In the past week, Time magazine has effectively demonstrated one of the methods of disseminating propaganda in this country. First, one makes a totally unsubstantiated claim about a high-ranking official that your media outlet doesn’t care for. Then, you backtrack, cover your bases, and much like Gilda Radner’s old character on “Saturday Night Live,” say, “Never mind.” The problem is that in many cases, the damage created by your first report is done, and can’t be rectified.
Such was the case this week as Time magazine first announced last Friday that charges were about to be filed in Germany against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as reported by NewsBusters, and then changed its story six days later with the following (emphasis mine throughout, hat tip to Hot Air):
The lawsuit filed in Germany this week against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior Administration officials for alleged war crimes in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo has little chance of making it into court. That's according to Andreas Zimmerman, a professor of international criminal law at Kiel University who helped negotiate the Rome Treaty that founded the International Criminal Court and who drafted the German law under which Rumsfeld has been charged. Under German law, the decision over whether to try the case will rest with the federal prosecutor rather than with a judge. Federal prosecutors, of course, are subject to the wishes of the government, and the government is unlikely to press a case that would antagonize its American allies. "In theory the prosecutor could find him guilty of torture and put him in custody if he visited," says Zimmermann. "But in reality nothing is going to happen."
If this is indeed the case, why did Time make such a big deal about this last week, publishing an exclusive that it would easily refute just six days later? Pretty ridiculous, don’t you think? Couldn’t they have done a bit more research on the subject, waited a few days, and reported the real facts? Regardless, the article continued:
A similar suit was brought in Germany in 2005 and dismissed after prosecutors ruled that the U.S. still had jurisdiction and was pursuing those responsible. The civil rights activists who brought the Rumsfeld suit claim that the basis for that decision is no longer valid, since only lower-level figures have been convicted in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. The German federal prosecutor Monika Harms will likely make her decision officially early in the new year. "At best it's an uphill struggle," said Zimmermann.
What a farce. Think Time’s editors will apologize to Rumsfeld for putting him and his family through this unnecessary stress and agony?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Best Revenge
November 17, 2006 - 00:14 ET by BlondeNoel,
An apology? Certainly not.
But since Germany as a nation is such a paragon of law, and fairness....
What are the odds that Rumsfeld can file and win a counter suit for defamation, duress, loss of good name, etc., etc.?
It would be interesting to see him name the numerous MSM outlets as co-respondents in such a suit.
But he really ought to sue the German bastards. In their own country, for bringing it up in the first place.
And then in the world court.
He who laughs last, and all that....
Blonde, Neat idea! I'd love t
November 17, 2006 - 00:40 ET by Indiana JoeBlonde,
Neat idea! I'd love to see Rumsfeld "jiu-jitsu" these pinheads in their own courts. Alas, it would never happen. He'd have to have an impartial jury or judge to win. And what are the odds of that, in today's Euro-Union?
"A similar suit was brou
November 17, 2006 - 00:34 ET by Indiana Joe"A similar suit was brought in Germany in 2005 and dismissed after prosecutors ruled that the U.S. still had jurisdiction and was pursuing those responsible. The civil rights activists who brought the Rumsfeld suit claim that the basis for that decision is no longer valid, since only lower-level figures have been convicted in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal."
My first thought on reading this story was, "where to start?" But Time's bias and reasons for bashing Rummy are so obvious, why bother with those? It's gotten to the point that it's like saying "water is wet."
The above quote seemed to offer more of an insight into things as the EU sees them. The "hypocrisy test" is a simple one: just reverse the roles, and see how the attitudes change:
"A similar suit was brought in the US in 2005 and dismissed after prosecutors ruled that Germany still had jurisdiction and was pursuing those responsible."
Can you imagine the outcry of "imperialism" if that sentence ever were published as fact, anywhere in the world? The "arrogance" we would be accused of, the "jingoism" of our believing that our laws and rules should apply to a "sovereign nation" like Germany? The "sheer, unmitigated gall" we would be portrayed as having, thinking that we could apply our laws and mores to another country half-way around the world? "Hypocrisy test" score: F, as in "Failed."
The second sentence merely shows that leftist zealots are pretty much the same everywhere. Oh, pardon me, "civil rights activists." Yeah, whatever. The point being, since no "big-shots" were indicted, convicted, "perp-walked," imprisoned or hung, there must have been a massive cover-up, and rulings must be overturned to enable prosecution of those whom are "known to be guilty," or some such drivel. It boils down to rejecting rulings you don't agree with, and embracing those you do.
And I can't for the life of me figure out why that sounds so familiar....
</sarc>
(just to be safe)
Rumsfeld should get his own r
November 17, 2006 - 00:34 ET by mattmRumsfeld should get his own radio show, then the Democrats can investigate him for saying things they don't like.
You got to appreciate the she
November 17, 2006 - 00:50 ET by jdhawkYou got to appreciate the sheer gall of Germany, of all the countries in NATO, to pull this stunt - if that's what it is. After all, for 50 some odd years we defended Germany, which in a fight against the USSR would have taken the brunt of an assualt. We spent trillions and lost thousands of our young men and women to training deaths and accidents (and more than a few to combat missions as well) to ensure that they and all of Europe remained free.
Meanwhile, my hope is that President Bush presents Rumsfeld with the Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award, for the terrific job his done in freeing 50 million people and giving them the hope of freedom for the first time in three generations while at the same time revamping our Defense Department - no easy feat in and of itself.
Here is a list of the military recipients in the past:
Omar Bradley
Wesley Clark
William J. Crowe
Jimmy Doolittle
Tommy Franks
Andrew Goodpaster
Franz Halder
Richard B. Myers
Jan Nowak-Jeziorański
Hyman Rickover
H. Norman Schwarzkopf
John Paul Vann
Nancy Wake
Chuck Yeager
Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr.
This is not vengeance. Reve
November 17, 2006 - 01:42 ET by Equinox137This is not vengeance. Revenge is not a valid motive - it's an emotional response. No, not vengeance. Punishment.
Actually I'm amazed at the nu
November 17, 2006 - 08:21 ET by inquiringmindActually I'm amazed at the number of news reports suddenly talking about how if we left Iraq now that it would be just handing the country to the bad guys( Iran)and that we need to stay there and help the country get on it's feet. Where were these reports a month ago!! I'm sure the media is patting itself on the back for affecting an election, just like the 60's.
Bingo, now you guys are getti
November 17, 2006 - 09:21 ET by dscottBingo, now you guys are getting it. The entire Iraq flap was just a election campaign ploy, nothing more. The MSM being the shills for the Dem party played their part and now the back pedaling begins. Remember Clinton's, That was then, this is now comment when he reneged on a campaign position? None other than Howard Dean waffled when Chris Matthews pressed him on the pull out issue. This deal with Rummy was just a small scale of the political chess game played on the public and especially the ultra libs for their money. Mark my words.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
I would feel just a little
November 17, 2006 - 21:08 ET by we are not amusedI would feel just a little more sympathetic to the so-called "Human Rights" crowd who continually try to accause the U.S. and Conservative figures of human rights violations, if just once they accused somweone like Kim Il Jung of human rights violations and tried to put him on trial, or Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, the President of Iran, or any of the Mullahs that rule there, Michael Gorbacha, or the North Vietnamese leaders. Or for that manner, the leaders of Europe who refused to act against the leaders of Serbia, Saddam Hussein, the outrages in Darfur, Somalia and almost any other hell hole you can think of.