Sunday, October 07, 2007
The Continuing Shame of the New York Times
The New York Times October 6, 2007
Last year, when accounts of the killing of 24 Iraqis in Haditha by a group
of marines came to light, it seemed that the Iraq war had produced its defining
atrocity, just as the conflict in Vietnam had spawned the My Lai massacre a
But on Thursday, a senior military investigator recommended dropping murder
charges against the ranking enlisted marine accused in the 2005 killings, just
as he had done earlier in the cases of two other marines charged in the case.
The recommendation may well have ended prosecutors’ chances of winning any
murder convictions in the killings of the apparently unarmed men, women and
That's The New York Times special way of saying "I'm sorry" for condemning the Haditha Marines to hell for the "apparent" cold-blooded murder of innocents before their trial even started.
And, isn't it interesting how The New York Times is still searching for an atrocity to define the War in Iraq?
An Al-Qaeda atrocity like the Yazidi bombings, the murder of a brave young Sunni Sheik, torture chamber drawings, or dismembering and booby-trapping dead soldier's bodies just won't do.
It must be an American atrocity.
Sometimes it's hard to figure out just who they are rooting for.
Then read John Hinderaker's further takedown of the yesterday's NYT article on the subject. Additional taste:
In addition, the Times criticizes Lt. Col. Paul Ware, who recommended the dismissals:
The cases also reflect the particular views of Lt. Col. Paul J. Ware, whoWell, that's a "particular" view, I guess, but isn't it obviously a correct one? In some respects, the Times' critique of Col. Ware's work is almost humorous:
presided over the hearings and concluded that all three cases lacked sufficient
evidence. He made clear in his recommendations to the commander who ultimately
decides the cases that he felt that the killings should be considered in context
— that of a war zone where the enemy ruthlessly employed civilians as cover.
[Gary D. Solis, a former Marine judge] added: “He’s aggressive, and he seems toThis can only have been intended as a compliment, but it is far from clear that the Times sees it that way. On the contrary:
make his judgments without regard for anything but the law. He must know that
people — civilians, primarily — are going to howl about this, but that doesn’t
seem to be a concern.”
Other military law experts also noted that in his two reports on the charges"Giving the men the benefit of the doubt" is also known as the presumption of innocence, a bedrock principle of our system of justice which the Times selectively supports.
against Lance Corporals Sharratt and Tatum, Colonel Ware revealed a willingness
to give the men the benefit of the doubt, and to consider the impact of the
prosecutions on the morale of troops still fighting in Iraq.
Then tell me the New York Times is a force for good in America.
Labels: New York Times Decline
And which you selectively support as well, I hazard to point out.