Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
April 23, 2006
In good company
Tom Lipscomb writes this morning advising me that my post "The Pulitzer Prize for treason" is the subject of a critical Los Angeles Times column by Tim Rutten. Rutten also discusses my Standard column "Exposure." Rutten takes up Bill Bennett's and my condemnation of the Pulitzer Prize awarded to New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Licbtblau. (Bennett's includes the award to the Washington Post's Dana Priest in his condemnation as well.) Because Rutten kindly places me in Bennett's company, Rutten acknowledges that our condemnation of the award does not emanate from "the lacy fringes of the lunatic extreme but from analysts actively involved in the mainstream's public conversation, albeit from the ideological right."
I appreciate Rutten's drawing attention to my condemnation of the Times and the Pulitzer Prize committee. Rutten writes:
Bennett's demand that Priest, Risen and Lichtblau be arrested under the Espionage Act a statute that dates to World War I echoes a call made months ago in Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard by one of its contributing writers, Scott Johnson, a Minnesota attorney who is one of the principals on the influential Powerline blog.
Put to one side that the most pertinent provision of the Espionage Act (section 798) dates to 1950 and was added expressly to prevent what the Times has wrought with respect to blowing the NSA's al-Qaeda surveillance program. (Rutten somehow overlooked the recent Commentary magazine feature article with relevant background by Gabriel Schoenfeld: "Did the New York Times violate the Espionage Act?") Rutten simply refuses to engage the issues: Did the Times's reportage violate the terms of the Act? Did the Times's reportage damage the national security of the United States? If the Times violated the law, why shouldn't it be prosecuted? Rutten presents Bennett's and my position as follows:
Sweep out the Bastille! Form up the firing squad!
This is not serious. This is a tantrum.
There is a searching discussion to be had one that never can be completed on how responsible journalists should handle classified information when reporting on a government that uses the designation as a matter of political expediency and mere convenience, as well as a way to guard the country's legitimate secrets. Any journalist who doesn't acknowledge that there are legitimate national secrets is worse than silly; any commentator who pretends that every or even most things stamped "classified" is among them probably is grinding his or her ax.
***
[W]e confront an attempt to win through bluster and intimidation what cannot be gained through politics or persuasion.
It takes the prize.
In the conclusion of is column, Rutten adds Hugh Hewitt -- more good company -- to his indictment of Bennett and me. (Hugh responds to Rutten here.) I don't detect even the germ of an argument in Rutten's column contradicting what I wrote here or in the Standard column. In his message to me this morning, Tom Lipscomb characterizes Rutten's column as "one of the worst-reasoned I have seen in quite a while." I don't agree with everything in Tom's comments on Rutten's column, but they come from a pro with an insider's perspective on the news business and are worthy of consideration:
Remember Talleyrands remark on Napoleons execution of the Duc DEnghien?
There was NO news value to releasing operational information on Al Qaeda surveillance by our most heavily classified agency. We expect them to do stuff like this. We hope they are damned good at it, in GOP and Dem administrations alike.
And as for who the CIA has convinced to park terrorist suspects before the American shysters bar can get to them, we have known since 2003 that the Bushies were going to do everything they could to shake and bake these guys as long as they could. There is no news there...Whether it is Gitmo or Draculas castle. What difference does it make. All that was accomplished here was to restate the obvious in the most embarrassing way to the US and its Allies.
And what no one seems to think about...We did a lot of surveillance of putative Communist operatives and Axis operatives in the past when we didnt even have the luxury of being sure half the phone call was definitely enemy, much less from a foreign base. If anything this is a hell of an improvement in the civil liberties department.
I am always willing to stick it to over-classification...but there needs to be some overpowering news value, particularly if you are risking covert operational details in a war. Moynihan had me as an adviser to his committee on government secrecy. He wanted to cut it back a lot. I agreed. After the cold war and before 9/11 is was mainly being used to bury bureaucratic incompetence as long as possible. Now the Bushies are acting like idiots running around reclassifying material that is already out there in university libraries yet, like a MKVD on amphetamines. It makes them look almost as stupid as the Pulitzer Committee.
After all surfacing the misnamed "Pentagon Papers" (I published the book edition) never threatened the life of a single agent. It was mainly an incredibly tedious CYA screed assembled by the CIA...Relevant to the Pentagon only because it categorically proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that if only DOD had done everything just the way the CIA thought it should several years earlier things wouldnt have gotten so out of hand.
And as such it was neither particularly dangerous AND there was some news value in seeing how the insiders were arguing over the conduct of a war that seemed to have everyone confused.
But what did we get from the Posts or the NYT Pulitzer scoops? They risked covert operations NOW in the midst of a war and the reading public learned not a damned thing.
