But if one's political and professional connections to a leaker cast aspersions on the person's integrity and patriotism, there are plenty of aspersions to be cast. Larry Franklin, for instance, is a former Department of Defense official who -- unlike McCarthy -- has actually been convicted of the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, to which he had access as a result of his Pentagon job, and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Franklin was a top aide to Douglas Feith, the No. 3 official in Bush Defense Department, and had long-standing and very close ties to Paul Wolfowitz, deputy to Don Rumsfeld. He did not merely pass classified information to the American media, but to AIPAC, a group with close ties to a foreign government. Franklin has all kinds of friends in the pro-Bush media who defended him and insisted that he could not possibly be guilty, and had close ties to the highest and most powerful Bush officials.
Recently, close Bush ally, Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, was found by investigators to have leaked highly sensitive, classified information to Fox News' Carl Cameron and CNN's Dana Bash while Shelby served on the Senate Intelligence Committee -- an unauthorized and serious leak which, for some odd reason, the Bush Justice Department refused to prosecute. No Bush followers, at least that I know of, objected to the decision to allow Sen. Shelby to leak with impunity.
Equally close Bush ally, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, leaked some of the most classified information our government had in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks:
A senior senator's disclosure of highly classified information about the U.S. terrorism investigation has infuriated Bush administration officials and led to a clampdown on how much the White House will share with lawmakers.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters hours after terrorists crashed hijacked jetliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that U.S. intelligence had intercepted a telephone call from a suspect reporting to his handler that the targets in New York City and near Washington had been hit.
"They have an intercept of some information that includes people associated with[Osama] bin Laden who acknowledged a couple of targets were hit," Hatch told The Associated Press. He made similar comments to ABC News and said the information had come from officials at the CIA and FBI.
Electronic intercepts represent some of the most sensitive intelligence possessed by the government. U.S. officials rarely discuss their content because to do so would reveal to adversaries, including foreign governments, that American intelligence had penetrated their sensitive communications.
Hatch's disclosure, with the possibility it would tip off terrorists that their communications had been compromised, left senior officials of the administration dumbfounded and angry.
For some weird reason, the Justice Department did not prosecute Hatch's leak either, and Bush followers did not express any objections to that decision.
And, as I detailed yesterday, there is a slew of leaks of classified information from the Bush White House -- not decisions by the President to declassify information and then release it to the public, but anonymous pro-Bush disclosures by executive branch officials of information which is still classified, and which is released selectively and for plainly political ends. Leaking classified information is one of the principal tactics of the Bush White House and -- as demonstrated -- its closets political allies. Thus, if we are going to embrace a framework where not only the leaker but the leaker's political comrades and professional associates are considered suspect, there aren't many people in the Bush-loving world who will be free of suspicion.
UPDATE: Mark Coffey of Decision 08 says that he is opposed to Howard Dean's plan to inspect all of the cargo that enters the United States. Why are so many Bush supporters against programs to prevent Al Qaeda from shipping bombs and other dangerous materials into our country? In a Time of War, they want to leave our ports unprotected and help Al Qaeda smuggle bombs -- perhaps even dirty bombs -- into the U.S. They have a lot to answer for with their actions that impede the War on Terror.
I think Bill Keller may well want to consider a moratorium on anonymous sourcing on the White House beat. If it's not on the record, don't run it. This is not just a shot across the bow for CIA employees. It's a shot across the bow of the major media players. They're being threatened with a cut-off of sources that are not toeing the adminstration line.
ReplyDeleteI think Bill Keller may well want to consider a moratorium on anonymous sourcing on the White House beat.
ReplyDeleteThat would be the worst possible thing any newspaper could do. If that policy were adopted, there would be no more meaningful information obtained which reflected poorly on the Bush admininstration - what government official would ever criticize the Leader on the record. If you were a government employee, would you?
I find it interesting that you chose to link to my post that explicitly posits the notion that there, in fact, is no conspiracy involved in McCarthy's leaking.
ReplyDeleteHer associations are entirely normal for any Democrat in the national security establishment and do not make her a traitor or a conspiracist.
Was she acting in a partisan manner when leaking? She gave $5,000 to the state party of Ohio one month before the Presidential election - proof that at the very least, she is no run-of-the-mill party member.
It makes any defense about her "conscience" ring a little hollow.
I linked to your post as someone who insinuated about the existence of a conspiracy, which - given the first paragraph of your post - was probably generous. Here is how you began:
ReplyDeleteIt is very tempting when looking at Mary McCarthy’s fascinating connections to heavy hitters in the Democratic party national security establishment to try and connect the dots to form what Varifrank has called “The Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory.” And while not entirely dismissing out of hand such a possibility, I believe such thinking neglects a much more mundane and common explanation.
You didn't say there was a conspriacy - jsut that it was tempting to find one and that you didn't discount the possibility. And then your whole post is devoted to establishing all the nefarious ties.
Was it tempting to you to try to "connect the dots" when Orrin Hatch, Richard Shelby, and the Pentagon's Larry Franklin got caught leaking?
What a crock Mr. Greenwald is. For weeks we are harangued that “No one is above the law! Not even the President, not even when he is acting to protect the homeland. We are a nation of laws and that is the bedrock of our sacred Constitution.” I would link to some of that rhetoric, but I an sure you are in no need of a memory refresher, it was stated and re-stated so many times.
ReplyDeleteA Democrat rats out a Republican administration? Hey, there are laws and then there are laws. Each person is free to exercise one’s own conscience and determine whether or not a particular law is “just”. If the law is not “just” one may freely violate it and should not be punished for that. As I said, what a crock. Yes, there is bedrock here, and it ain’t the Constitution. The sacred principle is “Get the Rethugs!”
The repugs need a boogey man... Their "homeland security" has never been anything more than "homeland fear".
ReplyDeleteNo, the sacred principle seems to be, "Do as I say, not as I, as I ... you can't get fooled again."
ReplyDeletenotherbob2 writes: If the law is not “just” one may freely violate it and should not be punished for that. As I said, what a crock. Yes, there is bedrock here, and it ain’t the Constitution. The sacred principle is “Get the Rethugs!”
ReplyDeleteYes, on a superficial level, it seems inconsistent to approve of the leakers while also excoriating George Bush for violating the law. But the operative word there is "superficial."
If one is working in an intelligence milieu where all kinds of illegal things are going, but they are classified, and if the GOP-controlled Congress renders reporting to it per the Whistleblower Act futile, what is a person supposed to do? The American people are entitled to debate whether we want our nation to maintain black prisons where people are tortured and die from hypothermia after being chained to a freezing floor. We are entitled to debate whether we wish our Executive to be above any law we have passed for the next many decades that we will be dealing with the terrorist threat. If these things are classified -- not just the operational details, but even their mere existence -- how can the American people have the debate we absolutely must have?
Rosa Parks violated the law, too. I think McCarthy is closer to Parks than she is to Bush, and her lawbeaking far more justified, if not necessary.
That would be the worst possible thing any newspaper could do.
ReplyDeleteWell the left column lead in today's NYT certainly supports that argument. Without anonymous sourcing, it would have been impossible to write that story.
Junior and midlevel officers are discussing whether the war plans for Iraq reflected unvarnished military advice, whether the retired generals should have spoken out, whether active-duty generals will feel free to state their views in private sessions with the civilian leaders and, most divisive of all, whether Mr. Rumsfeld should resign.
But you have to believe that this attempt by the administration to cut off leaks from non-administration sources will fail. How confident are you that CIA and other sources will continue to speak out with their jobs, and perhaps freedom, on the line?
Hey, there are laws and then there are laws. Each person is free to exercise one’s own conscience and determine whether or not a particular law is “just”. If the law is not “just” one may freely violate it and should not be punished for that. As I said, what a crock.
ReplyDeleteWell, first, if you've read along for the last couple of days, you'll know that there are leaks that are legally okay, explicitly protected by statute.
But, second, it's very bizarre to be pounding the table and demanding consistency when there's a guy in the White House, still holding his security clearance who without a question leaked classified information.
So, sure, we'll give you McCarthy at trial, jobless, in exchange for Rove and every other administration official (can you say "Condi"?) who has leaked classified information.
Oh, and you can set aside that steaming president can declassify at will pile. If that was really what happened, when Scottie went to Karl and Scooter, they would have just said, "No we didn't leak that information. The president declassified it, and we passed it on."
The entire question about who leaks, what to leak, and when to leak rests on the premise that the government has the right to keep information from the public. Without putting too fine a point on it, I think the very notion that the government can and should keep information from the public under the rubric of "national security" is an invitation for duplicity and lying on the part of the government.
ReplyDeleteIt invites abuse because, by definition, bureacrats would rather work without outside scrutiny. I'd assert that it's a fact of bureaucratic life that the number one job is not to protect the public good but to protect one's job and then one's favorite program, in that order.
Given the nature of bureaucracies to try and hide what they do, the very notion of national security needs to be revisited and the laws and standard operating procedures guiding its implementation need to be either struck down or replaced with laws that err in the interests of the public's need to know.
Considering Glenn’s references to leaks by Republicans Hatch and Shelby, I wonder if anyone could tell me if there’s any truth to the speculation that Senators Dick Durbin and Rockefeller will be soon forced to take lie detector tests? I keep hearing this on right-wing blogs.
ReplyDeleteIs there any precedent for such actions against them? Does the administration have this power, and what’s to keep them from abusing it for partisan purposes? Just wondering.
I keep hearing that Durbin will be losing his security clearance and his committee appointments. Are these just right-wing rumors and fantasies? Or could something like that actually happen?
When will someone point out disclosing our spying will alert other countries that we're spying on them?
ReplyDeleteFor God's sake, any country, friend or foe, has to realise we have spies in their midsts. That's what governements do, regularly.
OMG! The US is spying on us? We had no idea! Come on.
Big news. Cross-posted at The Disenchanted Idealist
ReplyDeleteWhy on Earth would the Associated Press release this information?
In Washington, U.S. intelligence officials said bin Laden is separated from his top deputy and, in a sign he has to be careful about whom he trusts, surrounded by fellow Arabs.
His No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, is hiding in a more settled area along the border, also surrounded by al-Qaida operatives from Egypt, the officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.
While knowing about executive wrongdoing is important, and the people that leak about our torture policies are heroes, bin Laden's exact location is of no use whatsoever to ordinary Americans.
Unless this is some kind of elaborate fake-out, someone should probably go to jail. My only concern is that this will get conflated with the legitimate and important leaks about CIA prisons and NSA wiretapping. That may actually have been the goal of whoever released the information.
I think we can all agree that this is an example of a BAD leak.
Hypatia.....what can I say. Your response is the intellectual equivalent of placing your fingers in your ears and sing-songing "Democrats are right, Republicans are wrong" in a loud, eerie voice. I am surprised your mind doesn't break when you claim that the inconsistency is only "superficial".
ReplyDeleteNo doubt loyal readers will dumbly nod and agree sheepley that you have refuted my charge. Feh!
So what's new? The standard for years now has been that simply voting for or contibuting money to a Democratic candidate is sufficient to discredit anyone as being entirely partisan and everything they might say or do as part of an evil political conspiracy. Of course, it only works one way. Even being a paid Republican operative in no way diminishes the credability of anyone supporting the Dear Leader or the Glorious Party. Anything that hurts Bush or the Republican party is partisanship, which makes it illigitimate. Nothing that hurts Democrats and helps Republicans is ever considered partisan somehow.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that the Republican mythology, a testament to the power of marketing over common sense and objective reality, has become the conventional wisdom because it went unchallenged for far too long. It is being challenged now, but only by 'unhinged Bush haters out in the fever swamps'. It's going to take a while before 'respectable' people can be heard uttering an un-Republican opinion.
"Hypatia" said...
ReplyDeleteIf one is working in an intelligence milieu where all kinds of illegal things are going, but they are classified, and if the GOP-controlled Congress renders reporting to it per the Whistleblower Act futile, what is a person supposed to do?
Maybe the Whistleblower Act needs to be expanded to include reporting to the third branch, as well - a body of judges, similar to the FISC?
notherbob2, you did not address my point. Are the American people entiteld to debate whether we will disappear people into black prisons where they freeze to death and are waterboarded? Are we entiteld to debate whether the Executive is bound by the laws we have passed, if he invokes "national security?"
ReplyDeleteWell, are we entitled to have those debates?
This is just like the Plame mess. Notice the right doesn't say , See this proves we didn't torture anyone.
ReplyDeleteNotice during this whole time with Scooter Leaky's defense the right has NOT said See the forgeries were real. All the leaked info is still substantialy true. I think the right has seen the movie a few good men too many times. Jack Ackroyd is dead on too.
Notherbob writes
ReplyDelete(oversimplified drivel typical of someone with a purely partisan agenda)
notherbob needs to go back and retake his junior writing exam. Some practice at basic reading comprehension is in order.
