refraining from killing anyone. They had the same response 15 or so years ago when the National Endowment for the Arts was subsidizing the scatological desecration of a crucifix and other Christian symbols! This should also put to rest the oft-heard calumny that America's "religious right" is somehow a Christian equivalent of our jihadi enemies."

 

Your so-called "Joe Sixpack" is light years ahead of these medieval asuras...... /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

 

 

[Kulapavana 0]

"The Chicago Tribune noted after the siege that "altars had been turned into cooking and eating tables, a sacrilege to the religious faithful." Xtians in the U.S. responded by declining to riot and refraining from killing anyone."

 

maybe that is because the average Joe does not care enough about such things?

 

anyway, comparing one disease to another is always relative. HOWEVER, that was not my point. my point was about propaganda and gullibility.

[Guest guest]

gullible folks on the planet. Go to your local mosque sometime to listen to them spew their propaganda. Its hilarious what they believe. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Kulapavana 0]

I'm not sure about that. Remember that american cult of people committing suicide to get on the "mother ship"? /images/graemlins/wink.gif how about the Branch Davidians? or "good ol'religion" folks kissing snakes to prove the power of their faith? a preacher died here recently - that was his 4th rattlesnake bite in his career. you have to be dumb as a rock to fall for stuff like that...

 

how about your local televangelists like Jim Baker, Swaggart and other similar crooks? You could write a book on stupidity just looking at the gullible followers of these two.

 

have you even read the Koran? to me, it makes 10 times more sense than Old Testament. so do yourself a favor and study it a bit before you condemn those who follow it as supremely gullible.

[Guest guest]

I guess that is your problem. Personally, I could care less what Mad Mo and folks like you believe.

[Kulapavana 0]

I read Koran (well, large parts of it at least) long time ago, before I joined the movement. I certainly have no desire to read it now, just like I have no desire to read the Bible. But my belief in the value of Koran as compared to Old Tesatament comes from personal experience and comparison, and not some second hand propaganda material.

[Guest guest]

would be much more understandable after learning about bhakti yoga. However, my time is better wasted making useless internet posts than studying or reading other religion's dogmas.

 

My original point was that the vast majority of Mohammadens reacts differently to supposed insults to their beliefs than the vast majority of Xtians.

 

The snake-handlers, Branch Davidians, et al are in the tiny miniscule minority of Xtian population. And the goofballs that castrated themselves before their rendezvous with the comet were not even Xtians, albeit they may have come from Xtian families/background.

 

Now Jim Jones is another story altogether...... /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

 

Haribol. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Guest guest]

a thoroughly sourced story about the president of the United States having an affair with an intern and then pressuring her to lie about it under oath, Newsweek decided not to run the story. Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek, followed by The Washington Post.

 

When Isikoff had a detailed account of Kathleen Willey's nasty sexual encounter with the president in the Oval Office, backed up with eyewitness and documentary evidence, Newsweek decided not to run it. Again, Matt Drudge got the story.

 

When Isikoff was the first with detailed reporting on Paula Jones' accusations against a sitting president, Isikoff's then-employer The Washington Post -- which owns Newsweek -- decided not to run it. The American Spectator got the story, followed by the Los Angeles Times.

 

So apparently it's possible for Michael Isikoff to have a story that actually is true, but for his editors not to run it.

 

Why no pause for reflection when Isikoff had a story about American interrogators at Guantanamo flushing the Quran down the toilet? Why not sit on this story for, say, even half as long as NBC News sat on Lisa Meyers' highly credible account of

 

Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broaddrick?

 

Newsweek seems to have very different responses to the same reporter's scoops. Who's deciding which of Isikoff's stories to run and which to hold? I note that the ones that Matt Drudge runs have turned out to be more accurate -- and interesting! -- than the ones Newsweek runs. Maybe Newsweek should start running everything past Matt Drudge.

 

Somehow Newsweek missed the story a few weeks ago about Saudi Arabia arresting 40 Christians for "trying to spread their poisonous religious beliefs." But give the American media a story about American interrogators defacing the Quran, and journalists are so appalled there's no time for fact-checking -- before they dash off to see the latest exhibition of "Piss Christ."

 

Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas justified Newsweek's decision to run the incendiary anti-U.S. story about the Quran, saying that "similar reports from released detainees" had already run in the foreign press -- "and in the Arab news agency al-Jazeera."

