the nyt`s was so eager to put another abu ghraib story on page one that they let themselves be hoodwinked by a fraud:
Cited as Symbol of Abu Ghraib, Man Admits He Is Not in Photo.
""In the summer of 2004, a group of former detainees of Abu Ghraib prison filed a lawsuit claiming that they had been the victims of the abuse captured in photographs that incited outrage around the world.
One, Ali Shalal Qaissi, soon emerged as their chief representative, appearing in publications and on television in several countries to detail his suffering. His prominence made sense, because he claimed to be the man in the photograph that had become the international icon of the Abu Ghraib scandal: standing on a cardboard box, hooded, with wires attached to his outstretched arms.
He had even emblazoned the silhouette of that image on business cards.The trouble was, the man in the photograph was not Mr. Qaissi. [Editors’ Note, Page A2.]
Military investigators had identified the man on the box as a different detainee who had described the episode in a sworn statement immediately after the photographs were discovered in January 2004, but then the man seemed to go silent.
Mr. Qaissi had energetically filled the void, traveling abroad with slide shows to argue that abuse in Iraq continued, as head of a group he called the Association of Victims of American Occupation Prisons.
The original story was titled, “Symbol of Abu Ghraib Seeks to Spare Others His Nightmare.”""
their corrections page gives you a sense of how sloppy and riddled with bias this piece was, as they rushed it to print with laughably inadequate fact-checking—and even misrepresented statements from human rights watch and amnesty international.
my hatred of this rag is well documented.....so,to be fair,the nyt`s was in fact correct when they said that the "titanic" had sunk after hitting an iceberg..... :yup
Cited as Symbol of Abu Ghraib, Man Admits He Is Not in Photo.
""In the summer of 2004, a group of former detainees of Abu Ghraib prison filed a lawsuit claiming that they had been the victims of the abuse captured in photographs that incited outrage around the world.
One, Ali Shalal Qaissi, soon emerged as their chief representative, appearing in publications and on television in several countries to detail his suffering. His prominence made sense, because he claimed to be the man in the photograph that had become the international icon of the Abu Ghraib scandal: standing on a cardboard box, hooded, with wires attached to his outstretched arms.
He had even emblazoned the silhouette of that image on business cards.The trouble was, the man in the photograph was not Mr. Qaissi. [Editors’ Note, Page A2.]
Military investigators had identified the man on the box as a different detainee who had described the episode in a sworn statement immediately after the photographs were discovered in January 2004, but then the man seemed to go silent.
Mr. Qaissi had energetically filled the void, traveling abroad with slide shows to argue that abuse in Iraq continued, as head of a group he called the Association of Victims of American Occupation Prisons.
The original story was titled, “Symbol of Abu Ghraib Seeks to Spare Others His Nightmare.”""
their corrections page gives you a sense of how sloppy and riddled with bias this piece was, as they rushed it to print with laughably inadequate fact-checking—and even misrepresented statements from human rights watch and amnesty international.
my hatred of this rag is well documented.....so,to be fair,the nyt`s was in fact correct when they said that the "titanic" had sunk after hitting an iceberg..... :yup
Last edited:
