Michelle Malkin and the warbloggers get everything wrong -- again
Let's go back to Malkin's suggestion that when the Iraqi judges acquitted Hussein on April 9, it didn't really mean he was innocent. That's important because last week, when the U.S. military freed Hussein, warbloggers clung to that amnesty fig leaf for cover. Watch how the warblogger daisy chain of misinformation worked.
For instance, when charges were dropped against Hussein on April 9, the warblogging site Wizbang explained what was really going on: "You have to look to alternate sources of information to get the full poop here -- the charges aren't being dismissed for lack of evidence, but because Hussein's actions fall under a new amnesty law."
To help educate its readers about the new amnesty law, Wizbang linked to Malkin's post about how there was "more to this story, believe me." But Malkin provided no facts about the amnesty law; no evidence to suggest Hussein was still guilty of any crime.
Sill, Wizbang pressed on:
As the story continues to unfold, remember this clearly: at no point was Bilal Hussein adjudged innocent of the terrorist-related charges he faced. Instead, he was freed by the same law that also set loose a lot of captured insurgents."
The same line appeared at Power Line, which insisted the Iraqi court "decided that Hussein was eligible for amnesty under a statute passed in February. His guilt or innocence has not been adjudicated."
That talking point was everywhere, including the Jawa Report, which announced, "Bilal Hussein wasn't set free because he was innocent, he was set free because his case was part of a general amnesty for insurgents." [emphasis in original]
Ditto for warblogging central, Little Green Footballs: "The Associated Press story about the release of photographer Bilal Hussein, strangely, does not explain that Hussein was released because of a new Iraqi amnesty law -- not because the charges were found to be without merit."
But where were the details about this amnesty law? Where were the facts that proved that Iraqi judges, in an extraordinarily high-profile case against a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and in a case the U.S. military was heavily invested in, never examined the evidence presented against Hussein and simply allowed him to walk free regardless of his guilt or innocence? Did warbloggers quote U.S. military officials? Did they research Iraqi law? Did they even cite news accounts? No -- they just liked the sound of the amnesty spin.
Still curious as to how LGF could be so certain in its April 16 item about the details of the amnesty law and how it represented Hussein's bogus, get-of-jail card, I went back and looked at what LGF wrote following the April 9 news that the Iraqi judges had dismissed charges against Hussein.
LGF posted this: "AP photographer Bilal Hussein has received amnesty from the Iraqi government, under a new law. I was unable to find any details about this 'new law,' but apparently it covers Hussein." [emphasis added]
Oh, my. Warbloggers maintain this fantasy that they were right all along about Hussein being a terrorist and it was only the creation of a new amnesty law that saved him from a certain prison sentence. But in truth, warbloggers have no idea what the amnesty law means.
And by the way, that amnesty angle was total BS, according to Scott Horton, an actual attorney was who was actually involved in the case. (He was Hussein's lawyer.) "When we [in the U.S.] say 'amnesty,' it's usually an executive act. This was a judicial amnesty based on a review of the complete court record," he told CJR last week.
Horton also wrote this in a Harper's blog entry on April 9:
An Iraqi Judicial Commission reviewing his case took ten days to reach a conclusion: No basis existed for the terrorism-related charges which had been brought against him. The conclusion was a sweeping repudiation of accusations U.S. military figures have brought against him, backed by no evidence, but by a handful of strangely motivated American wingnut bloggers.