 

Is there an adult on the editorial board of Newsweek? Al-Jazeera also broadcast a TV miniseries last year based on the "Protocols of the Elders Of Zion." (I didn't see it, but I hear James Brolin was great!) Al-Jazeera has run programs on the intriguing question, "Is Zionism worse than Nazism?" (Take a wild guess where the consensus was on this one.) It runs viewer comments about Jews being descended from pigs and apes. How about that for a Newsweek cover story, Evan? You're covered -- al-Jazeera has already run similar reports!

 

Ironically, among the reasons Newsweek gave for killing Isikoff's Lewinsky bombshell was that Evan Thomas was worried someone might get hurt. It seems that Lewinsky could be heard on tape saying that if the story came out, "I'll (expletive) kill myself."

 

But Newsweek couldn't wait a moment to run a story that predictably ginned up Islamic savages into murderous riots in

 

Afghanistan, leaving hundreds injured and 16 dead. Who could have seen that coming? These are people who stone rape victims to death because the family "honor" has been violated and who fly planes into American skyscrapers because -- wait, why did they do that again?

 

Come to think of it, I'm not sure it's entirely fair to hold Newsweek responsible for inciting violence among people who view ancient Buddhist statues as outrageous provocation -- though I was really looking forward to finally agreeing with Islamic loonies about something. (Bumper sticker idea for liberals: News magazines don't kill people, Muslims do.) But then I wouldn't have sat on the story of the decade because of the empty threats of a drama queen gas-bagging with her friend on the telephone between spoonfuls of Haagen-Dazs.

 

No matter how I look at it, I can't grasp the editorial judgment that kills Isikoff's stories about a sitting president molesting the help and obstructing justice, while running Isikoff's not particularly newsworthy (or well-sourced) story about Americans desecrating a Quran at Guantanamo.

 

Even if it were true, why not sit on it? There are a lot of reasons the media withhold even true facts from readers. These include:

 

A drama queen nitwit exclaimed she'd kill herself. (Evan Thomas' reason for holding the Lewinsky story.)

 

The need for "more independent reporting." (Newsweek President Richard Smith explaining why Newsweek sat on the Lewinsky story even though the magazine had Lewinsky on tape describing the affair.)

 

"We were in Havana." (ABC president David Westin explaining why "Nightline" held the Lewinsky story.)

 

Unavailable for comment. (Michael Oreskes, New York Times Washington bureau chief, in response to why, the day The Washington Post ran the Lewinsky story, the Times ran a staged photo of Clinton meeting with the Israeli president on its front page.)

 

Protecting the privacy of an alleged rape victim even when the accusation turns out to be false.

 

Protecting an accused rapist even when the accusation turns out to be true if the perp is a Democratic president most journalists voted for.

 

Protecting a reporter's source. How about the media adding to the list of reasons not to run a news item: "Protecting the national interest"? If journalists don't like the ring of that, how about this one: "Protecting ourselves before the American people rise up and lynch us for our relentless anti-American stories."

 

 

 

[gHari 0]

who destroy not only Vedic Holy scriptures but also Deities and Temples. I cannot take them seriously - even for a moment anymore.

 

[Guest guest]

There is no defence of any of the ignorance that comes from every direction, but everyone will continue to fight to defend their team 'till they die.

[krsna 3]

 

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

 

Backlash fear over Saddam pictures

Daily Mail

20 May 2005

Sensational pictures of Saddam Hussein in his underwear were printed last night - reigniting the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

 

The toppled dictator is seen in his jail cell wearing nothing but white underpants as he folds a pair of trousers.

 

Saddam is being held by U.S. guards and it is believed the photographs, printed in later editions of today's Sun, were taken by American sources.

The newspaper would not say how it came by the pictures or give any details about how they were taken.

 

But the humiliating image of such a high-profile prisoner is bound to add to the furore of the abuse at Abu Ghraib.

 

Pictures of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners shocked the world and caused immense damage to American standing in the Arab world. Saddam, 67, has been held by U.S. forces at

 

a compound near Baghdad since his capture December 2003 in a tiny 'spiderhole' cellar in north Iraq.

 

He made his first court appearance last July and his trial on war crimes and genocide charges is one of the first priorities of the fledgling Iraqi government.

