Patterico's Pontifications

10/18/2006

Stashiu Hits Big Media — Against His Will

Filed under: General,Terrorism — Patterico @ 12:26 am



There’s an interesting story by Andrew Selsky in the Associated Press on Gitmo at this link. The whole thing is worth reading, but readers of this blog will be particularly interested in this passage:

An Army nurse who said he worked at its medical facility for a year until last May wrote in a blog that he wouldn’t hesitate to kill a former detainee if he saw him in his town.

“I can tell you that if I ever saw a detainee face-to-face here in the States, I would immediately assume that I was targeted and do my best to kill them without further warning,” wrote the soldier, who would be identified only by his nickname, Stashiu.

Sound familiar?

Here’s the really weird part: the author of the AP piece, Andrew O. Selsky, commented on Stashiu’s series of posts under the handle “Ace.”

Details in the extended entry.

Ace asked Stashiu a question in this comment, which Stashiu answered here.

Ace then commented:

Shashiu3, thank you for your response. I am a reporter and cover GTMO (I was there a couple of weeks ago, and met one of your colleagues at the medcenter — she goes by Dr. K, though your tours might not have overlapped). I’d appreciate it if you could email me at the address I posted with Patterico’s blog, in the “Leave a comment” section.

Further down the thread, Ace said:

Hello Stashiu,

I invite you to drop me an email at aceserve2001@yahoo.com

As I mentioned before, I am a reporter – a print journalist. I have no agenda or axe to grind. Several posters on this good Blog have noted that your outlook has not been reported in the mainstream media. This is what I am trying to do. btw: I look forward to seeing tomorrow’s installment on the media. Best, Ace.

Stashiu replied:

Ace,

I have enjoyed your insightful comments and thank you for the offer. Nothing personal, but I have absolutely zero interest in mainstream media. This was not a story that I felt compelled to tell, Patterico contacted me. I’ve since tried to tell this story as best I could and trusted him to ensure that there were no mixed-messages or anything that might imply we discussed classified or confidential information. Everything I’ve said is the truth as I experienced it and what I believe. I’m not under any pressure by the military, the media, or Patterico. He has repeatedly offered to kill the story if it became problematic and I have repeatedly assured him at each step that I am ok with continuing.

I’m certain you are a stand-up guy and worthy of trust. But I am not interested in anything beyond completing what Patterico and I have worked on. I don’t want to deal with the media, I’m not writing a book, and I would never go on a TV show of any kind. I’ve got no agenda other than to tell the truth. People can accept what I say, or not. If I were ‘outed’, it wouldn’t change a thing. I will not ever talk with the mainstream media because even though you (as an individual) may be trustworthy, those whose toes were stepped on would not be. And it wouldn’t stop with you because while once can be an absolute, a second implies a third and a fourth and so on. This is a one-time thing, period.

I understood that my name becoming known was a possibility from the first time I responded to Patterico’s email. I’ve never tried very hard to be anonymous and have internet trails leading back years for anyone determined enough to ruin my life. Being a public figure is one of the worst things I can imagine happening. Like many, I’m a pretty private person who stays at home when I’m not at work. I like being with my family and it’s been a good life. I believe there is actually little danger to my family as long as I remain a private figure. To become a public figure would be like rubbing it in the face of those who hate Americans and made the threats against me and mine. Right now, I’m just not important enough to target.

One poster found me within minutes and email from media came within 24 hours. I haven’t responded and have no intention of responding. Patterico has my full permission to release any personal information, correspondence, or conversations to the military or any appropriate government agency upon their valid request. I’m not worried about that because everything that has been posted has been true and bereft of classified or confidential information. I have advised him that what I’ve told him is true and he has accepted that I am who I say, been where I say I have been, and done the job I said I had done.

So if Charlie [a leftist poster who insulted Stashiu — Ed.], or anyone else, wants to question whether I’m the “real deal”, that means they have no faith in Patterico’s ability to establish that. If that’s the case, why read his blog? Anyone who questions my qualifications is questioning Patterico’s integrity and shouldn’t trust anything he posts. But they should keep in mind that Patterico can prove what he has done to check me out, he has that permission anytime he feels it is necessary. Because it’s his reputation on the line too, and he deserves that. He gave the outline of how he did it in the first post. And I can prove everything I’ve said if it becomes necessary. So, whether or not the mainstream media tells this story, or says something completely different, my conscience is clear. I hope you (and any other media) understand and respect this. I can’t make my reasoning any clearer.

