[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Al,
I read both your articles. Quite frankly, I’m unimpressed.[/quote]
Well, props to you for being the only person with enough balls and brains to formulate a real response on this thread. Just by doing this you expose people such as Zeb and Hedo for the mental infants that they are.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Firstly, there was nothing to Hersh’s claims – at least nothing that anyone outside of the Antiwar.com crowd would take seriously.[/quote]
In this case, I get the impression that the description, “anyone outside of the Antiwar.com crowd”, refers to everyone inside the mainstream establishment media. These people have a vested interest in protecting the government. They’re known for covering up these types of scandals, not exposing them. There is no left or right wing media bias. The only bias that exists is towards the establishment, and it is universal in the mainstream press.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Not even that stalwart war supporter The New York Times followed up on it – maybe they were mad because all of Hersh’s claims about his tapes of abuse at Abu Ghraib much worse than the pictures turned out to be false – either that or he’s just holding the tape for a more opportune moment, so as to capitalize on the best circumstances to release them…[/quote]
As far as I’m aware, Hersh claimed that there was additional, incriminating evidence on the events of Abu Ghraib which was in the possession of government officials. I don’t think he ever claimed that it was in his posession.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Look at the dates of your pieces, which reference Hersh’s “stunning exposes.” Apparently no one gave him any credence on the “Copper” stuff either. Raimondo was writing about them back in October, so unless they were so complicated and intricate that it has taken this long to digest them, I’m guessing that anyone who has tried has been unable to corroborate his claims.[/quote]
There have been many scandals broken by Raimondo which have gone largely ignored by the MSM. It’s really not suprising to see it happen. Their target audience lives off of the propaganda fed to them by the government, and they would be largely incapable of coping with the dark realities of the Empire. Hersh is a fantastic journalist with a long list of sound credentials to his name. If it’s a choice between him being wrong or misleading and the MSM covering for the establishment, I’d pick the latter every time.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Secondly, the argument that The Geneva Convention does not apply in the case of every detainee in Iraq is quite sound, legally speaking. The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists, or anyone else fighting without uniforms and targeting civilians. The Geneva Convention governs combat between armies. People who operate without uniform in civilian populations can be shot w/out trial and it wouldn’t violate the Geneva Conventions. So Raimondo is making much ado about nothing – like he does often.[/quote]
Except that there’s no way to identify the people being taken prisoner as “terrorists” - because most of them are being snatched in Army raids, NOT apprehended at the scene of attacks on American troops. This is what Raimondo addresses; he is right on target.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Oh, and BTW, the Wall Street Journal editorial is a standard editorial written for a hard-copy news paper, so no, it wouldn’t include a bunch of links – it’s not a piece of internet journalism, and it’s not written like one. It’s better vetted/edited, but it doesn’t serve up links.[/quote]
Of course not, and that’s just one illustration of why the MSM is obsolete and irrelevant.