Notherbob starts out trying to pretend Glenn's take on Bush's NSA position amounts to "bedrock--the law is the law--and not even the POTUS is above the law." But that isn't at all what his positions boil down to, even on a cursory reading. What you've written is what people like you claimed when you wanted Clinton impeached for getting his wood waxed by someone aother than his wife. Then n-bob pretends Glenn's post today amounts to a contradiction of that oversimplified characterization--another basic failure to comprehend what netherbob reads.
Glenn's post was about the hypocrisy of an administration that wants to put people in jail for leaks in cases that involve an area that has always been problematic--the times when our constitutionally protected right to freedom of the press conflict with laws against leaks--but wants to allow leaks that are intended to cover Bush's ass politically--even if they involve greater security risks than the ones he wants to prosecute.
Problems arise from the difference between leaks that compromise national security--which cases the laws are intended to address, vs cases where a leak is an attempt to expose illegal activity going on under the cover of classification.
There is blatant hypocrisy involved when Bush wants to jail leakers who are leaking in cases where whistleblowing is the primary goal (which brings up the constitutional conflict between freedom of press and laws against leaks), but is willing to overlook leaks that are just to cover someone's ass politically. These leaks don't bring any conflicts of constitutional rights into play. They're the kind that are supposed to be prosecuted, especially when they compromise security as in the case where our ability to listen in on Al-quaida was compromised by a Republican and you all were fine with that.
I'm sure your weakass shit works wonders at home and has your tribe in full-on drumbanging mode as they howl for heads in around the right-wing bonfire, but here you're just gonna get shot down every time.
That's why Bush calls himself 'the decider' and Leaker-in-Chief
ReplyDeleteGlenn, I'm not 'opposed' to inspecting all cargo. I'm also not opposed to giving every American $10 million in cash every Friday. It's not realistic - it would take far too much money and time. I'll put my support for the War on Terror up against anyone's, save the tooth fairy.
ReplyDeletenotherbob2 said...
ReplyDeleteHypatia.....what can I say. Your response is the intellectual equivalent of placing your fingers in your ears and sing-songing "Democrats are right, Republicans are wrong" in a loud, eerie voice. I am surprised your mind doesn't break when you claim that the inconsistency is only "superficial".
No doubt loyal readers will dumbly nod and agree sheepley that you have refuted my charge. Feh!
Hypatia, do you notice a strange brand of hypocritical cognitive dissonance among many extreme right yammerers? I've noticed this particularly from Ann Coulter but many of them do it--when they don't have an answer, they make a juvenile accusation about you (the person they're arguing with) that happens to actually be the perfect description od what they in fact, are doing.
If you switched Dem and Rep in nutbob's quote, it describes his response to your reply perfectly.
Watch for it. They do it all the time.
mark: I'm not 'opposed' to inspecting all cargo. I'm also not opposed to giving every American $10 million in cash every Friday. It's not realistic...
ReplyDeleteTh equestion is not about all cargo; it's about more inspections at more points of entry and in a more consistent way. That is realistic. It's also more rational as part of homeland security, not riling up opposition overseas so people actuallu want to enter the US and kill us.
The stronger argument is to perform a root cause analysis rather than fire-fighting all the symptoms. What's lacking in Bush's so-called war on terrorism is that it has never adequately addressed these root causes.
Instead, it has replaced bluster and bullying with any form of rational and sustained analysis of how best to protect the US from external attack. It has done so by wasting money on a "war" with the wrong guy--Hussein--thereby taking money away from real homeland defense. It has also wasted the good will and sympathy that many in the world had towards the US after 911 by unilaterally and mistakenly creating more chaos and resentment.
t's not realistic - it would take far too much money and time.
ReplyDeleteSingapore inspects every container. There are proposals on the table for doing this that are entirely affordable, using electronic scanners. The cost per container is trivial and could easily be charged back to the shipping companies.
Hey, there are laws and then there are laws.
ReplyDeleteI never disputed the notion that Mary McCarthy broke the law. It may be that under the governing Executive Order which prohibits the classifying of information for certain purposes (such as to conceal wrongdoing), the information she disclolsed was not legally classifiable. But I don't know if she broke the law or not because I don~t have the facts one would need to know.
My point is not that what she did is legal. My point is that the administration only selectively enforces anti-leak laws -- they only go after the leaks that harm the President politically, while ignoring - or causing - the leaks that are either politically neutral or which politically help the administration.
Here's a nice, simple example for you, NortherBob - suppose 100 people participate in a securities fraud scam - 40 of them are Democrats, 40 are Republicans and 20 are independents. The Justice Department only indicts the 40 Democrats, makes the 20 Independents grand jury targets, and does nothing against the 40 Republicans.
The selective enforcement of the law is highly problematic, itself highly illegal, and certainly a far more serious problem than the fraud itself. It is not an answer to say: "Yeah, but the 40 Democrats broke the law, so who cares?"
Selective enforcement of the law -- particularly when, as here, it is aimed at concealing government wrongdoing while allowing the government to use the leaking weapon with impunity -- is a far worse crime and far more destructive than any single leak we are discussing. Do you understand the distinction now?
Glenn, I'm not 'opposed' to inspecting all cargo. I'm also not opposed to giving every American $10 million in cash every Friday. It's not realistic - it would take far too much money and time.
ReplyDeleteWe are spending hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars - with no end in sight -- on the Iraq occupation because of some vague and distant connection it supposedly has to making us safer, yet we don't have a small fraction of that to spend on inspecting the cargo that enters our country?
For an administration that seems to have no limits at all when it comes to spending money on invasions of other countries, "cost" certainly is an odd rationale for opposing the inspection of cargo.
We're in a war, haven't you heard?
Paul Rosenberg writes: There are some situations in which violating the law becomes a necessity, a moral obligation.
ReplyDeleteI think people have a hard time believing how sheerly extreme Bush's legal theories are, and that he really is violating many laws and insists that he is allowed to. The architect of these theories, John Yoo, was debating them at Notre Dame a few months ago. Yoo said he could not rule out that the President would be entitled to crush a child's testicles, depending on his reason for doing so.
So I would ask notherbob2, if a CIA worker knew that intelligence officers were rounding up the toddlers of terrorist suspects and torturing the kids in front of the parent, and if the program were highly classified, would it be wrong to leak the program's existence? Or would a moral person be obligated to speak up?
I'm glad you brought up the issue of inspections of ports and how much it would cost to protect vs. the cost of prosecuting a protracted war. Even if the costs were in the hundreds of billions or even over a trillion, now that we're spending those kinds of bucks on war abroad it seems ridiculous to hold back on something that would bring far more actual security to American lives.
ReplyDeleteIt makes you wonder what their real aims are. If security really were the primary concern, there's no question about which is more effective. War actually creates more insecurity and risk for us. Securing ports, once the costs are absorbed has no obvious downside, unless you're breaking the law importing things--which now that I mention it might be making huge money for some of Bush's biggest backers. Maybe they really would lose money if they secured the ports. It would mean paying all the tariffs etc and not being able to smuggle.
I don't know what the rreson is but its clear security for Americans isn't their real goal. So that brings into question their stated rationale for going to war. If security isn't their main objective, what is?
It seems Dems could get real traction on thses issues. The Reps are so weak on this it's amazing the dems haven't moved on it more forcefully.
While many of them are content to insinuate darkly about the nefarious Plot against America which has likely been revealed by exposure of this web
ReplyDeleteUh... the link you use on the word "darkly" goes to a post on my blog. Just curious where I "darkly" insinuate anything about a "plot"?
And Glenn, your earlier post today was beautiful. The issue of torture and disappeareds is one that should shake this country to its foundation. I hope many people read it.
ReplyDeleteThe way all these political threads weave together is typical Karl Rove.
ReplyDeleteBarbara O’brien writes:
It’s fairly obvious why McCarthy’s getting the royal Swift Boat treatment. Between Bush’s tanking approval numbers and tomorrow’s CBS Sixty Minutes report on the Bushies’ cooked Iraq intelligence, the Bushies needed a diversion, a red herring, to keep the Bitter Enders in line. The McCarthy story is red meat, and the Right Blogosphere is eating it up like a pack of starving hyenas.
While I think that’s true, does anyone believe that this story will help Bush with anyone but the “Bitter Enders”?
I think this shows just how desperate they really are: they are willing to risk bringing up the most damaging of disclosures about their administration (kidnapping, torture, secret prisons) to rally their dwindling supporters.
I think most Americans are very uncomfortable with our secret prisons and “rendition” policy – and it was a huge embarrassment during Condi’s trip to Europe. I know that Rove has been campaigning exclusively to the base, but I think he may have botched this one – it could backfire substantially.
Do they really want to talk about ‘rendition” again? Do they really want the press reviewing Dana Priest’s article? I say bring it on. Let’s talk about the secret prisons.
Outside of the bitter cult (who believes that a contribution to a Democrat is far worse than kidnapping, torture and secret prisons) I don’t think this will help Bush’s poll numbers at all.
Have they botched things so badly that they are now having trouble even keeping the cult? It is certainly beginning to look that way. They really are getting desperate.
Chris Shays held a hearing on national security whistleblowers in February, and from the small bit I heard, things do not go well for people who try to work through the "proper" channels. That makes this kind of leaking about the only way to try and bring about changes to what these people clearly view as our government's immoral, if not criminal, secret actions.
ReplyDeleteRandY, darkly
ReplyDeleteThis woman was actively working against the country's war on terror. But worse, she's a veteran intelligence analyst. How long has she been working against the country?!
Ooooh I wonder that too.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteZack: I don't know what the rreson is but its clear security for Americans isn't their real goal. So that brings into question their stated rationale for going to war. If security isn't their main objective, what is?
ReplyDeleteI once wrote about this question, following up on some comments by ret. colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked at the Pentagon before retiring in opposition to the "war" on Iraq.
Her premise is that the plan is to create instability and chaos in the Mideast. This situation creates the perceived need for a continued presence of US forces in the region, supposedly to protect US interests.
The administration works under the presupposition that Arabs and Muslims respect only one thing: force. In a situation requiring force, the US can therefore impress on the Muslim world that if you go against us, we will annihilate you.
There are even suggestions that Rumsfeld's game plan in Iraq includes the policy of disapparacidos and militias, as was practiced by the CIA in El Salvador. There's even an official Pentagon plan that explains the processes involved in this plan.
The underlying premise, however, of the preceding is that the US must engage the world as an empire and not as the first among equals. Of course, this is the neocon plan for world dominion but its veneer is portrayed in moralistic and religious terms borrowed from Xtian dispensationalism and Wilsonian manifest destiny.
As Wesley Clarke has argued, few in the US are comfortable with the idea of a US empire. Therefore, the continual barrage of disinformation and deceptions about what the US is doing in the world.
The Reps and Bushites are hell-bent on exploiting the fact that most Americans would rather believe any one of these misperceptions, rather than face the fact that the US is bent on world dominion.
What is most disturbing, for me at least, is that very few Dems challenge this assumption about the US pretension to empire. Instead, they talk about management styles and "philosophies." That is disingenuous at best. It only goes to prove, I think, that the Dem insiders are as complicit in the march to world dominion as are the Reps.
dark insinuator randy says:
ReplyDeleteUh... the link you use on the word "darkly" goes to a post on my blog. Just curious where I "darkly" insinuate anything about a "plot"?
Well, randy, after following the link to your "blog" and reading the "post" I suggest you try to explain how Glenn misrepresented the obvious rather than asking him to explain the obvious to you...
An LA Times editorial call for Cheney's resignation to "save the Bush presidency".
ReplyDeleteThese are The End Times for Bush and the machine that installed him. They will probably recede further into "the bunker" and delusion and ride it out until 2009.
Coffey seems to think it is too expensive to inspect all cargo containers... I wonder where he stands on the "missle" defense project, the war on terror and building a Berlin Wall from the Pacific coast to the Gulf of Mexico....all very very expensive propositions.
ReplyDeleteI'm starting to recognize most of the names about whom people are now talking.
ReplyDeleteLet's see....Feith.
Oh yes, that would be the "fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth", right?
Actually, the identifying of him as such by Franks was not really needed. Any good detective could have just looked at the policies themselves, found out who was their chief architect, and you'd be looking right at the "fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth."
Even the present Administration (of suspect intelligence itself to put it mildly) must have finally turned on him or they would not have permitted their stenographer to include that quote in his book.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteAlmost every Bush follower screeching about the Mary McCarthy story thinks it is extremely significant that (a) she donated money to John Kerry's campaign; (b) Dana Priest's husband knows Joe Wilson, as does McCarthy herself; and (c) McCarthy has professional ties to Sandy Berger.
Don't you? The first step in determining motive for a crime is identifying who it would benefit.
If McCarthy was genuinely concerned about al Qaeda detention centers somehow violated some law, this multi year veteran could have run her concerns up the chain of command, the IG, the AG and then the Congressional intel committees. There is no evidence she did any of these things.
If McCarthy had a policy dispute with which she could not ethically live, she could have resigned. She did not.
Instead, MCarthy knowingly and criminally leaked classified information to the press, which used the story immediately to attack the Bush Administration.
That raises the question of whether McCarthy violated the law for purely partisan political reasons. The facts that she was appointed by Berger, was a close advisor to Clinton and has a history of very large campaign contributions to the Dems when compared to her salary are all perfectly legitimate evidence that she was acting for partisan political reasons.
The fact that you and the other Dems here support this criminal activity shows that there just might be something to all this righty blog bloviating about there being a "Culture of Treason" in the Dem Party.
But if one's political and professional connections to a leaker cast aspersions on the person's integrity and patriotism, there are plenty of aspersions to be cast. Larry Franklin, for instance, is a former Department of Defense official who -- unlike McCarthy -- has actually been convicted of the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, to which he had access as a result of his Pentagon job, and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Two major differences here:
1) Franklin's criminal activity was plainly intended to aid Israel, not for partisan political reasons. I'll let others determine whether criminal activity harming national security is worse when committed for Israel or to regain power for the Dems.
2) The GOP did not fall all over itself to defend Franklin as the Dems like you and Kerry have with McCarthy. Rather, the Bush Justice Department slammed Franklin with prison time. May the AIPAC reporters follow him to prison. It is hard to accuse the Bush Administration of being a Pro Israel Cabal or having a Culture of Treason in view of their hardline and even handed attack on criminal leaks no matter who committed them.
Recently, close Bush ally, Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, was found by investigators to have leaked highly sensitive, classified information to Fox News' Carl Cameron and CNN's Dana Bash while Shelby served on the Senate Intelligence Committee -- an unauthorized and serious leak which, for some odd reason, the Bush Justice Department refused to prosecute. No Bush followers, at least that I know of, objected to the decision to allow Sen. Shelby to leak with impunity.
Well at least you are fair in noting that the WH was furious with both Shelby and Hatch for their leaking of classified information briefed to them by the intelligence committee. This is in stark contrast to Dem and your support for similar activity by others in the Intelligence departments and the press.
You could have been more fair by listing some of the leaks by Dems on these committees. However, this is your partisan rant, so balance would be too much to expect.
As for why these congressional leaks are not and never have been prosecuted, the Constitution appears to immunize Representatives and Senators from prosecution for crimes committed while they are in session. Thus, leaks have been a constant problem in Congress.
Now do you understand why the WH wanted to keep the NSA Program briefings limited to the heads of the Intelligence Committees?
And, as I detailed yesterday, there is a slew of leaks of classified information from the Bush White House -- not decisions by the President to declassify information and then release it to the public, but anonymous pro-Bush disclosures by executive branch officials of information which is still classified, and which is released selectively and for plainly political ends.
You have shown no evidence of any a single Administration member who leaked classified information not properly declassified by the President or one of his designees under the executive order addressing classification and declassification.
As I posted in response, every single President who has gone to war or threatened to go to war has declassified information to make his case. This is perfectly normal and proper. The President is the "decider" concerning declassification and if you don't like his decisions, vote him out.
UPDATE: Mark Coffey of Decision 08 says that he is opposed to Howard Dean's plan to inspect all of the cargo that enters the United States. Why are so many Bush supporters against programs to prevent Al Qaeda from shipping bombs and other dangerous materials into our country? In a Time of War, they want to leave our ports unprotected and help Al Qaeda smuggle bombs -- perhaps even dirty bombs -- into the U.S. They have a lot to answer for with their actions that impede the War on Terror.
Dean is being called on yet another whopper. It is physically impossible to inspect the billions of tons of cargo which enter and leave this country each year. Either Dean knows this and his proposition is a lie or he is a moron who doesn't know better. The choice is a tossup in Dean's case...
Larry Wilkerson on the neo-Jacbins/neoCons. I don't necessarily agree with all of Wilkerson's conclusions. I do agree with the baseline facts he marshals, and the sentiments he appeals to:
ReplyDeleteMr. Perle says that we may think we can go back, but we cannot. "We are not the same people we were before," he says emphatically, as if he were our king. If he's correct, then our country is as spent as was Rome, Spain, the Netherlands, Britain and a host of other great powers before each toppled from the mountain.
Mr. Perle is not correct.
First, it was Mr. Perle and people such as he who put us where we are today, not the terrorists of 9/11. A somnolent Congress assisted - a Congress that, as Democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia said as the Senate failed to debate in the run-up to the Iraq war, was "ominously, ominously, dreadfully silent."
Second, people such as Mr. Perle do not represent the bulk of Americans, who are anything but radical. Instead, they represent the Robespierres and Napoleons of this world, the neo-Jacobins of today. Robespierre was a leader of the reign of terror.
We can turn back; moreover, we must if the world is to continue on a trajectory of more freedom and more prosperity for increasing numbers of people. Without American leadership - the good America - the world cannot progress.
If we are in some way the indispensable nation that a few Americans have said we are, then that is why. And it is no arrogance of power to say it; rather, it is to admit abiding reverence for the way the world works.
Mr. Greenwald: “I never disputed the notion that Mary McCarthy broke the law.” [my emphasis]
ReplyDelete[In response to the request of questionmark, and trust me, questionmark, this is but one of many quotes that could be linked] ” Mr. Greenwald: “Ultimately, though, the entire legal debate in the NSA scandal comes down to these few, very clear and straightforward facts: Congress passed a law ...making it a criminal offense to eavesdrop on Americans without judicial oversight... In reality, the Administration was secretly breaking the law... Once caught, the Administration claimed it has the right to break the law ...
That's where we are in this country -- with an Administration expressly claiming it has the power to engage in actions which the American people, through their Congress, expressly made it a criminal offense to engage in.”
“Ultimately, though, the entire legal debate in the Mary McCarthy scandal comes down to these few, very clear and straightforward facts: Congress passed a law ... making it a criminal offense to leak classified information... In reality, the Ms. McCarthy was secretly breaking the law, and then ... Once caught, Mr. Greenwald claims she has the right to break the law ...
That's where we are in this country -- with leaker appologists claiming she has the power to engage in actions which the American people, through their Congress, expressly made it a criminal offense to engage in.”
Now do you see the hypocrisy, questionmark?
As to the red herring: “It is not an answer to say: "Yeah, but the 40 Democrats broke the law, so who cares?" The answer, as any idiot knows, is that the Republicans should be prosecuted as well. If they are not, then vote the rascals out. This “sauce for the goose” argument flies in the face of the above-noted comparison of your ultimate summary on Bush versus your current view on McCarthy. Which was my original point.
Finally, we reach Hypatia’s distraction about handicapped children being tortured...my question right back is: What does that have to do with Mr. Greenwald’s hypocrisy? Which, much as you would like to frame away the discussion to other issues set up for your slam dunks, is the point to which you are supposedly responding.
Have I covered everything?
notherbob: Congress passed a law ... making it a criminal offense to leak classified information... In reality, the Ms. McCarthy was secretly breaking the law, and then ... Once caught, Mr. Greenwald claims she has the right to break the law ...
ReplyDeleteAfter several instances of Greenwald's supposed hypocrisy, you end with the diversionary practise of throwing sand in our eyes. The point made by Glenn, at least in my interpretation, is that these national security laws cut two ways: in one, the administration feels that it can prosecute leakers because they "break" the law. In the second, the administration leaks information for its own purposes, claiming executive privilege to do so.
The question posed by Glenn, I think, is whether leaking for ethical reasons (McCarthy) is more wrong than leaking information for political expedience (Cheney, Libby, Bush, Rice, et al.).
Unless you counter the main accusattion made by Glenn that the Bush admin has broken the law in its own interests, your own hypocrisy shows in the fact that you are willing to pillory leaks done in the name of morality but not those done for political expedience. That is, you give the semblance of caring about the law but secretly and deceptively condone breaking it if it serves your own interests.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the intimate details of the whistle-blower laws. But from a common-sense view, these laws seem to have been put in place fit exactly situations like McCarthy's: ie, to break one law because another, greater crime has occurred. The greater crime here, in McCarthy's case, is the illegal, unconstituional, and immoral torture of people by the US intelligence and defense services.
Shorter Bart:
ReplyDeleteRepubs = good
Dems = bad
notherbob2: You, sir, are an excellent dancer!
notherbob2 continues to evade with: Finally, we reach Hypatia’s distraction about handicapped children being tortured...my question right back is: What does that have to do with Mr. Greenwald’s hypocrisy?
ReplyDeleteMr. Greenwald is more than able to take care of himself. I'm asking you whether, given that John Yoo has affirmed that George Bush is allowed to crush the testicles of children in the national security context, if a CIA worker who knew Bush was torturing the children of terrorist suspects in a classified program, if that CIA agent revealed that torture to a reporter, would you object?
Yes or no?
The Cynic Librarian:
ReplyDeleteUnless you counter the main accusattion made by Glenn that the Bush admin has broken the law in its own interests, your own hypocrisy shows in the fact that you are willing to pillory leaks done in the name of morality but not those done for political expedience.
Glenn has yet to show us evidence of any Administration member leaking information which was not properly declassified by the President or his designees like the VP. Glenn is making the accusation to create some sort of moral equivalency which does not exist.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the intimate details of the whistle-blower laws. But from a common-sense view, these laws seem to have been put in place fit exactly situations like McCarthy's: ie, to break one law because another, greater crime has occurred. The greater crime here, in McCarthy's case, is the illegal, unconstituional, and immoral torture of people by the US intelligence and defense services.
McCarthy did not disclose any evidence of illegal or unconstitutional torture of people by the US intelligence and defense services. Rather, she disclosed to the enemy the countries in which high enemy leaders are being detained. She has no whistleblower defense of which I am aware.
Think Progress points up the hypocrisy contained in the CIA's firing of McCarthy for leaking the existence of torture camps run by the US:
ReplyDelete169: Number of days that elapsed between Dana Priest’s article on secret prisons and the firing of the supposed leaker. 1,014 and counting: Number of days that have elapsed since Valerie Plame’s identity was published without anyone having been fired.
hypatia:
ReplyDeleteif a CIA worker who knew Bush was torturing the children of terrorist suspects in a classified program, if that CIA agent revealed that torture to a reporter, would you object?
Yes or no?
If it was true torture in violation of the definition of torture to which we agreed under the international conventions or the domestic anti-torture statutes, then I have no problem with making that public.
Torture under these definitions is the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain. Your scenario would fit that definition.
bart: Glenn has yet to show us evidence of any Administration member leaking information which was not properly declassified by the President or his designees like the VP.
ReplyDeleteDid you even read the post to which these comments are addenda? Please do so and weep over your clearly inaccurate statement.
bart: McCarthy did not disclose any evidence of illegal or unconstitutional torture of people by the US intelligence and defense services.
Well, I guess that all depends on what you mean the definition of torture is, huh? The focus of the Dana Priest articles on the secret rendition program run by the US intelligence and defense services is that they were/are used for torture. As far as I know, it is against US civil and military law to torture. One can only assume that you believe that US law allows torture.
Glenn links to someone called Ace on Ace of Spades writing about the Mary McCarthy issue: "It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see the vague outlines of a conspiracy here."
ReplyDeleteHere's a definition of a conspiracy theory: an attempt to explain the cause of an event as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance.
Ace seems to have picked the wrong group out of the line-up, however.
I'd say the entire Internet is the conspirator, and the "event" is the attempted hi-jacking of our Constitutional Republic.
I have an open mind as to the facts about Mary McCarthy because at this point I take nothing at face value.
But one fact that cannot be disputed is that the alerting of the American public to the fact that we are being made unwilling accomplices to torture and murder done "in our name" is one of the best things that has ever happened in this country.
I am categorically opposed to torture and murder and I do not want anyone, another person or a government, to do those things to "defend" me or in my name. I imagine we all feel the same way here.
One incredible story that is breaking is Nepal.
How would a Patriot Act? The Nepalese people are giving the world a very good lesson in that topic.
Did you all read the story in today's NY Times? Can you imagine that 100,000 brave, heroic people marched on the Palace in protest of the Monarchy and in defiance of a "shoot-to-kill" order to the Royal Army?
They had two demands:
l) "the restoration of the elected Parliament" and
2) "A referendum to rewrite the Constitution and allow Nepalese citizens to decide on the future of the monarchy once and for all."
In rejecting the king's offer, the seven-party alliance flouted the advice of two of it's most important backers, India and the United States.
(Editor's note: Smart cookies.)
"Don't get weak in the knees!" they yelled at the senior politicians huddled inside. Don't ditch the people!"
"We don't give a damn about anything else," another group of protestors shouted nearby. "We don't want the monarchy."
Wow. Imagine citizens of a country putting aside all their other differences and uniting to get rid of an oppressive Monarchy.
On Friday, the Bush administration pressed the parties to "respond quickly by choosing a prime minister and a cabinet."
The protestors who filled the streets on Saturday , however, predicted that their leaders would fail if they caved in to international pressure.
(Editor's note: VERY smart cookies.)
Congratulations to Patriots and freedom lovers everywhere!