 

Typically, he was defiant as ever, branding U.S. president George Bush the 'real criminal' and defended Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

 

He has been allowed visits by lawyers and there was speculation that the leaking of the pictures could have been an attempt by supporters to smear his U.S. captors.

 

In the pictures Saddam looks well-fed and appears to have put on weight since his

 

The Pentagon was last night investigating what appeared to be a major breach of security over the photographs.

 

Saddam, who is due to go on trial for war crimes this summer, is being held in a heavily-guarded American compound near Baghdad.

 

Under the Geneva Convention and special agreements with the United Nations, the U.S. and its allies are forbidden to release photographs of prisoners of war such as Saddam.

 

The picture is certain to enrage his fellow Shia Muslims and former members of his political party who are now part of the insurgent movement in Iraq.

 

'If this photograph proves to be genuine, it might result in a new intensive wave of violence,' said a Pentagon source last night.

 

'Again, presuming it's genuine, its release will be tremendously embarrassing to us. We must find out where this came from.'

 

[Guest guest]

[Guest guest]

but I thought walter matthau passed away.

[Guest guest]

claiming American interrogators were flushing the Koran caused many Americans to be amazed by the extreme reaction in the Islamic world. Ken Woodward, the long-time religion writer of Newsweek, tried to explain to Christians just how offensive Koran-flushing is to Muslims: "Recitation of the Koran is for Muslims much like what receiving the Eucharist is for Catholics -- a very intimate ingestion of the divine itself."

 

There's a certain irony here. If you wanted to see the Eucharist in the toilet, you needed only to watch the NBC sitcom "Committed" in February, when NBC played for laughs the idea that two main characters thought they accidentally dropped a communion wafer in a bar toilet.

 

Hollywood makes lame jokes and harsh satires of Christianity all the time, figuratively and literally tossing Jesus, the Bible and church figures into the toilet. Those alleged American interrogators are pikers compared to Tinseltown. They could learn at the feet of the masters of mockery.

 

Last May, on Fox's "That ‘70s Show," one character explained to another: "You don't get paid to be the best man. You do it for the satisfaction of nailing the hottest bridesmaid. It's in the Bible." Religion is often mocked as fairy tales for fruitcakes. In a January 2004 episode of "The Simpsons," the daughter Lisa tells the son Bart, "The Mount Builders worshipped turtles as well as badgers, snakes and other animals." Bart replies, "Thank God we've come to our senses and worship some carpenter that lived 2,000 years ago."

 

Anti-Semitic riots and hate crimes were endlessly predicted when Mel Gibson made "The Passion of the Christ." Frank Rich and all the other Gibson-bashers looked pretty silly when millions of Americans saw the movie, and the impending Kristallnacht didn't materialize.

 

But that hasn't stopped some in Hollywood from satirizing Gibson as a Nazi kook. You can go out and buy the DVD of South Park's cartoon treatment, titled "The Passion of the Jew," in which the young characters see the movie, and then Cartman starts a Mel Gibson fan club with Nazi/Holocaust overtones, while two other characters confront an over-the-top crazy Gibson dancing in a Carmen Miranda get-up as they demand their ticket money back. The DVD also includes a "classic" episode titled "Red Hot Catholic Love," where almost every Catholic priest and cardinal in the world favors having sex with altar boys, because it's supposedly been enshrined in Vatican law.

 

Impressed by lucrative DVD sales of the crude cancelled cartoon "Family Guy," Fox brought their old show back to Fox on May 1 with another Mel Gibson-as-kooky-Catholic-Nazi satire. The lead characters go on a second honeymoon in a Gibson hotel room, where they discover a secret film titled "The Passion the Christ 2: Crucify This," a buddy-cop picture with the tagline: "This July, let He who is without sin kick the first ass." Jesus even replies to a buddy-cop who claims he's crazy: "That's what my ex-wife said."

 

Peter, the lead character, protests ("That's all we need, more Mel Gibson Jesus mumbo-jumbo") and pledges to "save the world from another two hours of torture on behalf of Jesus, Scooby and the other beloved children's characters." His wife, Lois, worries that it's one thing to take Gibson's "towels, bathrobes and Nazi paraphernalia," but not the movie. A duo of Gibson's priest henchmen kidnap Lois and fly her to Gibson's house on the top of Mount Rushmore. The cartoon Gibson later falls to his death off the famous sculpture. Peter says it's because "Christians don't believe in gravity."

