The desecration story

If learned about something really grave and shocking, would I write about it in order to call attention so that people could do something to prevent it or address it? Would I write about it even if I thought it might cause a violent conflagration or a bloody confrontation between parties concerned? Or should I sacrifice revealing the unpleasant truth that I know in order to prevent the worst that could happen?

These were some of the thoughts that raced through my mind after a May 9 Newsweek story gave rise to violent protests in many places around the world. Emotions ran high. At least 15 lives have been lost and dozens have been injured. The smoke has not yet cleared completely.

Newsweek has since retracted that explosive detail in the story reported by Michael Isikoff with John Barry. In the May 23 issue, Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker said: ``We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and the US soldiers caught in its midst.’’

Newsweek came out with a story that mentioned that US personnel who interrogated Afghan inmates in Guantanamo Bay defiled the holy Quran. They story said that the interrogators ``had placed Qurans on toilets, and in at least one case flushed a holy book down the toilet.’’

The problem with the detail on the desecration(the Newsweek story was not wholly about this one grave act) was that the reporter did not see this being done with his own two eyes. He was quoting someone who was not named.



When things got out of hand, the source backed off. Well, partially, at least. The reporter and Newsweek were left holding the bag, so to speak.

Isikoff, who was interested in happenings inside Guantanamo prison in Cuba where the Afghans have been detained for the past couple of years, was digging for more.

Newsweek narrated how it started: ``Isikoff knew that military investigators at Southern Command (in Guantanamo) were looking into the allegations. So he called a longtime reliable source, a senior US government official who was knowledgeable about the matter. The source told Isikoff that the (investigators’) report would include new details…including mention of flushing the Quran down a toilet.’’

Newsweek had approached two officials for comment but one declined and the other had a different view of the report. So far, there has been no confirmation of a ``toilet incident, except for one case, a log entry, which they still have to confirm, where a detainee was reported by a guard to be ripping pages out of a Quran and putting (them)in the toilet to stop it up as a protest. But not where the US did it.’’

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, desecrating the Quran is punishable by death. The Quran is so sacred for the Muslims that camp commanders in Guantanamo have put in place strict procedures in searching. Only Muslim troops, interrogators or chaplains may handle a copy.

I can understand the sacredness of the Quran for the Muslims and the anger that results from its desecration but I find hard to understand the violence and bloodshed that must ensue. I am not belittling the sacredness of the Quran, I am just stunned and appalled by the intensity of the rage.

Granted that the desecration happened, must a wrong be corrected by another wrong (violence and bloodshed)? Must the consequence of the transgression be worse than the transgression itself? I believe something more complex was at work there.

The pent-up rage (justifiable to a certain extent) was already there before the desecration item came out. Newsweek just stoked the fire of anti-US hatred in Muslim areas.

So much bloodshed for something that didn’t happen? How now to justify the bloodshed? Now, Newsweek can take all the blame? That Newsweek erred in its judgment is another matter.

And the source? Pentagon spokesman Danny DiRita told Newsweek and confirmed saying this to CNN: ``People are dead because of this son of a bitch. How could he be credible now?’’

After the death of Pope John Paul II there was a news item that said someone was claiming that he had in his possession a sacred Host consecrated by the late pope. It was supposedly being auctioned off at e-Bay. If you are a Catholic (and Christian, of course) you’d be shocked and angry. Catholic or not, lying or not, should this supposed Host auctioneer be lynched to death?

Now, what about my problem in the first paragraph? (I am not factoring in here the risk to the life and limb of the reporter.)

If something was only told orally to me, then I need one or two more to confirm, if possible, especially if the information is damaging. The Inquirer editorial yesterday was quite clear about this. Of course, nothing beats an official document.

Supposing the reliability of the sources is A-OK, or, better still, I was an eyewitness myself and I have photographs to show, would I tell? Yes I will. The victims, if they survive, will tell the world about it anyway sooner or later.

But if the transgressors were just cracking demeaning jokes (say, about putting pork in the food of Muslim inmates) but not within hearing distance of the inmates concerned, would I write about my observations?

It depends. Sure, I’d like to expose meanness, but if I were absolutely certain (in bold letters) that writing about the verbal slurs (uttered among, say, prison guards) would lead to the burning of a whole village, maybe I’d rather first tell their superiors about it. Or maybe I’d suggest in the article that something about them is so wicked.

If I were absolutely certain this person planted a bomb in a stadium with thousands of young people, and in fact, admits setting it to explode in five minutes, would I torture him to make him say where the bomb is?