Okay, earlier I asked for an explanation for the author's claims that I was darkly insinuating a "plot" here.... Only one of you chose to even attempt to answer without an attack. But even that attempt is flawed.
ReplyDeleteMy comments on McCarthy actively working against the war on terror aren't opinion or conspiracy theory, they are fact. We all saw the fallout after her, still unproven to my knowledge, disclosing classified information about secret prisons. Whether she thinks that disclosure was for some greater good or not, it did nothing but harm to the war on terror. What did it accomplish? Gave more ground to the rumor crowd who thinks we're the bad guys and commiting evil all over the world, worsened relationships with already shakey allies, let violent muslims have another "excuse" for their violence, when they really don't need one (remember the violence supposedly sparked by cartoons, but was clearly just an excuse used to legitimize their violence). This "disclosure" of hers did nothing but hurt the global war on terror. You may not like the war, the way it's being fought, or whatever.. but this is an obvious fact.
Let’s see, the first step in determining motive for a crime is identifying who would benefit.
ReplyDeleteWho benefited from McCarthy’s leak? The American public. That was easy.
If you accept that as her motive, all the rest of our trolls arguments fall apart. That’s why they must impugn her motives, even though they can’t possibly know what those were.
I think it was in the public’s interest to know how this administration had abandoned the rule of law and adopted techniques of repressive regimes. Why wouldn’t that be in our interest?
The only possible reason is if you define “America’s interest” as “Bush’s interest.” If you don’t, then these leaks were in the public interest.
Also, there were other CIA operatives who leaked the same information – what if they were life-long Republicans dismayed at the illegal activities of the administration (we’ve seen that repeatedly too)?
Of course, our trolls would still insist that their motives were for “purely partisan political reasons” – because these Republicans would be immediately redefined as “liberals” which has happened repeatedly, as Glenn has pointed out in previous posts.
Of course, the focus on McCarthy’s motives has one goal – to keep attention away from the subject of the leak – kidnapping, torture and secret prisons.
Sorry, but playing amateur detectives and looking for motives isn’t going to work. We’ve seen this dishonest spin for so long that we know these swiftboating techniques just as well as the Rovians.
They are only fooling themselves. If the Bush administration was not ashamed of its policy of “rendition” and its secret prisons, why not come out and tell our allies and their intelligence agencies what we were doing?
Why not tell Congress and the public? Make the case that this is necessary in the war on terror – why didn’t they do that? They knew it was wrong, they knew the public wouldn’t support it, but they did it anyway. That’s the problem. The secrecy, the dishonesty, the illegality - and they know very well that’s what this is about.
Yes, they’ll pretend that this is all about partisan politics, but that only shows just how far removed from basic American values the Bush-cult has become. It would be sad if it wasn’t so disgusting.
This is an information war. These are the tactics of information warfare. Dissemination of beneficial information and the control and mitigation of harmful information is one goal in an information war. The classification of information and the the attempt to intimidate and marginalize those who distribute harmful information are both tactics of an information war.
ReplyDeleteTo control the population of a country which is based on Democracy, you must control information. Our actions and beliefs are based upon the information we have and reality is affected by our actions. To control information is, to a certain extent, to control reality.
Controlling the context of information is another tactic of information warfare. The Left/Right paradigm is a very powerful and effective way to control the context information. Like religion, this paradigm creates a reality which allows an otherwise rational individual to either ignore or reinterpret what they empirically know to be true. Symbols and metaphor of a "higher" reality become more important than factual information and leave the individual in a highly suggestive state.
We are in a very unique time. The internet has removed the the ability to control the flow of information from a very limited number of sources. The classification of information is an attempt to make the knowledge of certain facts and ideas taboo. Facts become sins and the possession and pursuit of certain ideas becomes sinful.
When you cannot control information you must control the context of that information. Manipulating symbols is much easier than controlling information. We are witnessing a mythology being written before our eyes. The symbols are familiar but are not are own. Do we read from a script prepared by those who wish to dictate our actions or do we deviate from the carefully constructed dialog for our own ends?
The tree of knowledge still has roots in our soil. The only question left is whether we have the strength to be sinners. We live in very interesting times.
Okay, earlier I asked for an explanation for the author's claims that I was darkly insinuating a "plot" here.
ReplyDeleteYou can't be serious. Did you read your own post? I just did - again.
After going through all of the Democratic connections to Mary McCarthy, the Joe Wilson stuff, you tossed in Sandy Berger and then said this:
"This looks like it might be even dirtier than we first thought."
If you want to go around spinning conspiracy theories where you cast aspersions on people's integrity based on nothing and then say things like "(t)his looks like it might be even dirtier than we first thought," go right ahead.
But don't run around after that protesting that someone said you "darkly insinuated" a conspiracy. You can't say things like "This looks like it might be even dirtier than we first thought" and then rationally object to that characterization. Your whole post is devoted to nothing BUT dark insinutations.
Whether she thinks that disclosure was for some greater good or not, it did nothing but harm to the war on terror. What did it accomplish?
You may prefer to remain ignorant that Leader Bush has ordered the creation of secret, illegal torture gulags in the name of the United States where people get taken indefinitely and beyond the reach of the law, but most patriotic Americans prefer to know if their government is engaged in such despicable behavior. That's why the toture ban passed, over the administration~s vigorous objections, by a vote of 90-9.
Some of us would like to behave differently than the worst abuses of the KGB, or Saddam's regime. And if we are going to engage in that behavior, we ought to at least know about it.
Great posts hypatia and Paul Rosenberg. Great! And the other posts by cynic, disenchanted dave and armagednoutahere are also terrific.
ReplyDeleteThe comments you are all posting are extremely informative for those of us who don't have as much familiarty with legal and political issues.
You know what reading these comments is like?
It's like being on a jury while a trial is going on and you get to listen to the world's greatest prosecution team make its case.
Glenn is the Lead Prosecutor but he sure does have formidable back-up support here.
For a peek into the George Bush Wonderland of information/disinformation, see Juan Cole's listing of what's okay/not-okay to leak, according to Ubu-Bush.
ReplyDeleteI'm working my way through the comments.
ReplyDeleteC u n d gulag writes:
"Who the %@&& is Alberto Gaonzales and how does he get to interpret the Contitution any which way he and King George please?"
You know, that one comment really touched a nerve in me. Although I would throw in John Yoo, that is exactly what has been really, really bothering me about all this.
Who the f*@k is Alberto Gonazles and how does he have anything to do with American Values and whatever gave Bush the idea that We the People would accept a fascist little smirking creep like Gonzales interpreting the Constitution for us?
Talk about outrage!
c u n d gulag:
ReplyDeleteUh oh. Yes, you too, Mr. Powell.
I wish I hadn't read that. You do not want to get me started again on Colin Powell. Trust me.
It took me a week to recover from an article I read about the true nature of that monster and I still haven't really recovered.
Some people are merely insane. Some people are merely always wrong. Some people are merely driven by a ruthless greed and a lust for power.
But some people have such astronomically corrupted souls that they barely resemble other members of the human race.
I told you. Don't get me started:)
Anonymous said (hey, what are you afraid of? I post with my real name - you can look it up):Coffey seems to think it is too expensive to inspect all cargo containers... I wonder where he stands on the "missle" defense project, the war on terror and building a Berlin Wall from the Pacific coast to the Gulf of Mexico....all very very expensive propositions.
ReplyDeleteA classic example of a red herring arguement. I'm not talking about any of those things, I'm talking about inspecting port cargo. And, contra the Cynic Librarian, Dean said "all cargo". That's not a hard thing to understand, it's 100%, not more cargo, all cargo.
Let me ask you guys a question that's far more on-topic. The UAE proposed, on their own dime, to upgrade cargo inspection equipment at every port they ran - did you oppose the UAE deal? Did you know about their upgrade offer? If the answer is yes to the first and no to the second, don't you think you should have been better informed before getting all xenophobic?...
Bart,
ReplyDeleteThe first step in determining motive for a crime is identifying who it would benefit.
Bart, you are falling behind. We're way beyond that first step already. We have already identified "who it would benefit."
Pssst... Ans: The Citizens of the United States of America.
You remember them, don't you? The same group the Administration is waging all these "wars" to "protect" and "defend"?
What does it mean that the president of Uzbekistan was in New Orleans night before last? Anyone?
ReplyDeleteThe 100% inspection of all cargo sounds great. In fact, the federal government should hire, not contract, enough inspectors (only US citizens) to conduct physical inspections of every single thing shipped into this country. The government should charge the shipping firms a fee that captures 100% of the cost. Wonder what that would do to outsourcing?
ReplyDeletebart,
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you and the other Dems here support this criminal activity
First, few here are conceding that it was "criminal activity" yet. It may well have been breaking a law. But an upcoming national debate on the proper role of whistleblowers is about to happen, I think, and then we can decide if it was indeed "criminal activity" or not.
There's a whole blog (sorry, I can't remember the name of it now) devoted to a laborious examination of what has happened to the lives and careers of legitimate "whistleblowers" who have come forth during this Administration, people who under any prior administration would have been granted exemption from prosecution under the "whistleblower" statutes.
I think two of them were individuals who exposed voting frauds and one of them specifically, issues to do with the Diebold machines.
They did not meet a very happy fate in this climate.
As for your notion that the "Dems here" are part of some conspiracy, how about the Republicans?
Must be a very big conspiracy, and it appears to certainly be a bi-partisan one.
Personally I think that the most objective commenters on this site, whatever political party they support, are as disgusted with the Democrats in office and Democratic candidates(except Sen. Feingold) as they are with this present Administration.
I know I am.
Easy to keep popping Prozac in your mouth and nodding your head as you rake in millions of dollars while your husband is out gladhanding the UAE emigrates and stuffing every dollar he can maneuver into his own
pocket.
Not so easy to cry out in outrage against injustice, an immoral invasion, police state surveillance, torture, murder and crimes against humanity though, is it, when in fact you secretly support all of those same policies.
There no doubt are many partisan Democrats out there who want to see this Adminstration fail for strictly partisan reasons.
But who cares about them? They are not part of this whole debate. As far as I am concerned, they are part of the enemy and I would be just as against them if they controlled Congress and the Executive as I am against BushCo.
Probably more so, because they are even more duplicitous and lacking in spine than brazen bastards like Gonzales.
Bart, what do you mean by this:
ReplyDeleteIf it was true torture in violation of the definition of torture to which we agreed under the international conventions
I thought Bushco's position is that these are not "combatants" captured in battle and are not thus protected by our ratification of the Geneva Conventions.
Wasn't that the thrust of what Scalia said in Sweden also?
In any case, could I ask a favor? Could you cite links to those domestic anti-torture laws---wait, these things are not being done domestically, so why are those relevant?--and the international conventions you think apply to the detainees in all the gulags we have in operation around the globe?
Funny how Glenn doesn’t mention that Ace has apologized for jumping the gun on making various connections & assumptions between Mrs. McCarthy & the Joe Wilson’s trip to Nigeria. Hmm… must be another “cultist” ploy to imitate intellectual integrity so well represented here. As far as Glenn’s points about Hatch, I whole heartedly agree, anyone who released classified information, especially during a time where there are boots on the ground, should be prosecuted.
ReplyDeleteBut to compare the actions of “Loose Lips Sinks Ships” McCarthy to the release of Wilson’s information or the perpetration of the NSA wiretaps by the Bush Administration is just plain stupid. To compare the releasing of information that shows Joe Wilson lied & inadvertently releasing the identity of a non-covert CIA employee using her maiden name, to that the existence & location of a possible (no proof supplied yet) active CIA operation defies logic. How does someone working an agency even qualify to the President, who has the ability to de-classify & release information or set forth security policy? Was there something in her job description I missed? While the wire taps “may be” illegal – key word is may be - the President does have the authority to generate such programs & methods as he sees fit to insure the protection of the US & its citizens. It may be found to be an abuse of power (which I doubt), but until it has been, the rest is conjecture. Mary McCarthy not only violated statues about releasing classified information, she failed to go through the authorized & legal channels to do so, she also violated the oath she took & the terms of the contract she signed for her job & security clearances. She performed the leaks while still being in that official position. She by-passed the means to insure her protection & the Nation’s security, to compare her to the alleged abuses of the Bush Administration is unfounded & incorrect.
As far as scolding the right side of the blogsphere for following the possible connections, how is this any different than the mobbing of Halliburton & its connections to Cheney? If raising those question about Cheney are valid, why isn’t the questioning the involvement of the Wilson’s, Berger, Clarke or Dana Priest’s husband just as valid of explanation. I would also point out that Ace has apologized for jumping the gun, care to show me where the 9/11 or Halliburton conspiracists have apologized or re-questioned their assertions? Don’t bother, we all know they don’t exist. Apparently leaking & breaking the law is good if it is against Bush, but questioning those that oppose him or inadvertently jeopardizing National Security for Democratic partisan gain isn’t. Nope no hypocrisy here!
Randy: it did nothing but harm to the war on terror.
