Surely He Is Innocent!

The NYTimes predictably presents a fabulist interpretation of the detention of a terrorist at Gitmo.

I’ve been detained at Guantánamo for 11 years and three months. I have never been charged with any crime. I have never received a trial. 

I could have been home years ago — no one seriously thinks I am a threat — but still I am here. Years ago the military said I was a “guard” for Osama bin Laden, but this was nonsense, like something out of the American movies I used to watch. They don’t even seem to believe it anymore. But they don’t seem to care how long I sit here, either. 

When I was at home in Yemen, in 2000, a childhood friend told me that in Afghanistan I could do better than the $50 a month I earned in a factory, and support my family. I’d never really traveled, and knew nothing about Afghanistan, but I gave it a try. 

I was wrong to trust him. There was no work. I wanted to leave, but had no money to fly home. After the American invasion in 2001, I fled to Pakistan like everyone else. The Pakistanis arrested me when I asked to see someone from the Yemeni Embassy. I was then sent to Kandahar, and put on the first plane to Gitmo.

No one thinks he is guilty!  Why surely his interpretation of the events that led him to Gitmo must be 100% accurate.

Not quite.  Via the NYTimes' own website comes this information:

b. (S//NF) Recruitment and Travel: In the summer of 2000, Marwan Jawan (detainee's associate since the age of 8 or 10) 3 recruited detainee to travel to Afghanistan. Jawan prepared detainee for Afghanistan by providing him with training on the AK-47 assault rifle in al-Dahna, located approximately 30 minutes outside of Taiz. Based on these lessons, which occurred every Friday for four weeks preceding his travel to Afghanistan, detainee felt fully competent to go to the front-lines in Afghanistan. In late-2000, detainee traveled to Afghanistan via Dubai, United Arab Emirates (AE), and Karachi, Pakistan (PK). 4 The Pakistani travel visa in detainee's passport was obtained by Marwan. 5 c. (S//NF) Training and Activities: Detainee traveled to Afghanistan, and stayed at a house in the Wazir Akbar Khan District of Kabul. Detainee left his passport at the house in Kabul before going to the frontlines to fight the Northern Alliance. He fought at the front lines north of Kabul as a fighter in the Sadiq Combat Unit, which consisted of approximately 15 or 16 fighters. Detainee received some pay as a fighter which enabled him to purchase needed items such as food and clothing. Detainee denied knowing UBL. 6 After the US and Coalition bombing campaign initiated in Afghanistan, detainee believed it was too dangerous to be an Arab in Afghanistan; therefore he fled the front-lines in December 2001 and stopped in Kabul. Detainee continued on to Khowst, AF, where he stayed for two weeks while he attempted to flee from Afghanistan.

...

Capture Information: a. (S//NF) Detainee was captured by Pakistani forces on 15 December while attempting to cross the Afghanistan-Pakistan border near Parachinar, PK, after fleeing to the Tora Bora Mountains of Afghanistan. Detainee was captured with a group of 31 other Arab al-Qaida fighters referred to by US intelligence reporting as the Dirty 30, most of whom are assessed to be UBL bodyguards and other members of UBL's security detail. 8 Pakistani authorities transferred the group to a prison facility in Peshawar, PK, where they were held for 15 days. 9 On 26 December 2001, Pakistani authorities transferred detainee from Peshawar to US custody at the Kandahar Detention Facility.

....

Detainee Threat: a. (S) Assessment: Detainee is assessed to be a HIGH risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests, and allies. b. (S//NF) Reasons for Continued Detention: Detainee is a member of al-Qaida. Detainee served as a security guard for UBL and is listed on al-Qaida affiliated documents. Detainee is assessed to have participated in hostilities against US and Coalition forces in Tora Bora and was a fighter in UBL's 55th Arab Brigade. Detainee was captured with a group referred to as the Dirty 30, which included known UBL bodyguards. Detainee received basic and advanced militant training at the al-Qaida al-Faruq Training Camp, and was an al-Qaida guesthouse staff member. Detainee was recruited by known al-Qaida recruiter Marwan Jawan, who also facilitated detainee's travel to Afghanistan. o (S//NF) Detainee is a member of al-Qaida and a former UBL security guard. Detainee's name and alias were found on al-Qaida affiliated documents.

The phenomenon of the NYTimes editorial page staff not reading their own newspaper [is not exactly new].  Clearly this individual is not what his "editorial" suggests he is.

There are elements of the media that are not simply striving to be independent.  They are clearly on the other side.  Far too frequently, the NYTimes editorial page staff strives to be included in that category.

Bias Acknowledged

The ombudsman for the NYTimes recently penned a column about what he has discovered over his two years in that position.  The whole column is worth a read.  However, he makes a couple of points that support the larger contention about the perspective of the NYTimes.