 

Even as Muslims rioted in Afghanistan, Fox was showing an episode of "The Simpsons" in which Homer and Bart convert to Catholicism, and havoc ensues. Marge is having a vision of being in Protestant heaven with country-club types, while over on the other cloud, Catholic heaven is full of passionate Latinos and fighting, drinking Irishmen. Homer and Bart join everyone else in Catholic heaven doing the Riverdance. At the end, two futuristic armies are about to kill each other pointlessly over differing interpretations of what St. Bart Simpson said. The episode was postponed because it was originally planned to air on the weekend Pope John Paul II died. How thoughtful.

 

So why doesn't Hollywood produce storylines about the Koran being flushed down the john? That, they would tell you firmly, with conviction, would be religious bigotry.

 

[krsna 3]

 

The Sun says this is an "extraordinary iconic news image"

Saddam Hussein plans to take legal action after a British newspaper published photos of him half-naked in his prison cell and doing his washing.

"We will sue the newspaper and everyone who helped in showing these pictures," said Saddam Hussein's chief lawyer Ziad Al-Khasawneh, speaking from Jordan.

 

The Sun newspaper said it would fight any legal action and said it planned to publish more photos on Saturday.

 

The US has launched an investigation into how the photos were leaked.

 

 

 

The US military and legal experts said the photos - possibly taken more than a year ago - may breach Geneva Convention rules on the humane treatment of prisoners of war.

 

The conventions say countries must protect prisoners of war in their custody from "public curiosity".

 

Saddam Hussein is being held by US troops at an undisclosed location in Iraq as he awaits trial on numerous charges, including murdering rivals, gassing Iraqi Kurds and using violence to suppress uprisings.

 

'Aggressive' investigation

 

The photos show the 68-year-old former leader with a moustache, rather than the beard he sported when he was captured in December 2003, and again when he appeared in court last July.

 

The Sun's front page showed him wearing a pair of white underpants.

 

Other pictures show him washing his trousers, shuffling around and sleeping.

 

 

 

The Sun quoted US military sources who said they handed over the pictures in the hope of dealing a blow to the resistance in Iraq.

 

"It's important that the people of Iraq see him like that to destroy the myth," the paper's source was quoted as saying.

 

However, several Arab commentators have suggested the photos could increase anti-American feeling in the region.

 

Khaled al-Maeena, the editor of Saudi Arabia's Arab News told the BBC the photos would be seen as "an insult and an affront".

 

The Sun's managing editor Graham Dudman defended the decision to publish the images.

 

"People seem to forget that this is a man who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children and all that's happened to him is someone has taken his picture," he told BBC Radio 4's PM programme.

 

"This is a sort of modern-day Adolf Hitler. These pictures are an extraordinary iconic news image that will still be being looked at the end of this century."

 

A statement from the US military said it was "disappointed at the possibility that someone responsible for the security, welfare, and detention of Saddam would take and provide these photos for public release".

 

The US military would "aggressively" investigate, the statement said.

 

But President George W Bush said he did not think the photos would encourage insurgents in Iraq.

 

"I don't think a photo inspires murderers. I think they're inspired by an ideology that's so barbaric and backwards that it's hard for many in the Western world to comprehend how they think."

 

 

[krsna 3]

Qur'an abuse allegations date back years: Red Cross

Last Updated Fri, 20 May 2005 11:26:09 EDT

CBC News

 

GENEVA - The international Red Cross says it raised the issue of alleged Qur'an abuse at Guantanamo Bay with American officials on numerous occasions and as early as 2002.

 

Delegates from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) didn't witness any mistreatment of Islam's holy book, but heard reports from a number of detainees, said spokesman Simon Schorno on Friday.

 

 

FROM MAY 13, 2005: 8 die in Afghan protests over Qur'an allegations

 

At least 15 people died in violent protests in Afghanistan last week after a Newsweek article reported American interrogators at the U.S. military base flushed a Qur'an down a toilet. The magazine later retracted the story, saying it had doubts about the source.

 

ICRC members have visited the base on the eastern tip of Cuba since the detainees arrived in January 2002.

 

Schorno told the Chicago Tribune newspaper on Thursday that Red Cross delegates compiled the complaints they received from various detainees and reported them to Guantanamo commanders and Pentagon officials on several occasions.

