OK, so you now seem to ackowledge that the press had every right to report the charges, but emphasise that the press should report it fairly. I have no issue with that.
Quote: It was only later that the extent of charges, as I've said, extends only to 7 U.S. military police, 4 interrogators, and 6 superior officers.
Yes. I think we can all agree to hope that it is limited to that number.
Quote:
When I say "patriotism", I partly mean U.S. nationalism, but more precisely I mean social responsibility. As I made clear in my above post. And the story, and the photos from Abu Ghraib of prisoners being humiliated, were published before the full extent of abuse was known.
I don't know the facts by which the report was aired. I would have thought that a reporter would have tried to get a statement from the White House or the Pentagon on the situation, unless they feared that they would be injuncted on national security grounds from airing it.
In terms of social responsibility.... was it a foregone conclusion that Arabs would react angrily to this report, and jeopardise the lives of Westerners in Iraq? I think yes.
Is that socially irresponsible? I have some sympathy with your proposition that it is, particularly given the distressing fate of Mr Berg. I think CBS would or should have predicted such a reaction.
But at the end of the day I think it would be more irresponsible not to have aired the report, and not allowed the American people to take the military to task over it. The army is responsible to the people, after all, and the people need to know what the army (or elements of it) are doing over there. The military cannot be allowed to run around doing this sort of thing unchecked, or in secret. Transparency in government is a cornerstone of a free society. This report was part of that process of transparency, though the exercise of a free press.
Countries like China cover up or make secret army atrocities. This conduct - making such a thing secret - has no place in a free society.