In a later post, Ace renewed his offer:

Hello Stashiu,

Thank you for your candid and detailed response. My invitation remains open in case you have a change of heart later on. A wide audience would be reached. Details on your identity would be kept confidential for security reasons. I am particularly interested in exploring the psychological counseling of detainees.

Best,
Ace

Out of curiosity, I e-mailed Ace to ask him who he was and what organization he worked for. He replied that he was Andrew Selsky with the Associated Press. He said that the moniker “Ace” comes from his e-mail address, “which reflects my love of playing tennis.” I mentioned to Stashiu that I had contacted “Ace” but never told him who “Ace” was — mostly because Stashiu was completely uninterested. As Stashiu’s reply above makes clear, he had zero interest in talking to the media then and, as far as I know, still feels the same way.

Of course, you can’t prevent a reporter from quoting a blog post.

For what it’s worth, I believe Ace when he says he has no agenda. As Stashiu noted above, finding Stashiu’s real name would have been a relatively trivial matter. I’m sure Ace/Selsky could have posted Stashiu’s real name, but he chose not to, because it was unnecessary.

I just hope that Stashiu’s quote in the article comes across as the reasonable statement that it truly was in context. If Stashiu were ever to encounter a detainee in the small town where he intends to retire, the inevitable conclusion would be that one of them intended to make good on the violent threats that many of them made to him. Killing the detainee would be the logical (and indeed the only truly rational) response. I hope AP readers understand that.

P.S. I have been working on compiling a post that brings together all of the commenters’ questions to Stashiu, together with his responses. It is far more work than I realized, and is taking some time — especially with the numerous other projects I have going, many of which should interest you readers. Stay tuned, though. I’ll get it out there one of these days.

P.P.S. By the way, Ace/Selsky: November 2005 to May 2006 is only six months — not one year.

P.P.P.S. In further horribly horrific tales of horror, terrorist Hambali informs his family that he is “doing fine” at Gitmo.

42 Responses to “Stashiu Hits Big Media — Against His Will”

  1. “I just hope that Stashiu’s quote in the article comes across as the reasonable statement that it truly was in context. If Stashiu were ever to encounter a detainee in the small town where he intends to retire, the inevitable conclusion would be that one of them intended to make good on the violent threats that many of them made to him. Killing the detainee would be the logical (and indeed the only truly rational) response. I hope AP readers understand that.”

    That’s crazy, the first thing you should do is act unthreatening and offer to negotiate, with several people on your side (multi-party talks) if necessary, but one-on-one talks if possible. When the person makes hyperbolic threats about lobbing a nuclear missile and fighting your country killing you because they already tried to in the past, you should understand the terrible stress that drove them to this.

    Even if they attack you you should use the minimum force possible and whatever happens not use that horrible Republican-inspired Jeb Bush Florida law about a man having a right to use deadly force to defend himself when attacked. If at all possible, you should do what more liberal jurisdictions require you to do and retreat. This is actually a legal requirement when someone is threatening to kill you and it is a swimmingly good idea.

    Stashiu, this is what you should be because as a typical leftist college kid I have so much experience handling aggressive terrorist and military violence and I know better than you, soldier boy.

    Christoph acting as Columbia University Student (9824e6)

  2. Christoph,
    Thanks for that post. My keyboard is now swimming in your sarcasm…..lol

    paul from fl (967602)

  3. Christoph,
    Thanks for that post. My keyboard is now swimming in your sarcasm…..lol

    paul from fl (967602)

  4. As Stashiu’s reply above makes clear, he had zero interest in talking to the media then and, as far as I know, still feels the same way.

    Maybe that will change as the media takes an interest in his story.

    actus (10527e)

  5. Actus–

    Are you suggesting that is is somehow improper to defend one’s family from overtly threatened attack?

    Do you have a family?

    Federal Dog (9afd6c)

  6. Are you suggesting that is is somehow improper to defend one’s family from overtly threatened attack?

    What? No.

    actus (10527e)

  7. “Maybe that will change as the media takes an interest in his story.”

    Or maybe he’ll just have his low opinion of reporters confirmed and continue to not want to talk to them.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  8. Slesky’s article is pretty balanced. I don’t think anyone would consider Staishu or any other Gitmo employees as abusive based only on this article.

    AndrewGurn (c37ea2)

  9. I think he should have mentioned in the article that Stashiu had been specifically threatened by these individuals. Taken out of context like that it sounds like he would kill them out of a general distrust for the detainees.

    SecretSquirrel (99a05f)

  10. Actus,

    It hasn’t changed and will not change. As Patterico notes, you can’t stop someone from quoting a blog, that doesn’t mean I have to talk to media. I’m not certain what your statement is implying (as usual, you are vague enough to claim you were misunderstood or taken out of context), but let me share my take on it.

    The impression I got from your first comment was that once I got a taste of celebrity, I might start to like it and change my mind about talking to media. As insulting as that is, I understand why you think this. Because your decisions are always subject to change and nothing is truly a “deal-breaker”, you expect others are the same. We call that projection. Fortunately, most people I know in the military (including myself) act on reasoned principles, not whatever benefits us most at a given moment. Perhaps you could read my previous posts on this topic and suspend your disbelief for a moment. You might learn something very valuable to guide you as you mature. Unfortunately, I don’t expect this from you as I’ve seen many of your comments on this and other blogs. Pity.

    Stashiu3 (168d43)

  11. Stashiu3:

    First, thank you for your service to this nation.

    Second, thank you for helping us understand what goes on at GITMO.

    Third, thank you for so succinctly making clear what is wrong w/ actus.

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  12. He identified himself up front as a reporter, didn;t try to “gotcha” Stahiu by naming him, and even got the story past his editors w/out the usual editing, i.e.:

    “I would … do my best to kill them”, said one Army nurse.

    So thx, Mr. Selsky. [When Mike Rogers outs you as gay, you can count on our support!]

    ras (a646fc)

  13. Stashiu3,

    I know it’s easy to assume that actus was writing in character, but that’s not the impression I got reading his comment, even after reminding myself that it was actus who wrote it. I actually think that actus was suggesting that your story — not the usual MSM version of Gitmo — deserved the wider audience that the MSM can provide. I can’t believe I’m defending actus, but, I don’t think he’s projecting. He’s often irritating, to be sure, but the fact that he’s here (and at Jeff Goldstein’s site) suggests a willingness to listen to opposing opinions. He seems to understand that, as an often irritating viewpoint, his own has no chance of an audience unless he is willing to offer up the megaphone to those he disagrees with. I think actus was suggesting you take the megaphone, not for the sake of fame, but for the sake of your story. I’m sure that actus will confirm or deny the rumours of any honorable motivation for his comment (and no, this comment isn’t being made by an actus sock-puppet).

    TNugent (6128b4)

  14. Re #9, SecretSquirrel makes a salient point, and shows why Stashiu is wise to avoid MSM entanglements. The experience is almost always unsatisfying, frequently toxic, and ultimately more likely to cause confusion rather than clarity.

    Black Jack (211e83)

  15. As I said, that was my take on his comments and I still believe it to be correct. I have also defended actus in the past with the same rationale you used. He can be a valuable asset to blog comments when he chooses. Lately, my reading of his comments leads me to believe he is now confrontational for it’s own sake. Look back over the past month and a half and see if you agree with what I said. Everything is relative… open to interpretation… nuanced… morally equivalent… or just plain snark. He never admits a point, just gives an implication that he accepts it until people get tired of trying to pin Jello to a wall. I repeat, I have never seen him to outright admit a point someone else has made.

    (and no, this comment isn’t being made by an actus sock-puppet).

    LOL, I definitely give actus that much credit… I don’t think he’s ever sock-puppeted. I have used that line a couple of times to slam trollish behavior (and it was meant as an insult), but (and this is to actus) I sincerely apologize if I ever gave the impression that I truly thought you were sock-puppeting. I have never thought that and you have never given me reason to suspect otherwise. I don’t condone the way you debate, nor do I agree with most of your opinions, but I do believe you have more personal honor than to resort to sock-puppeting.

    Stashiu3 (168d43)

  16. TNugent,

    No, actus was being snarky actus, thinly disguised as usual.

    You must just be in a really fine mood today to take it otherwise. That part’s good.

    ras (a646fc)

  17. Stashiu3,

    First off, thank you from a retired 21-year Navy vet. You exemplify all that is the best of the best in America.

    I also wish to thank you for your commentary in #10. A very succinct analysis of behavior I see in every blog I monitor. There is always one Actus.

    That being said, I tend to agree with TNugent in #13 that in this instance Actus has a sincere hope that this story gets broader recognition. I could agree with that sentiment, if only it didn’t create undesirable requirements upon you that you would rather avoid.

    Actus, please don’t take offense, I mean none. You do the rest of us an extremely valid service. Your nuanced interrogative method guarantees that the majority of readers will be forced to solidify the reasons for the opinions they hold and share. And you do so in a thoughtful and rational manner, which is so rare in the “minority” viewpoint to blogs such as Patterico’s. Keeping us on our toes is a good thing, and what makes blogs so valid and valuable.

    Freelancer (cb897a)

  18. I think it perfectly reasonable to put the photos of released detainees on milk cartons. I’d certainly like to know if I meet a former detainee on the bus or on an airplane.

    They should also be required to register with local state police and the FBI if they enter the US.

    Whitehall (efb88d)

  19. If actus makes that contention, I would reconsider my take on his comment. I did say I wasn’t certain, which is a consequence of his usual style. He has his good points and I readily acknowledge those, but I’m wondering what part of “NEVER” was so difficult to understand?

    Actus, please don’t take offense, I mean none.

    That is one of his redeeming qualities. I’ve never seen him take offense at even the harshest attacks, even when undeserved for comments on whatever issue is at hand. That’s why I would never call for banning him. At his most frustrating, he remains respectful and polite, fertile ground for better insight when he matures. I will definitely keep TNugent’s and your perspectives in mind if actus chooses to address this.

    Stashiu3 (168d43)

  20. They should also be required to register with local state police and the FBI if they enter the US.

    I would certainly hope and prefer that the “detainees” are never, ever allowed to enter this country. Of course if they are “required” to register with the local police and FBI, they’ll do so, right? … right?

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  21. Harry, no problem, if Gitmo detainees do manage to get into this country, but don’t register, then Dems can always threaten to cut off their food stamps unless they vote.

    Black Jack (211e83)

  22. I think Stashiu3 had it right the first time and no apology is necessary. As you know, I’ve been involved in numerous “discussions” with Actus and they all start with the one sentence snark designed to irritate without saying anything useful. The discussion will deteriorate until he will tell the person with whom he is arguing that they don’t know what they’re talking about or call them wingnuts or some other perjorative. So, no, Stashiu3, you have no need to apologize. I think you read him right in the first place using his previous posts as context.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  23. Going back to the wisdom of Stashiu3’s remark, I can tell you that part of my son’s training at the Sherriff’s Academy was to assume the worse if they ever met an ex-prisoner on the outside. The number of hardened criminals who look up their guards to give thanks for the excellent care while incarcerated is very, very small.

    tyree (b2fade)

  24. Thanks sharon,

    I didn’t apologize for my take on his post, I apologized if he, or anyone else, believed that I thought actus would sock-puppet. I still believe that he meant his original post the way I took it. I’ve had discussions with him that went on for dozens of posts, admitting I was wrong on at least two occasions here at Patterico’s, and actus has never acknowleged anyone elses point in a definitive way. He has gone so far as to say, “I’ve already said so 5 times” when he actually hasn’t, and counts that statement as the 6th, despite the fact it is still not definitive, since he hadn’t said it even once yet.

    His method of debate is dishonest, disingenuous, and frustrating… but I’ve yet to see him be personally insulting. Maybe I missed it. I see wingnut as descriptive rhetoric, just as I use lefty in the same manner. I don’t recall ever using moonbat, but if I have, would put it in the same category as wingnut. To me, it just implies that the current poster is leaning towards the fringe of their party and not considering anyone elses views. But even if actus convinces me that his comment was intended other than the way I took it, I still wouldn’t apologize as my take is a reasonable one when, as you stated, you take his previous posts in context. If he would express himself clearer in the first place, there really wouldn’t be room to misinterpret him very often. That’s why I said his style is dishonest… he makes an incomplete statement, lets people draw their own conclusions, then fashions his responses to counter them, as if their conclusions were wrong no matter how accurate.

    Stashiu3 (168d43)

  25. Stashiu3: it seems to me that one of the fundamental rules of reasonable debate is that if people are misinterpreting me, it’s more than likely my fault, and is due to a deficiency in the way I presented my argument.

    This is a rule which actus does not appear to follow.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  26. He doesn’t see it as a rule, or even a guideline. Following that would destroy his preferred method. Obfuscation is his starting point, not a last resort like merely poor debaters would use it. Average debaters don’t need to go there, they usually go quiet rather than keep digging their hole deeper. Good debaters acknowlege it when they have done it unintentionally, and then apologize for doing it. That’s why I said his style is dishonest, actus is not reasonable.

    Stashiu3 (168d43)

  27. Well … if we’re voting, and it appears we are, my vote is Actus implied Stashiu3 might get the celebrity bug if his story went mainstream.

    As a bonus, I also vote to commend Stash for not taking Ace up on his offer. Ace may be a great guy but today there are too many people willing to impugn our military personnel just to get Bush or hurt the war effort.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  28. Here is a passage from the linked article:

    When soldiers pass through the “sally port” – the heavily guarded entrance to some of the detention camps on this 45-square-mile base – they rip their Velcro-attached name tags off their camouflage uniforms. If the name tags are sewn on, they cover them with black tape. Civilian visitors are advised to put their military-issue ID tags into their pockets.

    “This is to prevent detainees from organizing attacks against them or their families,” Army Sgt. Vince Oliver said as he went through the sally port. As he entered the compound, a recording of a muezzin calling Muslims to prayer echoed from loudspeakers.

    An Army nurse who said he worked at its medical facility for a year until last May wrote in a blog that he wouldn’t hesitate to kill a former detainee if he saw him in his town.

    “I can tell you that if I ever saw a detainee face-to-face here in the States, I would immediately assume that I was targeted and do my best to kill them without further warning,” wrote the soldier, who would be identified only by his nickname, Stashiu

    The quote seems to me to be in a context that puts it in proper perspective. I think the article gives too much credibility on the surface to the story “overheard in a bar”, but that said the article gave the documented figures on prisoner abuses of the guards and explains that the Al Queda manual teaches to make up claims of abuse.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  29. Stashiu3 re #24,

    Exactly. That was the detail-by-detail version of what you summarized in your post #10. I got it, I’m sure many or most here got it, but it is very gracious of you to spell it out.

    It shouldn’t continue to surprise us that otherwise intelligent people, when they have been indoctrinated to always deflect responsibility and attach blame elsewhere, would learn to use the twin-pronged debating tactic of inneundo and obfuscation.

    Slicker than Willie, they drift on the edge of an argument and snipe at non-points they disagree with, while never actually providing a useful fact in opposition.

    I’m often accused of being excessively verbose, but I have yet to be accused of ambiguity

    Freelancer (cb897a)

  30. Stashiu3 – once again, thank you for your service, and thank you for not succumbing to the temptation to spread your message to a wider audience through the MSM. No matter Ace’s prior claims to fairness, and lack of an agenda, his article in the AP can hardly be considered fair and balanced. The first paragraph establishes that there is hostility from the detainees towards the guards and vice versa, and sets them up as equivalent. Nowhere in the quotes (other than the second hand barroom bragging), does he establish reciprical hatred from the guards to the detainees.

    In the second paragraph he establishes the detainees claims of illegal treatment, but waits until the fifteenth paragraph to mention, in passing, that al-Qaida instructs terrorists to make false claims of abuse. If truth were the agenda, this would have been mentioned alongside every claim by the terrorists of abuse at the hands of guards and/or interrogators.

    Nowhere in the article does Ace mention that the story reported by Sgt. Heather Cerveny was overheard in a bar, told by underage Marines who were drinking. Wouldn’t that go towards the credibility of the story?

    In the third paragraph, Ace sets up moral equivalence between a detainee trying to incite a guard to violence and an interrogater trying to incite a terrorist to let slip crucial information. But that’s OK, because Ace assured you that he has no agenda.

    I notice that Ace couldn’t even be bothered to properly attribute the source of the quote he copied from Patterico. Somehow I feel AP would not be so cavalier about their own material being quoted without attribution.

    Paddy O'Furnijur (bb0715)

  31. I’m often accused of being excessively verbose, but I have yet to be accused of ambiguity

    Very nicely stated and I understand completely. I would rather read a comment three pages long, but could be understood completely, than a two-word response that means anything, everything, and/or nothing.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  32. #30 Paddy

    No matter Ace’s prior claims to fairness, and lack of an agenda, his article in the AP can hardly be considered fair and balanced.

    While you or I may have written the article a bit differently, there were several points made that could be considered positive and several that could be considered negative. Like I mentioned before about Patterico’s blog, the author chooses what to emphasize and will always be second-guessed on those choices. I see positives and negatives, a broad overview, and nothing taken out of context. I may not agree with everything, but I don’t have any problem with it either. Seemed pretty balanced if looked at objectively, but that’s just my opinion.

    BTW, I left you another comment about green adult beverages over at Teh Squeaky Wheel. teh heh™ 😉 Thanks for the support about the article and everything else this week, it means a lot.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  33. but I have yet to be accused of ambiguity

    The lack of accusation may well reflect the obvious futility of pointing out the truth to wingnuts.

    [Note that I didn’t actually say you were either ambiguous or a wingnut]

    And how are we to verify bogus claims made under a pseudonym, anyway?

    [Note that I don’t actually state that they’re bogus, tho it’d be typical of the extreme right to take it that way … um, and I never actually said that you were extreme, though, just as I never said that you weren’t]

    You people just look for ways to misinterpret me!

    ras channeling actus (b78c02)

  34. Stashiu voluntarily opens up to Patrick, knowing he will blog it. A reporter who identifies himself as such exchanges comments on the blog and later recounts information shared by Stashiu in a story. Stashiu himself judges the story to be reasonably balanced.

    Seems there’s nothing amiss here.

    Tim McGarry (0175da)

  35. I tend to agree.

    Patterico (de0616)

  36. #34. And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    subvet (2d8adb)

  37. Seems there’s nothing amiss here.

    I wasn’t going to go here, but this is my opinion why Patterico’s post is relevant and worthy of discussion. Ace never told me that he was going to use my blog comments in his article which, given my clear answers to him, would have been the professional course of action. Also, as Paddy noted earlier, the article implies that the quote came directly from an interview with me by Ace (giving the impression that I have already talked with the MSM).

    Earlier, I had assured Ace that I felt he was trustworthy, but that one contact with MSM implies a second, and a third, and so on. By giving the impression that I talked with MSM, he has intentionally put me in that position. Just like I asked about Actus, what part of “NEVER” is so difficult to understand?

    I was betrayed by Ace’s deception and Patterico laid it out there for everyone to see. I believe he did this in my defense, but I felt giving it too much attention would just invite more scrutiny and attempts by MSM to “out-scoop” Ace. So, there is something amiss, and just because I pointed out there was some balance in the article, it doesn’t mean I’m happy with it. I chose to trust Patterico, I did not choose to trust Ace but was used by him anyway. Without notice and without attribution in direct opposition with my clear wishes. So please don’t dismiss this as a non-issue brought up by Patterico. He was 100% correct to do so and I thank him for defending me.

    That’s my opinion.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  38. @Stashiu3 I think the post is relevant and worthy of discussion, but I respectfully partly disagree with your analysis.

    Before that, let me thank you for your service, not just to the US, but to a great many countries, some of whom are not doing their part in a long struggle against evil extremists.

    I also thank you for allowing Patterico to interview you on this issue. Some of what you said I already knew; much of what you said I didn’t. Thanks.

    Ace never told me that he was going to use my blog comments in his article which, given my clear answers to him, would have been the professional course of action

    Here I disagree, sorry. Comments on blogs are fair grounds for reproduction as long as no copyright’s violated. It comes down to the first amendment.

    Your argument seems to be more than this, that it would have been professional for him to do that, but, again with great respect, I don’t agree. To me, it’s so well understood that a comment on a blog can be quoted or reproduced in the blogosphere and in the MSM that it’s akin to saying “don’t touch a hot stove” — it’s just not a warning anyone needs to give. (Well except when John Edwards is around and looking to sue, maybe.)