 

The Red Cross spokesperson said he believes the U.S. has taken corrective measures and has heard no more complaints from detainees.

 

In January 2003, after the ICRC reports, the Pentagon released guidelines on how to handle the Qur'an. The three-page document advised handling the book like a "fragile piece of delicate art" that shouldn't be placed near toilets, sinks, feet or dirty or wet areas.

 

The Pentagon didn't specify what the ICRC complaints were, except to say they matched previously acknowledged complaints such as the Qur'an accidentally falling to the floor.

 

[krsna 3]

May 20, 2005

 

Pro-jihad demonstration in London. "Protest against USA draws about 100 in London," from AP, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

 

 

 

A hundred or more people protesting the alleged desecration of the Quran gathered outside the US Embassy Friday, chanting "kill, kill George Bush" and other anti-American slogans.

 

Many in the crowd covered their faces with scarves.

 

A man with a megaphone led chants including "USA watch your back, Osama is coming back" and "bomb, bomb New York."

 

[Guest guest]

issue, gHari. These Islamists are insane!

[Guest guest]

Mahaksadasji, now that he is cleaned up, he does resemble Walther Mathhau! Remember Paper Tiger? That and the Odd Couple were my favorite comedies that he starred in.

 

I was living in Oakland when they pulled him from his spider hole. I swear there is a panhandler in Beserkeley that is his double! Theist probably knows who I am talking about, as everyone I know saw the resemblance. When they showed the picture on TV, everyone in the house shouted "Hey! That's Butch!" We were going to print up a T-shirt with that image and something funny and give it to him. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Guest guest]

correctly. They can burn our flag and desecrate our leaders but we're not allowed to touch their koran? That does it. I'm going out and buying a koran to replace the toilet paper that I shouldn't be using...... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Guest guest]

It was classic "media gotcha," using the "Vietnam and Watergate" storyline of "United States bad, Third World good" -- but the phony story led to riots, deaths and an embarrassing retraction.

I refer, of course, to Newsweek's "Koran flushing" story in the May 1 issue.

The sin of greed creeps into every scandal, and it lurks behind this tragic incident. Newsweek wants "market share," and hot stories grab readers.

But profit generated by a frantic "me first" quest isn't the only motive. The "Vietnam-Watergate" press template is also involved. "Vietnam-Watergate" is a tired and phony game. For three decades it's been the spine of the New York-Washington-Los Angeles media axis.

Its rules are simple and cynical. Presume the U.S. government is lying -- particularly when the president is a Republican. Presume the worst about the U.S. military -- even when the president is a Democrat. Add multicultural icing -- allegations by "Third World victims" get revered status, while U.S. statements are met with arrogant contempt. (Yes, it's the myth of the Noble Savage recast.)

Wake up. There's a war going on -- a global war. American lives and liberty are at stake, but Newsweek and its clan are still trying to "Get Nixon."

Newsweek's editors haven't entered the 21st century. Anti-American propagandists, including al Qaeda, have used Gitmo and Abu Ghraib as emotional/political weapons. Responsible reporting must take that into account. News organizations will ultimately lose credibility if they don't factor the al Qaeda propaganda angle in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib reports. Yes, this makes for a more complicated story, but we are engaged in an intricate, complex war on an intricate, complex planet.

There's also an odd but apt comparison between News-week's fiasco and the Pentagon's initially slow response to Abu Ghraib. When evaluating Abu Ghraib allegations, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was operating with a 1970s' "paper information template." To Mr. Rumsfeld, "pictures" of Pfc. England with a dog leash meant snapshots on paper marked "Kodak." Mr. Rumsfeld didn't realize his young troops shoot digital photos that in 10 seconds "go global" on the Internet.

I suspect Newsweek's bosses were operating on a "paper template," the legacy of their own formative era, where their "print product" reached readers via the postman. In this "template," a press allegation remains largely "local," or U.S.-bound, and if it's wrong it's easily retracted (or covered up). Despite calling itself a "global news organization," this "Koran flushing" article was clearly aimed at the U.S. audience.

However, there is no "over there" in our world, not anymore. We live in a world where everyone is -- in terms of information -- next door.

Mr. Rumsfeld and Newsweek were both handling volatile allegations with a restricted view of the audience (a 1970s, U.S.-oriented template) and a poor appreciation of the allegations' impact.

