Hi Andy,
Just wanted to drop you a line in solidarity re: the recent New York Times issue. Simply put, the story was wonderful, congrats on that. The New York Times’ response was shameful, though hardly surprising. Corporate media will only go so far, especially when receiving flak from the establishment. You deserve all the praise in the world for what you’re doing. Don’t let pettiness on the part of New York Times editors get you down.
I write extensively about Israel/Palestine and receive constant hate mail/abuse etc. The performance of the MSM on this issue is generally woeful, but one’s just gotta keep on battling away, spreading the word etc.

After I sent Antony a reply, he sent me another message:

Re: the right-wing bloggers, wear it as a badge of honour. Frankly, like Mitt Romney, they want to double Gitmo. Never forget that the vast majority of the world is against the policy. Of course, what McCain/Clinton or Obama may do if they win, god knows.

These are Antony’s websites:
http://antonyloewenstein.com/
http://myisraelquestion.com/
http://iajv.org/

The final injustice: Death in captivity
OUR OPINION: TRIBUNALS STACKED AGAINST GUANTANAMO DETAINEES

The disturbing story of Abdul Razzaq Hekmati shows the injustice and inhumanity of the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay. No one should be locked up indefinitely on flimsy evidence and without a fair chance to defend themselves. Yet the process created by the Pentagon to determine ”enemy combatants” is so flawed that it invites serious abuse. Detainees remain imprisoned for years without due process, trial or hope of release.

Opposed the Taliban

Mr. Hekmati’s case is emblematic. He is known in Afghanistan for opposing the Taliban and was a war hero during the 1980s Russian invasion, as The New York Times reported this week. Yet the U.S. military accused him of being a Taliban commander. He died of cancer on Dec. 30 at Guantánamo.

In his five years of captivity, Mr. Hekmati denied the charges. He provided the names of witnesses who would corroborate his story to the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, the Pentagon’s substitute for any protections against unwarranted detention. But the tribunal decided the witnesses were not “reasonably available.”

Translation: It is too much trouble to verify the detainee’s defense. The jailer serves as prosecutor, judge and jury. The detainee remains imprisoned indefinitely. This is unconscionable.

Had the government bothered, it would have been easy to find the witnesses. One is Afghanistan’s energy minister, the other a general. Both men told The Times that they had appealed to U.S. officials on Mr. Hekmati’s behalf, to no avail. Both men had led troops against the Taliban after escaping from a Taliban prison during a breakout masterminded by Mr. Hekmati.

Far from being a Taliban, Mr. Hekmati fled the country after the 1999 prison break in fear of his life. This also makes it unlikely that he collaborated with al Qaeda, another charge against him. More likely, Mr. Hekmati was turned in by an enemy who wanted the U.S. bounty offered for ”terrorists” in the aftermath of the Taliban defeat. The practice is commonplace in Afghanistan and has been the case with other Guantánamo captives.

This is not justice

The Pentagon says the tribunals provide ‘’significant process and protection,” including the right to call witnesses. But a law-school study found that no outside witnesses had ever been called to testify at Guantánamo. Detainees are not allowed to bring a lawyer or see the evidence against them. Imprisoned, they have no means of producing physical evidence. The process is stacked against them. Surely this is not what Americans consider justice.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case that will determine if these tribunals meet legal standards. For Mr. Hekmati, the decision will come too late.

Source: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/story/411220.html

With this craven, cringing little performance the New York Times slips further into Orwellian territory.

It sounded to me like the NYT editorial staff had had their ears chewed by some White House loon, and the Editor’s note was the best way to save their ears (and perhaps jobs) so that they might stay on to publish more excellent articles (as the original clearly was).

I agree that it is absurdly hypocritical to even mention “taking a stance”, since the US media seems to constantly present opinions (aka “truthiness”) without any facts to back them up, but I think this is the game that the media has to play with politicians and the corporate powers that be. They do, after all, own the US media, and the editorial staff are employees.

All in all I think this episode is incredibly positive, raising awareness in the terrible behaviour of the US administration and their treatment of our fellow human beings. They did publish the original for a start, so we should not lose sight of that fact, and were bound to be aware of the consequences. The article clearly rattled the White House cage to such an extent that it caused the ear chewing that caused the Editor’s note says one thing to me: Andy (and Carlotta Gall) must be doing something right. Good on you both! You should be proud, and we are proud of you.

A Seasoned Lurker