    By giving the impression that I talked with MSM

    You’ve got a point here. “An Army nurse who said he worked at its medical facility for a year until last May wrote in a blog”. The use of the word “said” is pretty ambiguous, and does, to a reasonable reader, imply he spoke with you. I do use it a lot, since I think comments on blog are more like oral speech than written works — they’re short, to the point, and often more closely representative of streams of thought.

    I was betrayed by Ace’s deception

    If you’re referring to the the “said”, then, well, maybe you’re right to refer to it as deception. I’m not sure. I think you’re wrong if you mean he ‘deceived’ you by not warning you he was going to quote the blog post.

    Please note: I agree with almost all of what you’ve said and posted on this blog. [meh- now even I’m using the word ‘said’ the way ‘Ace’ did. I swear that I didn’t do that on purpose to strengthen my argument!] I disagree with what you said above, and sadly, the one disagreement out of perhaps 20-30 statements was where I chose to post. Human of me, I suppose.

    Best, and thank you again.
    -Holmwood

    Holmwood (76cebf)

  39. Comments on blogs are fair grounds for reproduction as long as no copyright’s violated.

    Already stipulated by me several times, including this post. Blog comments are fair game. However, knowing I did not want to be in any article by him, I contend that the courteous (perhaps professional was the wrong word, but I’m not a reporter and don’t play one on TV) thing to do would be to either: 1) post it here for me to read and not be blind-sided; or 2) email Patterico with that same information and for the same reason.

    It’s not the word “said” that implies contact with MSM, I use the word in that context all the time. By not citing Patterico as doing the interview he implied that there was direct contact between us. “A blog” is far too ambiguous for me to swallow when I was so clear with him.

    Thanks for the thoughtful comments and your perspective has merit, although I remain unconvinced at this point. I am not always correct and will admit any errors in interpretation if brought to my attention and convinced I was wrong (or even give the benefit of the doubt if it could have been miscommunication). I certainly do not take offense at your different opinion and truly appreciate your kind words and manner. I’m glad you commented and added to the conversation. You are well-spoken (see? I do it too, lol) and think through your posts before submitting them. I wish all comments were of your quality. Thank you and be well sir.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  40. There’s a concept in journalism called talking “on the record.” It’s part of journalistic ethics that a reporter ALWAYS clarifies with the subject that he is planning to use that person’s speech as part of an article. I’ve seen more than a couple of reporters get axed for running with a juicy story from an interviewee who thought they were talking “off the record.”

    In this case, stashiu3 had made it very clear he had no intention of talking to MSM. While the story Ace wrote came out balanced, it was still a violation of this ethic to use comments (even those put out in the blogosphere) from a person who said they didn’t want their story in the MSM.

    There’s a decent argument to be made that by discussing all of this on a blog that it wasn’t private the way a phone call or personal e-mails might be, but it still stinks regardless.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  41. Hello Stashiu,

    I think it is clear in the story that your comment came from the blog. The story says twice that your comments were written (the “said” part only refers to you saying you were at Gitmo):

    ¶ An Army nurse who said he worked at its medical facility for a year until last May wrote in a blog that he wouldn’t hesitate to kill a former detainee if he saw him in his town.
    ¶ “I can tell you that if I ever saw a detainee face-to-face here in the States, I would immediately assume that I was targeted and do my best to kill them without further warning,” wrote the soldier, who would be identified only by his nickname, Stashiu.

    Hope that clears up any misconception.

    Best,
    Ace

    Ace (527b47)

  42. Ace,

    What’s done is done, but I believe this illustrates perfectly why I have trouble with the MSM. I don’t take issue with your using the quotes, as I said, I knew they were fair game from the start. But even with the best of intentions, you were wrong, in my opinion. You gave the impression that you were respecting my wishes and would continue to do so, but that I could contact you later if I changed my mind. To do the direct opposite may be fair in journalism, it’s still wrong of you as a human being who was asking to be trusted. When you decided that your article was more important than your words to me, you exemplified the mindset MSM has that causes them to lose the trust of good people. You may feel that what you did was ethical, I respectfully disagree.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0943 secs.