I HOPE THIS REPORT of prisoner abuse in Afghanistan is better-sourced than Newsweek’s. Or maybe I don’t.

UPDATE: John Cole emails:

You have to know that this is going to be the most misinterpreted quote in blog history by tomorrow noon:

“I HOPE THIS REPORT of prisoner abuse in Afghanistan is better-sourced than Newsweek’s. Or maybe I don’t.”

I have been reading you since virtually day one, so I know exactly what you mean- you hope it is thinly sourced and thus the story is bullshit, because it is so damned disturbing.

Of course, you can be virtually assured that someone like James Wolcott or Atrios will by noon be claiming torture doesn’t matter to you, and only media bashing does…

Right now you are laughing because you know I am right.

On all counts.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Something you probably won’t hear from Wolcott and Atrios:

The paper’s lead story is a lurid account of the vicious treatment of two Afghan prisoners by U.S. soldiers — events that occurred in December 2002 and for which seven servicemen have been properly punished. Let me repeat that: December 2002. That’s two and a half years ago. Every detail published by the Times comes from a report done by the U.S. military, which did the investigating and the punishing. The publication of this piece this week is an effort not to get at the truth, not to praise the military establishment for rooting out the evil being done, but to make the point that the United States is engaged in despicable conduct as it fights the war on terror. In the name of covering the behinds of media colleagues, all is fair in hate and war.

If the news media policed themselves as well as the military does, Newsweek wouldn’t be in this kind of trouble. (Emph. added).

MORE: Bruce Rolston notes that punishment hasn’t actually happened yet, as the trial process is still underway. Fair point, but it’s not like the NYT is breaking news here.