In the May 24 issue of The New Yorker, a letter from a retired Army captain says that Seymour Hersh's recent expos of abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad was an exercise in "poor journalism" by printing "at a time when the world is a tinderbox." The soldier goes on to write that Hersh "gives encouragement to extremists."Considering the widespread reactions in Washington and the Pentagon's recent attempts at transparency in its treatment of Iraqi prisoners—the Defense Department has, in the past week, released hundreds of prisoners from Abu Ghraib and admitted to operating a secret interrogation facility in Baghdad—Hersh's reports were journalistic feats. They have concretely shed light on an unfortunate issue and affected the current policy toward Iraq.

Hersh has more prominent critics than veterans from Ohio. Richard Perle, one of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's neocon advisers called Hersh "the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist" last year.

A Pentagon spokesman dismissed Hersh's recent reports as "outlandish" and "conspiratorial" conjecture. But the government's fiercely defensive reactions give more credence to Hersh's journalistic integrity than any claims of reportorial malfeasance. And although the two have not publicly squared off, it appears a war of words is brewing between Rumsfeld and Hersh.

Following the initial article in the May 10 issue of The New Yorker, editorial boards and op-ed writers across the nation called for Rumsfeld's ouster. The Boston Globe, in a May 7 editorial, skewered Rumsfeld not only for his mishandling of the Abu Ghraib scandal, but for his further "incompetence" in handling the entire situation in Iraq. The day before, Thomas Friedman '75 called for President Bush to see Rumsfeld's accountability for the situation and fire him.

In his daylong testimony before Congress on May 7, Rumsfeld said he accepted responsibility for the prisoner abuse, but at the same time, shifted as much blame as possible to soldiers operating the prison. Unfortunately for Rumsfeld, this attempt at innocence is flimsy. In the subsequent articles, Hersh detailed how top military officials, both uniformed and civilian, approved plans to employ harsh interrogation methods in hopes of squeezing information from prisoners more quickly. This revelation is not surprising, as Rumsfeld notoriously favors intelligence-gathering special forces to conventional warfare and international agreements-the designation "illegal combatant" technically excuses interrogators from the Geneva Conventions.

Hersh's principle tool in constructing his articles is a February report issued by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba. The prison abuse first raised heads among the military in January, and Taguba was brought in to investigate. His report, later released to Hersh reached the Pentagon in late February, but it now, Hersh wrote in the May 24 issue of The New Yorker, appears Rumsfeld never read it until March, and even then, was hardly shocked or angered.

To be fair, there are a few uncertainties with Hersh's reporting. As the herald of My Lai and arguably the most prolific journalist covering military affairs, his work is trustworthy. However, he is famous for using an abundance of unnamed sources. Anonymity is frequent in covering parts of the government, especially in cases of intelligence or military affairs. But in the most recent article, some of Hersh's firsthand sources have monikers like "a senior CIA official" and "a former high-level intelligence official."

It's fortunate that Hersh is a reliable journalist, but if he has one major flaw, it is the large number of anonymous sources that are far more prevalent in his articles than those with names. Offering a pseudonym or complete anonymity can be a dependable method to extract information from a source, but it should, ideally, be done in moderation. Too much-as Hersh's critics frequently accuse him of-can give the appearance that a journalist holds more importance in relationships with sources than the responsibility of being honest to the readership.

A year ago, Abu Ghraib was still emblematic of the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime. Thanks to Hersh, we have learned that Iraq is not free of the torture chambers that Bush and Rumsfeld so frequently said were gone. The Army captain who accused Hersh of aiding the enemy made a ridiculous accusation. Not printing the articles would have given tacit "encouragement" to the extreme, inhumane methods that have been exposed.