The first is that the Times....their occasionally valiant ombudsman aside...rarely sees where they may have erred in their reporting.

The Times is hardly transparent. A reader still has to work very hard to find any Times policies online (though some are tucked away there), and there is still no place where Times editors speak on the issues. As for humility, well, The Times is Lake Wobegon on steroids (everybody’s way above average). I don’t remember many autopsies in which, as we assembled over the body, anyone conceded that maybe this could have been done differently.

Emphasis in the original.

The second of Mr. Wilson's more interesting observations relates to (gasp) bias.

I also noted two years ago that I had taken up the public editor duties believing “there is no conspiracy” and that The Times’s output was too vast and complex to be dictated by any Wizard of Oz-like individual or cabal. I still believe that, but also see that the hive on Eighth Avenue is powerfully shaped by a culture of like minds — a phenomenon, I believe, that is more easily recognized from without than from within. 

When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times. 

As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.

This isn't exactly earth shattering news to those of us that don't work for or uncritically believe everything in the New York Times.

The story also notes the credibility of the times among Republicans has dropped relative to Fox News.  It is also noted that the credibility of Fox News among Democrats relative to the NYTimes is almost precisely inverse of that measured among Republicans.

This isn't progress.

Part of being able to have a common debate of the issues is being able to have a common basis for that debate.  When the media effectively chooses sides in their news reporting, they undermine our ability to conduct a civil discourse on current events.

An examples would be claiming that the "science is settled" with respect to global warming.  Ummm...it ain't.

Another example might be consistently reporting about potential effects of raising taxes on the budget deficit without concomitantly reporting about potential effects of cutting spending.  Or at least discussing those cuts in a manner that doesn't suggest that proponents of cuts are some sort of ghoul looking to feast on the dead.

I have maintained for many years that the rise of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News was the direct result of the media failing to publish "all the news that's fit to print".  Perhaps the Times will discover this before they turn into the next Village Voice.

NEWSFLASH: Stopped Clock Accurate Twice Per Day

For all the ball-busting that I give the New York Times' Paul Krugman, I feel obligated to highlight those rare moments when he is right.  As the recent US$2,000,000,000 loss by the bankers of JPMorgan suggests, there really are good reasons for our nation to have banking regulations.

Mr. Krugman is correct; regulating banks is generally a good idea.

That should not be taken to mean that I think that all of his ideas on banking regulations are good.  Some are.  Some aren't.

Also, the article belies his real intent; to criticize Mitt Romney.  The fact is that the recent US$2B loss can came after the enactment of banking reforms by the Democrats and theoretically enforced by Mr. Obama's team.  Those reforms and their enforcement failed in this case. 

Perhaps there is more to this issue than whether or not a politician has a "D" or an "R" behind their name.  Perhaps the kind of regulation that is enacted and enforced is more important that just having any old regulation on the books.

NYTimes Identifies Media Bias...

...and says "fine by us!"

Shocking news via the NYTimes.  MSNBC is a bastion of leftist opinion.  And not much else.

And that may be the problem with Mr. Sharpton’s cable news pulpit: what he means to say is in lockstep with every other MSNBC evening program, making the stretch between 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. a nonstop lecture on liberal values and what is wrong with the Republican Party.

...

There is almost no real debate on any of these evening shows: a conservative is brought on and put on the spot, then in a different segment two people who agree with the host on a given issue answer the host’s questions, usually, with words like "you’re so right."

...

And in the evening at least, MSNBC is less a news provider than a carousel of liberal opinion - potential conflicts of interest are swept aside in the swirl of excitable guests.

Emphasis added.

Aaaaand then they start covering for him.

Others complain that nowadays Mr. Sharpton is a little too cozy with the powers that be: last year, Comcast enlisted Mr. Sharpton to help lobby for its bid to buy NBC Universal, which owns MSNBC. Both Mr. Sharpton and Comcast deny any quid pro quo, and it’s hard to believe Mr. Sharpton’s support would be worth the risk to ratings - besides, back then he was untried, and MSNBC had no vacancies.

More important, in a cable universe in which former Gov. Eliot Spitzer can get his own cable show on CNN (however briefly) some two years after having to leave office because he hired prostitutes, it’s hard to quibble over Mr. Sharpton’s reputation 20 years ago.

I'm not sure which part is more shocking.  That the NYTimes would publish anything suggesting that MSNBC is biased, or that they conclude the story by papering over Mr. Sharpton's many faults.

Perhaps it is the oblique suggestion that Mr. Sharpton do the electric slide.

Any low frequency hum that you hear may be safely ignored.  It's just my head spinning.

Frustrating Journalists

The New York Times is my windmill.  I am your Don Quixote.  They drive me mad!

Not really, but they are a source of vexation.

The most recent example was a photo that accompanied a story about labeling those serving in the military as "heroes".  It was an interesting story with a few decent points.