ReplyDeletePlease be advised that not everyone buys into this phony "war on terror" which is actually a war against American Citizens at its core.
My point is not that what she did is legal. My point is that the administration only selectively enforces anti-leak laws -- they only go after the leaks that harm the President politically, while ignoring - or causing - the leaks that are either politically neutral or which politically help the administration.
ReplyDeleteAware that 75% of classified info is hidden to avoid emarrassment, I believe most leaks don't deserve prosecution. Those that truly harm nat'l security deserve prpsecution. I've seen nothing to indicate McCarthy's leak meet the latter test.
I personally think the fat lady is a good way through her finale now and am wondering what event signifies the end of her song?
ReplyDeleteA couple of good videotapes might do it. This Administration has become a political snuff movie and a picture is worth a thousand words.
"Treason by association"
ReplyDeleteYou can't be serious.
1. If Republicans are stupid, that doesn't mean the rest of the country should embrace absurdity.
2. As you well know, treason requires two witnesses. An Attorney misstating the law isn't impressive.
While we're praising the MSM these days for finally getting some stones in its reporting on the Bush illusion campaign, I hope we never forget how much they promoted that illusion and did everything in their power to sustain its deception.
ReplyDeleteOne case in point. Today, I found this article at Time reporting on the rise of prostitution in Iraq--especially of young girls. Problem, is this storty is about six months too late. I linked to an article back then that had come out on this very subject.
I wonder how many young girls have been pimped out since then? According to Andrew Lackatt:
Prostitution, he [an American soldier] tells me, once illegal before the American occupation, is now rife in Iraq, and hundreds of girls throughout the country are being sold into the seedy world of brothels and sex slavery.
"For one dollar you can get a prostitute in Iraq for one hour," Patrick says.
"For $10 you can get a room, wash her up and do the business," he adds.
He grins and shrugs his shoulders when asked whether this constitutes freedom, adding he has little time for the man who claims that from time to time as the reason Americans are still being sent there.
eyes wide open: This Administration has become a political snuff movie and a picture is worth a thousand words.
ReplyDeleteYou mean like this one?
Randy said...
ReplyDeleteMy comments on McCarthy actively working against the war on terror aren't opinion or conspiracy theory, they are fact. We all saw the fallout after her, still unproven to my knowledge, disclosing classified information about secret prisons. Whether she thinks that disclosure was for some greater good or not, it did nothing but harm to the war on terror. What did it accomplish? Gave more ground to the rumor crowd who thinks we're the bad guys and commiting evil all over the world, worsened relationships with already shakey allies, let violent muslims have another "excuse" for their violence, when they really don't need one (remember the violence supposedly sparked by cartoons, but was clearly just an excuse used to legitimize their violence). This "disclosure" of hers did nothing but hurt the global war on terror. You may not like the war, the way it's being fought, or whatever.. but this is an obvious fact.
So someone is "actively working against terror" because they give "more ground to the rumor crowd who thinks we're the bad guys and commiting evil all over the world, worsened relationships with already shakey allies, let violent muslims have another "excuse" for their violence, when they really don't need one (remember the violence supposedly sparked by cartoons, but was clearly just an excuse used to legitimize their violence)."
But the one "actively working against the war on terror" is the one who REALLY did all the things you just listed--George W Bush. He's the one who set up the gulag system that McCarthy let the world know about. The world is pissed off about it, and they should be. I am pissed off about it. So are all real Americans. But the one to blame isn't the messenger who disclosed the information about the activity that has the world up in arms--its the perp who actually did the things she told the world about.
I see this all the time with these whistleblowing leaks. The world gets mad when they learn the US is doing outrageous things, and right-wing idiots blame the messenger. If the world just didn't know we were doing these Stalinist things, it wouldn't get upset and our efforts in the War On Terror wouldn't keep getting compromised.
Somebody is working against our own interest in the war on terror. On that we agree. They should be tried and prosecuted. We probably agree on that too. What punishment will George and the gang deserve when the prosecutions are completed? That's something we'll have to debate when it happens.
Zack said...
ReplyDeleteBart: Let’s see, the first step in determining motive for a crime is identifying who would benefit.
Who benefited from McCarthy’s leak? The American public. That was easy.
This isn't an easy answer, it is self serving....and laughable.
I think it was in the public’s interest to know how this administration had abandoned the rule of law and adopted techniques of repressive regimes. Why wouldn’t that be in our interest?
Exactly which law was abandoned by detaining al Qaeda in secret detention centers in Europe?
Exactly what "techniques of repressive regimes" were adopted in these detention centers?
In what way is the public interest served by disclosing the location of these detention centers to al Qaeda?
You can pretend that McCarthy is not acting out of partisan political reasons, but this is completely self serving and without proof. Even McCarthy does not claim this.
Zack,
ReplyDeleteFirst, lie detector tests aren't admissible evidence, so what someone may or may not be subjected to is irrelevant. The tool is used to intimidate and get people to confess to something. They're also used for security screening and an administrative hearings. These are two different forums.
Second, whether or not someone in a federal office may or may not be given a lie detector test is up to many factors. You haven't outlined whether the information you're getting relates to an ongoing investigation; grand jury; or whether it’s some sort of other matter.
Third, you sound like you're spreading rumors. You're being vague and not clear in your comments. Have a real problem responding to what you're talking about. It would be helpful if you linked to the material you're commenting on. If you're serous about a response, then you need to provide the information for the discussion, and outline what you're looking for. Can't work with this:
Example 1: Zack "I wonder if anyone could tell me if there’s any truth to the speculation that Senators Dick Durbin and Rockefeller will be soon forced to take lie detector tests? I keep hearing this on right-wing blogs. -- If you "keep hearing this", then feel free to provide at least one link to what you want to talk about. At this you're just throwing up dust into the wind.
Example 2: Zack: "Is there any precedent for such actions against them?" Again, to discuss what may or may not happen, we have to look at what scenario you're discussion. Links please.
Example 3: Zack "Does the administration have this power, and what’s to keep them from abusing it for partisan purposes? Just wondering." You'll have to define what you will call a "reasonable answer"; if you are told the truth, are you going to believe it; and what kind of examples are you looking for; or are you asking for a legal opinion?
Example 4: Zack "I keep hearing that Durbin will be losing his security clearance and his committee appointments.? Again, if you "keep hearing" something but provide no links, it's not helpful. If you want to discuss this, you need to do the work and lay out what you want discussed. At this point, not clear what you are referring to, what you want, or where you want to go with this.
You looking for a response to a real issue, or does this have to do with a particular legal matter? If you've got specific questions about a real issue -- outside what you are vaguely referring to do -- the right answer: You should be advised to talk to an attorney. This isn't a place to get legal advice.
I agree with EWO. There are some really great posts here today. It's a pleasure to read.
ReplyDeleteHypathia: "Well, are we entitled to have those debates? "
ReplyDeleteWhat answer would satisfy you; or do you want to "debate whether we can have a debate"?
Sounds to me like you're discussing "talking about talking" and avoiding the issues. Why spending your time debating other things than your points?
the cynic librarian said...
ReplyDelete"While we're praising the MSM these days for finally getting some stones in its reporting on the Bush illusion campaign, I hope we never forget how much they promoted that illusion and did everything in their power to sustain its deception.
OK, this is kind of a stretch -- the thread -- by all accounts -- has something to do with consequences for laws, leaks, and security.
If you want to talk about prostitution . . . I'm going to have to get you to explain the relevance. Translation: Sounds to me like you're wandering into "other issues" . . . care to explain the great leap. . .
Paul Rosenberg said...
ReplyDeleteI just finished listening to Ray McGovern on "Live from the West Coast" with Ian Masters (sorry not online). McGovern, a 27-year CIA vet who was one of Bush's daily briefers (just so you get that he was no low-level flunky) gave McCarthy the highest praise, said that women seem to have more courage in such matters than men, and pointed out that McCarthy had a written a vehement objection to bombing the al Shifa pharmacuetical plant in response to the 1998 embassy bombings, even after the decision was made.
This is yet more proof that McCarthy only runs to the press for partisan political reasons.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that McGovern is telling the truth about this convenient disagreement between McCarthy and Clinton, which is obviously meant to portray McCarthy as a non-partisan truth teller to power.
In this tale is true, McCarthy obviously felt no compunction about disagreeing with the policies of the CiC for whom she worked and told the President himself he was wrong. Why did she not even complain to her supervisor in the CIA about the secret detention centers?
If this tale is true and there was insufficient evidence that the Sudanese plant was manufacturing chemical weapons with al Qaeda and Iraq, then Mr. Clinton was proposing to commit the murder of the occupants of that plant without cause. Moreover, Clinton called for the bombing at the same time Lewinski was due to testify before a grand jury to implicate Clinton in multiple felonies. Yet, with this background, Ms. McCarthy never went to the press to disclose this nefarious plot. However, she had no problem going to the press instead of the President to disclose the location of perfectly legal detention centers holding al Qaeda.
Don't even waste you breath telling me that McCarthy was not acting out of partisan political motives when she illegally blew the cover off the US detention centers holding al Qaeda.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteZack,
First, lie detector tests aren't admissible evidence and yadda yadda yadda.
Long and winding road to a very small house for no good reason.
Zack was just wondering if anybody'd heard anything about it. If you want to spend so much time addressing somebody's post, find one with some substance.
Eyes Wide Open said...
ReplyDeleteBart, what do you mean by this: "If it was true torture in violation of the definition of torture to which we agreed under the international conventions."
I thought Bushco's position is that these are not "combatants" captured in battle and are not thus protected by our ratification of the Geneva Conventions.
I am speaking of the torture convention, not the Geneva Conventions.
Anon: "These are The End Times for Bush and the machine that installed him."
ReplyDeleteWow, links to other news items. Is that allowed; or do we have to stay on a narrow topic here? Maybe it's a free for all here -- or does nobody care if there are other links to other issues . . .
Zack Zack was just wondering if anybody'd heard anything about it. If you want to spend so much time addressing somebody's post, find one with some substance.
ReplyDeleteAs you well read, Zack's point was that he kept reading about -- yet there's been no response from anyone . . .raising the question: Where is Zach reading this?
If he's read it, why is he asking us whether anyone else has read it? Sounds like Zach has something, but isn't being quite open with what he's got.
Or do you read this another way?
Isn't it curious -- Zach supposedly read something, but nobody else can respond. Hay Zach, hohw about sharing with us what you read.
Zack said:
ReplyDeleteThe only possible reason is if you define “America’s interest” as “Bush’s interest.” If you don’t, then these leaks were in the public interest.
That's exactly what they have done and it's the whole point of the good leak - bad leak issue. Anything good for Bush is good for America, anything bad for Bush hurts America. There is no distinction at all.
To the cultists, George Bush does and must have the power to determine what Americans can and cannot know. It's for our own good and there can be no limits or exceptions to this power. We must have absolute faith and trust in him to do whatever is needed to protect us. He is the only one qualified and able to make such judgements and anyone who reveals information he in his infinite wisdom decided we shouldn't know is pro-terrorist, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, harming the war on terror or any number of catch phrases designed to prevent debate and rational thought by provoking hatred on cue from the wingers who respond obediently like a bunch of rabid (Pavlov's) dogs.
Just as the Bush cabal believe they are better than history and so have no reason to learn from it, their followers believe the glorious party are the exception to the rule that absolute power corrupts absolutely, so there is no reason to limit their power. I don't understand how people can so proudly wave the flag while advocating the end of everything it stood for, but that's where we are. I wonder if there are enough real patriots willing to sacrifice everything to avert that fate.
Its been a game of CYA since the attacks of 911 and our government went into overtime post-911 to convince us that *new* measures should be taken to facilitate intelligence gathering ... *because the government didn't have the resources at its disposal to gather information that in effect could have signaled an attack was imminent*.
ReplyDeleteHowever, its been made apparent that multiple agencies and intelligence was in fact available to our government pre-911 ... *with existing laws and efforts in place at that time* ... the real culprit was this information and intelligence was ignored and there was no priority given to it by government officials at any level of the government.
Its always been disturbing that the WH had briefing documents (the ones that Rice relegated to *historical* context) that outlined intent and plausibility ... and we know from multiple reports that information was *in the pipe* that could've precipitated action that could've thwarted the 911 attacks if action on this information had been given priority.
Yet we have allowed this administration to undermine the Constitution with illegal spying on American citizens as a ruse to cover their collective butts for not acting when they should have.
There is little doubt that this administration and those in power will go to any length to cover for their incompetence.
--
Paul in Houston
Wow!
ReplyDeleteCHECK THIS OUT
Some anonymous in a long post smearing me for spreading right-wing rumors:
ReplyDeleteZack "I keep hearing that Durbin will be losing his security clearance and his committee appointments.? Again, if you "keep hearing" something but provide no links, it's not helpful…. This isn't a place to get legal advice.
Actually, I find this a very good place to find answers to legal questions on public policy. Glenn and many of those commenting here are attorneys and I’ve learned that this is the place to go to make sense of obtuse legal arguments made by Bush supporters.