Finally to show just why the Press has its head so totally distorted about what they think they are fighting and why they are so brave--- read this from todays Washington Post....complete with the bad reporting no names blank check statement this effort has been widely seen which is code for at least everyone I talked to at the Pulitzer announcement and the White House Correspondents Dinner agreed....
The effort has been widely seen among members of the media, and some legal experts, as the most extensive and overt campaign against leaks in a generation, and has worsened the already-tense relationship between mainstream news organizations and the White House.
You see, dear Scott, the simple act of enforcement of the entire Federal classification system of the government intelligence we have had for more than a half a century suddenly has worsened the already-tense relationship between mainstream news organizations and the White House.
The press, therefore, believes it should decide what should be declassified in the public interest and God forfend if the President does so on any occasion, like outing a liar like Joe Wilson at no risk to intelligence. And if there is a tense relationship then government should concede whatever it has to, including national security, since presumably IT has the responsibility for relaxing it.
Now WHAT were we so upset about Valerie Plames classified status for again?
April 22, 2006
Was it a Sting?
Captain's Quarters and Right Wing Nuthouse are pondering the possibility that the CIA European detention center story may have been a sting designed to identify moles.
Why do they think this? The New York Times reports that the European antiterror chief can't find any proof that these CIA secret prisons even existed:
BRUSSELS, April 20 -- The European Union's antiterrorism chief told a hearing on Thursday that he had not been able to prove that secret C.I.A. prisons existed in Europe.Ed Morrissey concludes by saying this:
"We've heard all kinds of allegations," the official, Gijs de Vries, said before a committee of the European Parliament. "It does not appear to be proven beyond reasonable doubt."
[snip]
Mr. de Vries said the European Parliament investigation had not uncovered rights abuses despite more than 50 hours of testimony by rights advocates and people who say they were abducted by C.I.A. agents. A similar investigation by the Council of Europe, the European human rights agency, came to the same conclusion in January -- though the leader of that inquiry, Dick Marty, a Swiss senator, said then that there were enough "indications" to justify continuing the investigation.
A number of legislators on Thursday challenged Mr. de Vries for not taking seriously earlier testimony before the committee of a German and a Canadian who gave accounts of being kidnapped and kept imprisoned by foreign agents.
The committee also heard Thursday from a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who said: "I can attest to the willingness of the U.S. and the U.K. to obtain intelligence that was got under torture in Uzbekistan. If they were not willing, then rendition prisons could not have existed." But Mr. Murray, who was recalled from his job in 2004 after condemning the Uzbek authorities and criticizing the British and American governments, told the committee that he had no proof that detention centers existed within Europe.
He said he had witnessed such rendition programs in Uzbekistan, but he seemed to back up Mr. de Vries's assertion when he said he was not aware of anyone being taken to Uzbekistan from Europe. "As far as I know, that never happened," he said.
We may never know if the entire story about detention centers turned out to be a smoke screen intended to reveal a leak. We certainly have no evidence beyond the McCarthy leak and Priest's story. If it does turn out to be nothing more than misinformation for a leak probe, the Washington Post and the Pulitzer Committee will look very foolish indeed.
AJ Strata reports that McCarthy may have leaked information to the media on multiple occasions about more than one subject.
If it's proven that she did a lot of leaking on many pieces of classified information, then Mary McCarthy is one dangerous woman and needs to be in prison.
By: Kim Priestap at 09:22 AM
Sonny, you are either stupid or cracked.Redhots said:After "Deep Throat" came out last year there were prominent republicans calling for charges of treason to be filed against him.
Your artical is the same deal.
People with more loyalty to an administration, to the state, than to the flag, than to the ideals of this country.
Take 24, no time left. Dmp made very clear:Redhots said:And you wont explain yourself either. Just more ad hominem.
Par for the course.
Troll Hunting
We here at USMB try hard to be fair and balanced - to borrow a slogan. Recently several new members have shown up who have jumped RIGHT INTO the thick of arguments and debates. A USMB member tipped me off to what was going on from another board; seems they get their rocks off joining this board to cause trouble.
This is where USMB needs your help. If you run across members posing as something they are not - in the context of joining THIS board from ANOTHER board simply intent on causing trouble - Send the tip to one of the Moderators or me. If the tip pans out, we'll ban the offending user and offer 300 reputation points to the 'informant'.
I have no resources to track down trolls - at least nothing as good as y'all - acting as USMB's Administrative "Scouts".
USMB is NOT interested in starting a cross-board flame war. This will NOT be 'our' board against 'theirs'. If you find a troll, please do NOT reciprocate by joining another forum to shit-talk and provoke. Any member causing THIS board trouble by flaming (In the name of this board) on another forum will receive a heap-load of banning, too.
Thanks for your help!
You can email dmp (at) usmessageboard (dot) com if you'd prefer not to us PMs.