We have enemies looking for "operational opportunities" on a global scale. Al Qaeda has sympathizers cued to react to Western news reports that "insult Islam." The "fifth-columnist" throws the first stone. If he can get a couple of bored teenage boys to throw a second and third stone, he has done his job. Al Qaeda gets another "the Muslim street is angry" story and perhaps a bloodbath.

Is this a fanciful scenario? Indian military analyst Bahukutumbi Raman claimed the Afghan riots in the wake of the Newsweek phony story were incited by "well-organized agents of the Hizb ut-Tahrir terror gang."

Welcome, Newsweek, to the 21st century -- and 21st century war.

 

[Guest guest]

You talkin' to me?

[Guest guest]

<h3>We'll Publish More Saddam Pictures Says Defiant Sun</h3>

 

By Alison Purdy and John-Paul Ford Rojas, PA

 

The Sun is to publish more controversial pictures of Saddam Hussein in his prison cell, the newspaper said tonight.

 

The paper has been strongly criticised over the decision to publish a picture of the toppled Iraqi dictator in his underpants and another showing him hand-washing his dirty clothes.

 

But the Sun’s managing editor Graham Dudman said the paper was proud to have run the pictures and promised more would follow tomorrow.

 

Mr Dudman described the pictures as “an extraordinary scoop” that had attracted the attention of the world’s media.

 

He said the newspaper had got hold of the pictures in a professional manner from a US military source who hoped it would deal a blow to the resistance in Iraq.

 

Mr Dudman said: “The Sun obtained these pictures by professional journalistic methods and by any standards this is an extraordinary scoop as shown by the way it has been followed by the world’s media.”

 

Concerns have been raised by the US military in Baghdad that the photos violate military and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines “for the humane treatment of detained individuals”.

 

Mr Dudman tonight answered critics by saying: “These are iconic images of the world’s most notorious war criminal.

 

“We are astonished that some people seem more concerned about Saddam Hussein doing his own laundry when he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

 

“The Sun is proud to run the pictures and we will be running more tomorrow.”

 

The US military has launched an investigation into how the photographs were obtained.

 

US soldiers handling Saddam, held at an undisclosed location believed to be in the Iraqi capital, are expected to be questioned about who took the photographs in an investigation that the military said was being conducted “aggressively”.

 

Aside from US soldiers, those who have access to the toppled dictator include his legal team, prosecuting judge Raed Johyee and officials of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

 

Khalil al-Duleimi, Saddam’s defence lawyer in Iraq, was critical of the American handling of Saddam but said he would not comment on the photographs until he learned if they were genuine.

 

“I don’t doubt such behaviour from the American forces because they don’t respect the law. They impose the law of force and the law of the jungle,” he said.

 

“They don’t respect human rights and I expect them to do anything.”

 

If the photographs were genuine, they represented a “clear and blatant violation of all moral and human rights principles”, he added.

 

“They are a flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions concerning prisoners-of-war and my client is a war prisoner.”

 

The publication of the pictures has also been condemned by the ICRC.

 

ICRC Middle East spokeswoman Dorothea Krimitsas said the use of such photos was illegal and US forces were obliged to “preserve the privacy of the detainee”.

 

“Taking and using photographs of him is clearly forbidden,” Ms Krimitsas said.

 

UK-based legal adviser Giovanni di Stefano, who says he represents the deposed tyrant, also criticised the publication of the pictures.

 

“It can’t be right, can it, that you put a man in his underpants in the paper,” he said.

 

The pictures show 68-year-old Saddam washing his dirty socks.

 

The man who ruled Iraq with an iron fist for 24 years, and who was once accustomed to gold taps and toilet seats, now spends most of his time in a single 12ft by 9ft cell, the newspaper reveals.

 

It reports that the sparsely-furnished room contains a small desk to write on and a pink plastic chair which he uses as a bedside table.

 

He is said to be watched round the clock via three CCTV cameras and even monitored when he uses the toilet.

 

Today’s pictures were a far cry from the last time Saddam was seen publicly, when he appeared smartly-dressed in court in July.

 

He is facing charges ranging from the 1974 execution of religious leaders to the gassing of Kurds in Halabja in 1988 and the 1990 Kuwait invasion after being toppled from power in the US invasion of 2003.

 

At first he evaded capture but was eventually tracked down hiding in a hole in the ground by American troops.

 

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif