The Judgement of Paris
And this is connected to the recent release of the journalist Jill Carroll. I'm not going to get into her actual motives/intent/political alignment or whatever. (I would suggest that anyone going into a known dangerous situation have, in addition to a current will, a pre-arranged set of signals or codewords that will indicate coercion is being applied. Can't let the military have all the good ideas, right?) Anyway -- the first video comes out, and it is all mujahadeen-positive and so on, and there are some pretty strong reactions. Right-leaning opinion tends towards "oh bleep, another setup", goodwill having been severely strained by the idjits who couldn't even be bothered to thank the coalition forces that rescued them. However, there are some who point out being held captive for three months by verified killers might lead a prisoner to adapt a conciliatory tone. Some Left-leaning folks jumped on this and denounced the very idea that she wasn't freely expressing her true opinions.
So now it seems she *was* coerced, that she was very much aware she was in danger, she *was* threatened and in fear for her life (and since they had killed her interpreter, reasonably so).
What I want to know, as the truth unfolds, is exactly how the Left makes its judgements in these situations. Because their outrage, their sensibilities, their delicate feelings, seem to be entirely swayed by what they get out of it. Excuses are always found for unpleasant behavior by anyone opposing or disliking the US, while we are held to impossible standards. Even by her original, forced account Ms. Carroll was treated worse than prisoners in Gitmo -- so why weren't there any protests about her?