The photo was insulting.  The link for the original photo is here.  I have saved the image and stored it on Google's Picasa...just in case.






You may find this military awards information and this US Army uniform information from Wikipedia to be useful for the ensuing discussion.

The first problem is where should I begin?

First, the US Army has two different service uniforms.  The old, out-dated service uniform is green. It is typically worn with a light green dress shirt.  The new service uniform is blue.  It is typically worn with a white shirt.  The green uniform hasn't been issued since 2009 and will be obsolete in 2014.

The model in the photo above is wearing a white shirt with a green blouse.

Then take a look at the rank insignia.  I cannot recall when the US Army last put the rank insignia on the lapels of the blouse.  To add insult to injury, the insignia is just slapped on the lapels in an uneven and non-symmetric fashion.  If the rank insignia did belong on the blouse lapels, they would be worn so that they were pointed along the bisector of the lapel.

And I fully realize that the illustration in that last link is from the US Marine Corps.  It was the best illustration that I could quickly locate.

Now look at the right side of the uniform.  That would be the left side of the photo.  See that badge?  Care to guess what it signifies?

That badge signifies that Corporal Schmuckatelli here is also a bonafide Naval Aviator.  Think "Tom Cruise in 'Top Gun'. "

Now can you imagine the set of circumstances that would have permitted the good Corporal to fall from the heights of a commissioned US naval officer and Naval Aviator to lowly US Army Corporal?  Nor can I.

Finally, look at the left side of the uniform.  It is important to know that ribbons are worn in a specific manner and in a specific order.  Ribbons are typically mounted using a ribbon bar.  They look like this.

Ribbons are worn in a very particular order.  The most common ribbons are organized with personal decorations on the top row and towards the right of the person wearing the ribbons.  That would be left as you are looking at the photo.

Next would come unit awards, followed by campaign awards and service awards.

Beginning at the top/inboard position, we have

• Vietnam Service Medal, with 2 stars indicating 3 awards
• Navy/Marine Corps Presidential Unit Citation, with 1 star indicating 2 awards
• National Defense Service Medal
• Navy & Marine Corps Achievement Medal
• Navy & Marine Corps Commendation Medal
• Navy Unit Commendation
• Armed Forces Reserve Medal
• Soldier's Medal
• Distinguished Service Medal (Army) (typically awarded to senior officers for unusual and extraordinary service, not NCOs)

An awful lot of Navy medals for a Corporal in the US Army, no?  Methinks that grandpa's old uniforms got raided for this photo.

In the correct order:

• Distinguished Service Medal (Army) (odd that the most significant one was placed last, no?)
• Soldier's Medal
• Navy & Marine Corps Commendation Medal
• Navy & Marine Corps Achievement Medal
• Navy & Marine Corps Presidential Unit Citation
• Navy Unit Commendation
• National Defense Service Medal
• Vietnam Service Medal
• Armed Forces Reserve Medal

I think the obvious conclusion is that some photographer slapped together something that looked "military-ish" and took a picture.  They had probably watched too much Star Trek with Captain Kirk's splatter of oddments, buttons, and colored wig-wags to understand that, 300 years before the voyages of the the good Captain and his crew, the tradition was to wear one's awards in a specific order and arrangement.

Quite frankly, the photographer didn't care.  They didn't think the proper display of a US military uniform was important enough to warrant their time and attention.

While that is disappointing, it is certainly forgivable.

What is unforgivable is for the New York friggin' Times to use such obviously poor photography as an illustration with any story associated with their name.  Do they think that our military and military veterans do not read their work?  Do they not understand that their "brand" is already suspect because of some the stereotypes that they create and/or propagate?  Do they not have military veterans on their writing and photography staff?

Do they not care?

While they obviously do not care enough to get it right the first time, I do have to acknowledge that they changed the image associated with the story.  They even included a correction.  The old image was still on their server.  No harm in an unused image.

That is a reasonable course of events if we were talking about the Quad City Times.  Not quite so reasonable if we are talking about American's America's self professed "newspaper of record".  The worst part is that while I would not think it unreasonable for the Quad City Times to make such a mistake, I also expect that the QC Times would care enough about this issue to get put extra effort into getting it right the first time.  The NY Times has the resources to get it right the first time without extra effort, and the bungled it.

A Case For Gun Control

At least, a gun in the hand of a New York Times editor seems like a dangerous thing given his propensity for aiming his mouth in one direction and shooting himself in the foot as a result.

What Bill Keller doesn't know, apparently, could fill up an entire op-ed piece. Or a newsroom.

The NYT editorial that inspired the above is here.  I still think it would be good for Mr. Keller to get out of New York and see how the rest of the country lives for a while.  Perhaps his inventory of persons of hay is too large to justify such an adventure.