Now maybe this “anonymous” never visits right-wing sites, but if they did, they’d know about this rumor. You want links? Okay?
One
Two
Three
It was an honest question that I did not know the answer to. I was hoping for more of an intelligent answer than the smear I received. My original question remains largely unanswered.
Ender,
ReplyDeleteNot really clear why you want to know, what you're asking, or where you're going with this.
ender: "What event constitutes the end?" -- Is your definition of "the end" linked to armed revolution?
ender: "What would it take for you to stop talking and shoulder a weapon in defense of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?" -- You talking about violence?
ender: "Would it be the suspension of elections? -- Are you saying that "the end event -- if it were the suspension of the election" would then prompt armed violence; or are you saying that it would be time to leave?
ender: "Marshall Law?" How propose doing something after martial law . . .; wouldn’t it already have to have been planned for, and in the works; or are you saying, “After Martial law, then we think about doing something.” Why waiting?
ender: "Preemptively attacking another country who is of no threat to us?" Already happened, so this isn't speculation. You advocating something specific, or just a general idea; rather, why bother with violence, and not simply move; yet, if this violence-linked-to-some-event were possible/contemplated, why bother staying in America?
ender: "Camps for political dissenters?" -- Already happened, so this is off the table to discuss as a “speculative outcome” of what may trigger what you are advocating/suggesting.
ender”I personally think the fat lady is a good way through her finale now and am wondering what event signifies the end of her song?” -- What makes you think this; and are you saying that people should take up arms soon?
Or does this mean that you're not being clear on "the event" -- but want to leave -- why are you waiting? Not clear on why you are talking about violence, but not simply moving to a safer portion of the world where violence isn’t – using your words – needed to address the issues.
Ender "Any thoughts?" -- You go first, share what your views are; you were vague. You simply outlined that you thought the fat lady was almost through her song. Where you going with this. . .and what does this have to do with treason, security, leaking, and the different enforcement standards? You're not linking the topics: What a leak about Eastern Europe has to do with armed violence in America. [Or. . .are you saying that it’s OK to talk about this here . . .because you feel like it; or are you saying that some topics are fine to talk about because . . .?]
Bart said:
ReplyDeleteDon't even waste you breath telling me that McCarthy was not acting out of partisan political motives when she illegally blew the cover off the US detention centers holding al Qaeda.
I've read your posts today and I come away with the same impression I always do. If the facts were true as you site them, you'd have a case. I don't accept the facts as you site them. I'm a fairly discerning consumer of information, but I have come to believe very different things about the world than you seem to. You claim you're not a Bush-worshipping, right-wing apologist-for-everything-Bush like most of the other people are who accept the same facts that you do. I don't mean that as an insult. I accept your word. But I can turn on FOXNews and hear the world described the way you see it, or tune in to Rush or take a look at right-wing blogs to find all the same facts you always site as such. Those places are all Bush-worshipping extremists. (Of course you don't even agree with that fact--so there we are.) But you are not.
Most of the folks here are very discerning consumers of info as well, and they seem to see the world much as I do. Many here are far from left-wingers, and many voted for Bush. I see a lot of arguments here indicating people are far more conservative than I am, but that's OK, (it falls under the heading of old fashioned debates about issues I can live with--as opposed to the shocking behavior of the current admin which I find unAmerican and bordering on freaky.) This alone makes it clear there isn't an agenda here other than genuine desire to see America rise to its place as a world leader.
Where Dems and Reps are concerned, I have no dog in the fight. I look at the Dems in congress and cringe that they are the only alternative to Republicans. But Republicans have done more damage to america in the last five years than I would have believed possible. Surpluses are now deficits and bigger than ever, and the world no longer respects (or fears) our military, let alone our judgment or ability to lead. If a republican would step up and admit what a hash they've made of things, I could support him/her as easily as any Dem. But right now it looks like republicans are standing by their admin, so the chances of anyone stepping up and doing what's right are slim to none.
Debating politics when you at least agree on basic facts is tricky. When you don't it gets tiring arguing about what facts are true. Especially when you have the same arguments over and over.
I read your posts and like to get a heads up on what's going on in the right-wing world, which I've discovered your posts allow me to do, (oddly, since you don't have an agenda like they do.) But when we can't agree on basic facts, it can be hard to discuss things at times.
Cynic Librarian,
ReplyDeleteYou need to be specific with what you're saying: Need something substantive to back up what you're talking about.
Vague: The cynic librarian "What is most disturbing, for me at least, is that very few Dems challenge this assumption about the US pretension to empire. Instead, they talk about management styles and "philosophies." That is disingenuous at best."
1. Not clear that your assumption is valid. Your point isn't precise.
2. Not clear that you know what "disingenuous" means -- it doesn't follow: Having a different view on a matter doesn't mean "false to face"; rather, it may mean that the pool of material you're citing isn't matching what the public is discussing. Your argument isn't working.
3. If you want to have some credibility, need to have some links to the issue you're talking about; and which Dems are talking about this. Again, I do not put much confidence in your assertion/argument.
Oh dear. Do we have a new troll, or is Gedaylia back?
ReplyDeleteObviously, the same “anonymous” who unfairly went after me is now doing the exact same thing in the same way to “ender” and “cynic librarian” – why?
The purpose of these posts is to distract from the thread. Both take honest questions and try to make an issue out of them.
It only took a couple posts, but this anonymous obviously wants divert attention from the real subject of the thread and focus on side issues. Distraction is the name of the game.
Yes, make us defend our questions rather than talk about Bush’s secret prisons and his policies of torture and kidnapping.
A good try, but not good enough. Sidetracked, we aren’t.
The new “anonymous” should be ignored.
Michael Levin, The Case for Torture:
ReplyDeleteThere is little danger that the Western democracies will lose their way if they choose to inflict pain as one way of preserving order. Paralysis in the face of evil is the greater danger. Some day soon a terrorist will threaten tens of thousands of lives, and torture will be the only way to save them. We had better start thinking about this.
Zack,
ReplyDeleteUsing the premise that this is true -- that the federal officials should be subjected to lie detectors -- how do we explain why the President/Vice President refused to take an oath over 9-11/ and why hasn't the President been forced to take a lie detector test about the leak?
Putting aside the smokescreen. . .
1. The cited article is from March 2006, almost 2 months old. We haven't heard anything since; so it sounds like this is dead. Rather, it sounds like this org is attempting to shift attention from Rove/Libby onto the Senate to stifle them to not indict the President.
2. The source of the assertion -- that a Senator may be subject to lie detector -- is someone who is no longer in government: "former deputy-undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin". That's not a credible source; need someone who is still inside. Again, if DOJ is planning this activity -- then DoJ needs to explain why they are not requiring the President to be subjected to such an inspection.
Questions:
A. Why should we believe this guy?
B. Who is his source inside DoJ that is leaking what the US Attorney is doing?
The author of the article you cited is the President of the Chiefs of Police. Big deal -- he doesn’t have access to the ongoing investigation; if he did, he'd be in trouble for leaking classified information. So he's not credible. Police officers will/do participate in public intimidation efforts.
After reading your articles I can still say, "I haven't heard anything"--your articles don't support the contention that that there is or isn't something serious about using lie detectors on Members of Congress. At this point, it sounds like someone is hoping to start another McCarthy-like Witch Hunt. That's not news.
I think you're starting/spreading rumors to put pressure on others. Rather, the issue should go back to Kouri and Babbin: What are their interests in this matter; what type of connection do they have with DoJ/JTTF/and the White House/and how are their interests served by shifting attention from the JTTF/CIA abuses in Guantanamo and Eastern Europe?
This sounds like a PR-stunt to intimidate the Senators to not impeach/remove the President for war crimes. More of the same RNC-stuff, and looks like this is another action item by the RNC in the wake of the "latest news" to change the subject from the illegal wars/abuse of power, and shift the burden onto others.
Overall: My view -- this is a classic RNC smear job to change the subject. Other than that, I wouldn't put much credence in the assertions, as to mandate Members of Congress be subjected to this standard would mean that the President would so as well. Why are we saying that some but not others are required to assent to this intrusion? No answer.
One thing inprecise people like to do is change the subject. Hay Zack, if you're not used to people asking you questions, get over it. If you want to post, and aren't willing to have follow-up questions, then you're not serious about a discussion.
ReplyDeleteZackM "unfairly went after me" -- Get over it, people have questions about what you're asking. You want someone to thank you for posting vague things? You provided the links. Thank you. Let's discuss what the response was to your comments.
I don't think it is obvious. Zach "obviously wants divert attention from the real subject": And that is, what? What does the apparent smear job over poloygraph have to do with Eastern Europe?
I thought the topic was something else: What McCarthy did or didn't do. "secret prisons and his policies of torture and kidnapping." -- Great.
Zach: The new “anonymous” should be ignored. -- Hay, if you don't want to have a discussion about what you are posting vaguely about, then stop posting. Otherwise, let's discuss the links you provided. If you don't want to have questions, then don't post.
To Bart and the other contrarians:
ReplyDeleteI leave it to others to refute (often with criminal ease) the errors of your individual comments. Rather I'd like to point out a few things concerning this sad business.
First, while Ms. McCarthy has been dismissed from her post and prosecution is threatened, I believe we still have a doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty" in this country. If you wish to simply condemn her without all the facts examined and tried, certainly that is your right. But kindly hold your tongues when other commentators (rightly and with greater cause) take the Administration to task for its many missteps and gross incompetence; to do otherwise would prove, well, more than simple hypocricy, wouldn't it?
Second, a reading of both the original article and all that has been published since names not a single country these 'black sites' are located in, nor who is detained in any of them, nor what is happening to them. "Eastern Europe" and "the old Soviet Bloc" constitute a very, very large chunk of geography; hardly anything that would point to a specific country.
Bart, possibly to salve his ravaged conscience, insists they are 'Al Qaeda detention centers' and neatly side-steps any further discussion. Fair enough, though the question immediately becomes how can he state this with such certainty, given (a) there exists no central registry of Al Qaeda members due to the loose, diffuse nature of the network itself, and (b) the recent revelations concerning how several inmates held at Camp X-Ray in Gitmo have already been judged 'innocent' of any connection to Al Qaeda by military tribunals, yet they remain in custody.
No matter how often this has been raised to him, Bart offers no answer or defense...for the simple reason there is none to be had.
Third, the fixation upon Ms. McCarthy's record of donations to the Kerry Presidential Campaign are, at best, circumstantial evidence of a partisan affiliation, not proof positive of such. Using similar logic, one could only conclude the company Diebold (which manufactures ATMs and electronic voting machines) is paid-for arm of the Republican Party itself, given its own record of donations exclusively to the Elephants. Small wonder there have been so many 'voting irregularities' eh?
Finally, even if you remain fixated upon the still-unproven notion that Ms. McCarthy's revealations somehow damaged this phantom war we're supposedly engaged in (sorry, but calling the enemy "Islamofascists" doesn't cut it with those of us actually *thinking* about this mess), explain how the United States behaving like a brutish thug on the world stage - engaging in the sort of grotesque imperialism and aggressive messianic pomposity we accuse the likes of Tehran and P'yŏngyang acting out - makes this country even one iota safer.
Incidentially, I don't expect Bart, notherbob2, or any of the rest to actually respond to any of these points (at least not with a dram of intellectual honesty).
Glenn:
ReplyDelete"Nefarious ties?" Why do you mischaracterize what I wrote?
"In McCarthy’s case, she was running with an exclusive club indeed if Sandy Berger and Rand Beers were her patrons at the NSC. But that alone doesn’t prove that her actions in leaking were part of conspiracy nor does it make it probable that those worthies mentioned above even knew she would violate her oath of secrecy so brazenly. Her contacts with Berger and Beers were probably confined to seeing them at the numerous conferences and scholarly forums where the rest of the Democratic contribution to the military industrial complex meet.
The entire point of the post was to argue that there is little chance there was a conspiracy and yet you accuse me of writing the opposite.
Sheesh!...What's the point in trying to be reasonable with you people when you react this way to my writings even when I'm not unhinged?
Rick Moran: I would agree that you were arguing against the notion of conspiracy theory, were it not for the final two paragraphs of your otherwise reasonable post, to wit:
ReplyDeleteConsider this: Is it coincidence or conspiracy that Mary McCarthy, partisan Democrat, was placed in exactly the right position to scan a massive amount of intelligence about a wide variety of political hot button topics that, if selectively leaked, could cause the Bush Administration enormous embarrassment and damage?
Just thinking out loud…
hypatia quoted:
ReplyDeleteThere is little danger that the Western democracies will lose their way if they choose to inflict pain as one way of preserving order. Paralysis in the face of evil is the greater danger. Some day soon a terrorist will threaten tens of thousands of lives, and torture will be the only way to save them. We had better start thinking about this.
I don't know if she's advocating this position or knot... but I hope she's not serious about the quote because it's based on a false premise. Torture will never be the only way to solve terrorism. I have yet to hear of one "ticking bomb" theory that is believable.
zack: Who benefited from McCarthy’s leak? The American public. That was easy.
ReplyDeletebart:This isn't an easy answer, it is self serving....and laughable.
OK. That does it. Bart, just because you have found some new Chapter under which to declare moral bankruptcy, the rest of us haven't heard about that Chapter yet and are still able to easily identify inescapable moral truths.
Although I wouldn't be at all surprised if Gonalzes now okays a Chapter 11 l/2 that allows a person to declare that as he is devoid of any moral assets he should therefore be allowed to default on all his moral obligations to the society in which he lives.
Rick Moran,
ReplyDeleteIn your article you raised a number of interesting, novel, and thought provoking ideas. Thank you for your clarification; and I'm sure many others will be challenged by your ideas and thinking. Whether we agree or disagree with your thesis -- as it develops and matures -- is not important. Rather, I'm just saying: "Thanks for having the guts to think, express your view, and dare to say something novel."
As to the issue of why you "did or didn't discuss" a particular issue, I find this curious that in the blogosphere some would like to comment on what one does or does not cover. Far be it for any of us to comment on what is or is not covered -- how many times have we read a brief that goes on and on, but fails to make the case? If someone has a comment or remark about what you said -- that deserves comments.
But to suggest that your argument/idea does or does not have merit based on what you did or didn't do in another situation is in my view not a credible argument. It may be true that you are or are not of one slant; but it is not impressive to see some discuss irrelevant issues -- your views on another matter outside your point -- as to whether the point you are or are not making is valid.
Overall, in the end, your point may be proven invalid; but that validity depends on what you discuss, not what others may point to as "why wasn't this covered."
We leave that for another day: How many points are enough; what length of a blogspot comment is enough; and how many links or "annexes" does one have to have.
Times up. Publication time. Have to go with what you have. Others are free to second guess you later, especially when they may not have a novel idea or insight. If you can't win on your own merits, I suppose another approach is to tear everyone down and ask, "How come you didn't. . ."
Although I may disagree/agree with them -- that is not the issue -- thank you for discussing your views. You have raised some interesting issues. Thanks!
You mean like this one?
ReplyDeleteYes, dear cynic, exactly like that one.
And I also saw that story about the slave trade of these tragic young girls and was destroyed by that. I had just watched "Human Trafficking" on a saved video and it put me in state of horror.
I'd like to know a little more about all these "hunting trips" and "golf trips" frankly, considering as how this administration seems to have such a healthy appetite for human depravity.
Hell, I would have condemned the Port deal on the human trafficking revelations alone. Alas, alack, the same thing is apparently being underwritten by our own faction of depraved elected (and appointed)
officials.
Sometimes, when I get close to despair, I start to think that it's not really this Administration I am outraged by. It's human nature.
Then I come to this forum and it recharges my batteries and I remember there are still heroes in this world with a finely honed moral compass.
Everyone go to cynic's link to his site to read that story. It's almost too horrible to believe.
georgelo: "Torture will never be the only way to solve terrorism."
ReplyDeleteDisagree: Torture is not an option to deal with or solve terrorism. Torture denies people the right to refuse to be a witness against themselves. By being uncivil, we inspire others to be uncivil in response--torture simply inspires terrorism.
The fundamental issue with torture is: "How does the accuser -- the person who says someone should/should not be tortured -- know that this other person should be tortured?"
If the accuser "just knows" something -- then why isn't that accuser being tortured: to reveal the "deep secrets" behind what others do not know? The answer is: The accuser has no credible basis to suggest anyone be tortured; if they did, the accuser would be arguing for their own torture -- to make them reveal "how they know" that this is the "right person" to torture.
Putting aside the issue of the law and abuse, torture doesn't pass the logic test: You can accuse anyone of anything. Civility is based on real evidence, not merely accusations supported by unreliable-induced-forced-self-confessions-admissions.
Nuf Said said...
ReplyDeletesunny @ 7:23
excerpt from link
"a little known and never utlitized rule of the US House of Representatives, Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives, which allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature."
Wow is right!
8:53 PM
= = = where did this come from?
bart, what "torture convention?" Please educate me about that if you would be so kind.
ReplyDeleteOh no. "anon" writes to zack "if you want to have some credibility..."
ReplyDeleteRare.
"Anon", if you want to have some credibility please attach a name to your posts, or are you too ashamed?
As a litigator you of all people should know that when people complain about the procedure -- "if the leakee knows through two or more degrees of separation the leaker, then something-or-other" -- it's really the substance we're talking about. Some leaks are good on substance: revealing secret government gulags and torture chambers, illegal and unconstitutional evesdropping, etc. Other leaks are bad: outing a CIA agent to smear someone who is truthfully calling you a liar.
ReplyDeleteSubstance matters, and we should resist the urge to reduce things to process (though there's nothing wrong with using the "shoe-on-the-other-foot test" to expose rank hypocracy).
See the Yoo Memo for why the Convention Against Torture doesn't apply according to administration policy. Additionally, the CIA exempts itself from the law anyway.
ReplyDeleteThe most dangerous information we can reveal to our enemies is that we are a nation of laws and our leaders are subject themselves to those laws. The second most dangerous is that our system of government is based on Democracy. The revelation and adherence to these ideas is a greater threat to our safety than even publishing real time troop movements.
ReplyDeleteEvery single piece of information we reveal, when viewed in isolation, is always a threat to our safety and our nation itself. In totality it is our greatest strength. Like an overwhelming army that does not collapse when a single soldier falls, in the aggregate our honey pot of freedom is an impenetrable fortress. How could any enemy have the power to destroy such an arrogant display of courage.
Our system is a spider web that ensnares enemy and friend alike with geometric beauty and mathematical precision. Those that are oblivious to line and shape are easy prey, for others we must use ourselves and even our egg sack for bait. All will eventually become entangled and then digested and through this process they too will become spiders. Do we have the blameless audacity of the black widow or will we abandon our home for lower ground?
Some believe that the restriction of movement dictated by the web is weakness. They admire the flies ability to visit the dung heap. To feed on rotting flesh is not our way. I say to those who are enjoying temporary flight, there is a web waiting for you and one way or another you will become a spider again.
-----
Against an enemy — How good bad music and bad reasons sound when one marches against an enemy!
Nietzsche
Lawrence Wilkerson
ReplyDeletewrote today:
As Alexis de Tocqueville once said: "America is great because she is good. If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."
In January 2001, with the inauguration of George W. Bush as president, America set on a path to cease being good; America became a revolutionary nation, a radical republic. If our country continues on this path, it will cease to be great - as happened to all great powers before it, without exception.
Is there a point on this path we’ve taken where we can’t turn back? Will we know if we reach it?
Will it only be when we are faced with grim faced soldiers on a daily basis, when protesters are openly shot, when we are systematically accosted by police and stopped by military checkpoints?
Or will it be more benign, less obvious? What about when our citizens don’t speak out when they know our government is kidnapping, torturing and murdering people? Would that be the point?
Or will it be when Americans who oppose those policies are described as ‘loons’?
Or, perhaps, it will be when Americans don’t find their country’s system of secret prisons where no laws apply to be contrary to their values? Is that the point on the path – the point of no return?
Will that be the point where America has become a truly “ugly” nation and ceases to be good, ceases to be great?
How will we know?
Armagednoutahere said...
ReplyDeleteI've read your posts today and I come away with the same impression I always do. If the facts were true as you site them, you'd have a case. I don't accept the facts as you site them.
This is progress. Even if you are in denial about the fact, you recognize the undeniable logic.
Time to make you face reality. Name one fact to which I have cited which is not true.
But I can turn on FOXNews and hear the world described the way you see it, or tune in to Rush or take a look at right-wing blogs to find all the same facts you always site as such.
OK, we can make some more progress here. Once you realize the facts to which I am citing are true, maybe you need to realize that conservative news sources have a much better track record for accuracy than do the NYT or CBS News.
Paul Rosenberg said...
ReplyDeleteAssuming Facts Not In Evidence And Other Stupid Lawyer Tricks
bart said...Don't even waste you breath telling me that McCarthy was not acting out of partisan political motives when she illegally blew the cover off the US detention centers holding al Qaeda.
Okay. I won't.
But everyone else should note that McCarthy did not blow the cover off the US detention centers holding al Qaeda. She revealed the existence of illegal overseas detention facilities.
How are these facilities illegal? What law do they break?
And, of course, we have no idea if they have any al Qaeda members in their murderous little hands.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that we are murdering detainees at these facilities?
BTW, McCarthy is the one who claimed we were detaining al Qaeda there. Is she lying?
Where do you suggest we send the al Qaeda? Alcatraz?
Would you bush appologists please read this (its for everyone but mostly the 33% types. The rest of us know it already):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.radical23apr23,0,7907127.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
And did someone actually post something to the effect of Wilson lied and accidently outed his Wife? Oops. Please, that stuff does not fly here. You are too silly.
To answer the question of Glenn: Why are so many Bush supporters against programs to prevent Al Qaeda from shipping bombs and other dangerous materials into our country?
ReplyDeleteIt is WalMart. Read: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/34517/
As the most powerful member of the Retail Industry Leaders Association, Wal-Mart has consistently pushed to weaken security for its own gain:
On port security, that representation has included pressuring Congress to reject requirements for 'smart containers' and electronic seals on cargo coming into the United States, independent and regular inspections of supply chain security practices, container-handling fees to help finance port security measures and requirements to let U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) know what is being shipped in and from where it is coming.
The sickest part? The cost of all this security would come to a measly one-third of 1 percent of Wal-Mart's $11.2 billion profits (that's PROFITS) from last year. Or less than CEO Lee Scott's compensation over the past couple years.
Bart asks where we should detain "Al Qaeda?" (That is, captives whom we have accused of being Al Qaeda, some of whom may be, some of whom may not be.) He asks, rhetorically, "Alcatraz?"
ReplyDeleteWell...yes. Why wouldn't we hold our captives in our own land? Why would be throw them into secret holes abroad, their presence, their very existence denied?
If our intentions are honorable and legal, we should hold ALL captives in the "war on terror" (sic) in domestic facilities, where WE are in charge of their detention, their interrogations, and their well being.
By definition, throwing them into secret prisons in unidentified and even denied locations abroad arouses suspicion that we are intent on treating them in a manner which would be unlawful in our own country.
Even the best administrations in American history must be viewed skeptically and held strictly to account for their actions. This rogue administration, demonstrably dishonest and perfidious, of ALL administrations we've had, cannot be given the benefit of any doubt as to their good intentions or as to their respect for the restraint of law or of simple human decency.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteTo Bart and the other contrarians:
I'd like to point out a few things concerning this sad business.
First, while Ms. McCarthy has been dismissed from her post and prosecution is threatened, I believe we still have a doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty" in this country. If you wish to simply condemn her without all the facts examined and tried, certainly that is your right. But kindly hold your tongues when other commentators (rightly and with greater cause) take the Administration to task for its many missteps and gross incompetence; to do otherwise would prove, well, more than simple hypocricy, wouldn't it?
Fair enough. Perhaps the press is mistakenly reporting that McCarthy has confessed to disclosing classified information to the press, which if true is a felony. I can wait.
Given the utter lack of either confessions or any other evidence that any member of the Administration disclosed any classified information which was in fact not already public knowledge, I presume you will extend the same presumption of innocence to the Administration.
Bart, possibly to salve his ravaged conscience, insists they are 'Al Qaeda detention centers' and neatly side-steps any further discussion.
I am relying upon the account provided by your leaker to the press. Isn't the presumption here that she is a "truth teller?"
Fair enough, though the question immediately becomes how can he state this with such certainty, given (a) there exists no central registry of Al Qaeda members due to the loose, diffuse nature of the network itself, and (b) the recent revelations concerning how several inmates held at Camp X-Ray in Gitmo have already been judged 'innocent' of any connection to Al Qaeda by military tribunals, yet they remain in custody.
No matter how often this has been raised to him, Bart offers no answer or defense...for the simple reason there is none to be had.
To start, exactly when have you raised these particular points to me in relation to McCarthy's leak?
To the points themselves...
You don't need a "central registry" of al Qaeda. You capture one al Qaeda and interrogations lead to further al Qaeda and so on and so forth. This is how they take down any criminal organization.
I have previously posted that I was concerned about the cases of the ten Gitmoe prisoners who were allegedly still being held after being found not to be illegal combatants in the hearing required by the Geneva Conventions. I simply do not know why they are still being held. However, what exactly does this have to do with the other al Qaeda prisons?
Third, the fixation upon Ms. McCarthy's record of donations to the Kerry Presidential Campaign are, at best, circumstantial evidence of a partisan affiliation, not proof positive of such.
I agree, this is circumstantial evidence. Prosecutors use circumstantial evidence to build cases and convict criminals all the time.
However, this circumstantial case keeps getting stronger. We now know that McCarthy did not make similar leaks when she disagreed with her Democratic President when he was essentially committing murder by bombing a plant and killing a security guard without sufficient evidence in her opinion. However, she has no trouble leaking top secret information about perfectly legal detention facilities with which she disagrees when the President is a Republican.
