Res Ipsa Loquitur

« Slow Sunday | Main | Army of One »

July 28, 2003

It's In the NYT

Mike & I watched the last part of a delightful old Jimmy Stewart movie yesterday....don't know the name but it was later remade as You've Got Mail. In one scene, Mr. Stewart's character was questioned as to the veracity of a statement and replied "Well, it must be true. It was in the New York Times." My, how things have changed.

The Times announced on July 21 that the Justice Department's inspector general had "received 34 complaints of civil rights violations by department employees that it considered credible." Lest the reader miss the significance of this purported scoop, reporter Philip Shenon editorialized: "The inspector general's report . . . is likely to raise new concern among lawmakers about whether the Justice Department can police itself when its employees are accused of violating the rights of Muslim and Arab immigrants swept up in terrorism investigations under the [USA Patriot Act]."

An "announcement" that is, as Mike is so fond of saying, not entirely accurate.

But the office of the inspector general puts the matter differently. According to its July 17 report, the office received several hundred filings over the last six months that appeared to state a claim within its jurisdiction. Upon closer analysis, however, the vast majority of those several hundred complaints, as written, proved to be unrelated to the Patriot Act. That left 34 that, according to the report, "raised credible Patriot Act violations on their face."

The NYT seems to have conveniently left out that last part there. "On their face" is not, as we all know, the equivalent of credible. When used as it is here to modify credible, it is legalese for "there's something here that should at least be looked into". Credible means "Capable of being believed; plausible. See Synonyms at plausible. Worthy of confidence; reliable." Therefore, the difference between "credible...on their face" and "credible" is a difference that one could drive a truck through.

And in fact, out of the 6 cases that have been investigated so far, 2 have been dismissed, and 2 have been substantiated as "garden-variety prison-abuse" types of cases.

In the first, a prison guard has admitted to verbally abusing a Muslim inmate - the charge against him was that he had ordered the inmate to remove his shirt so he could shine his shoes with it.

In the second, the Bureau of Prisons substantiated the charge that a prison doctor had taunted an inmate. The inmate had claimed that the doctor said during a physical exam: "If I was in charge, I would execute every one of you . . . because of the crimes you all did."

Hardly abuses of the Patriot Act....or even arguably the Civil Rights Act. So much for the "credible" allegations of abuse.

The NYT is gaining the crediblity of a supermarket checkout stand tabloid with its penchant for leaving out inconvenient facts. I expect soon to read a MoDo column about Batboy next.

Just imagine what she'd do with that.

Posted by Rita at July 28, 2003 05:47 AM

Comments

Posted by: Keith at July 28, 2003 11:32 AM