I guess I should be shocked by the Bush administrations leaking classified information, but I am not. Their arogance is simply astounding.
ReplyDeleteMr. Michael Levin.
ReplyDeleteDr. Mengele.
Enough said.
sunny, that is certainly a "wow" link you provided.
What does everyone else think about that story?
Dare we dream????
Of course, it's gone way beyond the I word. It's the W.C.'s words too now, and there are so many who should be brought to trial on those charges.
This is pre-emptive
ReplyDeleteThey have to go after McCarthy, and emphasize her connections to the Kerry campaign, in order to start building the defense against what will happen if they lose the House.
Should the Republicans lose either chamber, and the House seems more likely to turn, actual Congressonal oversight will commence. Prominent among the many matters that will become open to subpoena-powered investigation, will be the FISA bypass NSA surveillance.
The overwhelmingly likely result will be the revelation that the NSA was eavesdropping on folks well outside the claim that only legitimate subjects of reasonable suspicion of terrorist activity were targeted. The FISA judges rarely turned down any requests, and the administration would not have had to bypass them unless they were targeting people that even these "indict-a-ham-sandwich" judges would have balked. And then, when finished balking, the target list had to have been folks so outrageous for NSA to be wire-tapping, that the FISA judges might have been expected to go public with their qualms. Were this not the case, were the sole reason to not present the warrant requests the possibility that they might be turned down, why wouldn't the administration have at least run the names by the judges? They might very well have gotten through, or at least gotten through after satisfying some minor qualms and quibbles from the judges. What would have been the harm of trying, if not that the targets were explosively inappropraite for NSA surveillance, and no one outside the administration could be trusted with the level of high explosive content involved?
Some have tried to introduce the red herring of some sort of "data mining" technology being the reason they couldn't go to the FISA judges. The idea is that the judges would not have been able to approve as evidence of probable cause, or reasonable suspicion (or whatever the standard they were supposedly using -- the actual standard seems to have been whatever the administration requested), any info tainted by being the result of this prior eavesdropping involving the automated data dredge. Were this the problem, presumably the administration could have gotten around it by going to Congress to get the data dredge legalized. And even if they were too stupid, arrogant, or fired up on "unitary executive" ideology to have gone to Congress at the time, surely after they were found out, they would have squelched the resulting crisis by just letting legislators of both parties review the list of folks wiretapped in bypass of the FISA judges. Were this list indeed made up of legitimate, even half-way sort-of legitimate, targets of suspicion that they might be engaged in terrorist activities, there would be no scandal. It would help them with most voters if they had merely violated the letter of FISA in order to target people that most voters would agree are legitimate potential terrorists. The administration has every interest in dissipating the scandal, so would have done so promptly, unless the list would worsen, not dissipate, the scandal, because most voters would not agree that the folks spied on were legitimate targets.
Who might these radioactive targets be? They would presumably be folks that at least the administration, albeit from their warped and distorted view that, the Plame affair is the most obvious example, tends to conflate threats to their electoral security with threats to the national security, might think were some such threat. It seems to me that dissenters within the bureaucracy, such as Wilson and McCarthy, and even perhaps Mid-East and other subject matter experts even outside the govt who held views opposed to the administration in their areas of expertise, would be the most likely such targets. The administration knew most Americans would not buy the idea that such people were fit targets for surveillance, so hid the program from the start. The process may have gotten out of hand, and gone beyond even what their zealots would have intended, as some of the people targeted became involved in the 2002 and 2004 elections advising Democrats.
However it happened, today's news about their action against McCarthy suggests that they believe that this aspect of their secret program will be revealed, and they feel the need to build a pre-emptive defense against the impeachment case that will result. One of the few sorts of things the administration could have done that could conceivably garner enough Republican votes in the nect Congress for imnpeachment to succeed, would be if they were revealed to have misused the powers of the govt to win in 2004. Proof that they got Diebold to give them Ohio in 2004, for example, would probably do it. Well, proof that they wiretapped some of Kerry's Mid-East advisers, and thereby perhaps were listening in on some calls involving the candidate himself, might be one of the few other misdeeds that would make even an Orrin Hatch vote to convict.
The only possible defense, the only fig leaf they would be able to give Orrin Hatch to make it possible for him to not vote to convict, would be some story they will concoct, are already starting to concoct with this McCarthy affair, about the Kerry campaign being associated with folks who were leaking info to terrorist suspects.
Yankeependragon,
ReplyDeleteNice post.
As you so eloquently pointed out, and bart quickly ignored, Bart and his administration appologist friends often cite "facts" that they have no way of confirming. The whole point of shining the light on this administration is so that we will know one way or another if evil is done in our name. To have absolute faith in your government to always do what is right, as bart and his friends want to do, is to be ignorant of history. They can do no wrong, in bart's mind, in the persuit of the "War on terror". Three are actually people that are justifing TORTURE! The terrorists have won if you accept their "tortured" logic, as their vision of this country is nowhere near the one which I, and many throughout the world, grew up admiring.
Glen Tomkins "This is pre-emptive"
ReplyDeleteGlen Tomkins,
In re your well thought-theory on why this action against McCarthy will help swing the Senate to convict.
Hmm. . . interesting.
Let's play devil's advocate: Are you saying that by "outing McCarthy" that Hatch and others in the Senate will be more likely to convict?
Overall, I'm having trouble connecting the three [a] Issues over Eastern Europe, war crimes; [b] McCarthy's disclosures; and [c] the conviction in the Senate and whether the Senators will or will not vote against the President.
I am not dismissing your theory; rather, I'm suggesting the two are not obviously linked for the following reasons:
A. Let's suppose the House charges Bush with a crime, and the Senate has a trial -- why would what did or did not happen with respect to Eastern Europe/CIA IG have any bearing on whether they do or do not convict?
From this vantage point: The two are separate: Either the President did or didn't violate the law. If the President did violate the law, then the Senate should look at that conduct -- in the context of fitness for continued role as President -- in terms of the President, not in what did or didn't happen with Kerry, McCarthy, or the timing.
Perhaps you have a good case to the contrary. I'm open to hear that. At this point, I'm not convinced that the two are linked; they may be. And I believe your point needs to be given serious consideration: Because if it is true, then it needs to be looked at in terms of: Is the Senate already of the mind that the President is not fit for office, or could they be compelled to remove him if they believe that refusing to do so would result in a backlash against the Senate?
If your thesis is correct -- that the Senate is bargaining now -- then this should be discussed by the voters, and made something that is part of the 2006 election: not something that we simply speculate on in the blogosphere.
In other words, let's presume what you're saying is true: That there are other calculations going on -- in terms of the Senate and McCarthy over the removal phase -- which information related to this thesis should the voters consider now, before the 2006 election, as a relevant factor of who they do or do not vote for?
The goal here isn't simply to speculate on why the Senate is or isn’t doing something; but to put the issue in terms of what the voters will change their position/vote, and then make it self-evident the Senate majority -- if it does not vote to support removal -- will swing against the RNC. Try that approach, and think in terms of the issues that will connect with the voters, and make them say, "If you don't vote to impeach, then you're going to lose your Senate seat."
Keith: "The whole point of shining the light on this administration is so that we will know one way or another if evil is done in our name."
ReplyDeleteYes, you've got that right: The purpose is to find out, not simply to find out -- but to use that information not just at the ballot box, but also to make the Senate face the issue: Based on what we know, is this President fit to remain in office?
Going further, it is one thing to find someone is guilty of a crime; it is another/different issue for the Senate to answer: Despite that criminal conduct, should we remove the man lawfully from office? At this juncture, the Senate despite the clear evidence of war crimes is of the mind, "Hay, no problem, Bush is fit to commit more crimes."
Yes, you are right: We have to find out what's going on; the danger is to embark on endless investigations that take years, and avoiding the needed -- soon -- decision: Do we let this President remain in office. Ideally, the Senate should be forced to face/make this decision before the 2006 election, so that the results of that decision -- regardless what it is -- becomes information the voters can use in November about the leadership at the state and federal level in both house of Congress.
Information is good, it's also important to watch and monitor how -- or if -- that information is appropriately used to protect the Constitution. This Senate does not appear serious in applying what we well know: This President is war criminal.
georgelo writes: I don't know if she's advocating this position or knot... but I hope she's not serious about the quote because it's based on a false premise.
ReplyDeleteNot advocating it; repulsed by it. I was doing a bit of googling on the subject of Bush Admin policy vis-a-vis torture, and found some mil-bloggers having fits over that Levin piece. They insist it flouts good and decent military standards. They are, of course, right.
Does anyone have the scoop regarding the EU supposedly having investigated and found that McCarthy's claims about black prisons are false? A Bush-supporting friend of mine seems to think this is somehow dispositive.
Finally, I agree w/ Zack. Some anon troll is here trying to pick diversionary fights first with him, and then with librarian. Ignore the troll, please.
Jao: "Too bad there is no real congressional oversight where these questions could be pressed with authority."
ReplyDeleteYour point is well taken. Fortunately, I think there was something in this blog about Illinois doing something to pass a proclamation forcing Congress to vote on this. [See link at comment: "sunny @ 7:23 "]
As to your point, although there is no credible federal oversight, there are tools the states can use -- as evidenced by the Illinois action, sunny's link " sunny @ 7:23 " -- that will force the issue: If Congress doesn't do their job and engage in oversight, the States can force them; the fact that the states have to force Congress means Congress isn't doing their job, and that new leaders -- outside the current RNC-majority -- are needed.
Bottom line message for the Country and Congress: If you don't engage in oversight, and the States have to force you -- it means you're not fit to be leaders and should be replaced this November 2006.
Hypatia "Does anyone have the scoop regarding the EU supposedly having investigated and found that McCarthy's claims about black prisons are false?"
ReplyDeleteThe EU's preliminary conclusions are "lack of evidence." However, the investigation is continuing in other areas of the EU Parliament, and the firing of the CIA IG has sparked new discussion of how to proceed in London and Brussles.
Hypatia "A Bush-supporting friend of mine seems to think this is somehow dispositive"
The next phase will start. The issue in light of the CIA IG firing will now broaden the work of the other investigations not only in the EU, but also in the British Parliament. There are meeting scheduled behind closed doors this week to discuss the developments with McCarthy's firing.
Divorced one like Bush "To answer the question of Glenn: Why are so many Bush supporters against programs to prevent Al Qaeda from shipping bombs and other dangerous materials into our country?"
ReplyDeleteThe premise incorrectly assumes that cargo containers have to be physically opened and inspected. There is a plan to install an auto-inspection system into each container, thereby increasing the cargo-inspection process up to 100%, and expediting the offload time.
Whether Wall Mart does or does not have a position on security is irrelevant. They simply pay for goods; they are not the ones that have to comply with the container-cargo fabrication specs. The shipping company/container company has to pay the costs. Yes, they will be passed onto the consumer.
The issue is whether America is serious about container security, or in debating excuses not to do what is possible
Wilkerson raises a number of interesting points.
ReplyDeleteA. "Congress can awaken and discover that the Constitution is correct . . ."
B. "We can halt the precipitate slide in our standing around the world, convince the majority of the Islamic world that we can and must co-exist"
C. "All we need do, in reality, is return to our roots.
Great ideas. Kind of like saying, "We should do the right thing."
Hay, this is more of the Pollyannaish stuff: Wilkerson is you're going to say something that "sounds good," let's have something that supports this:
1. How do we do this?
2. What's going to be the "big magic wand" that is going to wake up Congress: What specific plan is required to wake up Congress?
3. How do we physically move from where we are today -- a nation that doesn't do anything when it comes to accountability -- into what is desirable?
4. What are the steps, what is to be done differently; and why is this plan more credible than the current system of laws, courts, and legal frameworks that have failed?
I'm all for nice ideas and hope. The issue -- and problem for Wilkerson -- is that he offers no roadmap, or something other than what we already have: A constitution. This Constitution has failed. The issue Wilkerson asks us to believe -- apparently -- is that if we just "return" to the document -- that we ignore -- we'll be fine. Great, how does Wilkerson propose Congress suddenly have a "new catalyst" to do what it refuses to do?
The issue is: What's going to change, and why will the "new thing" -- whatever Wilkerson proposes -- address the abuse of power, violation of rights, and the efforts to suppress McCarthy's efforts to spread information about illegal US government conduct?
It's one thing to talk about nice outcomes. Quite another to have a credible plan available for people to act on. Wilkerson, we need specifics and a plan, not more essays.
We need leaders, not poets.
To the person who asks where should we put captured Al Queda members. Alcatraz?
ReplyDeleteHow about we cancel this little venture and spend the one and a half billion dollars instead on a modern prison facility on American soil? What's wrong with that?
A 100 acre compound – ten times the size of the typical U.S. embassy, the size of 80 football fields, six times larger than the UN, the size of Vatican City. The US Embassy Compound, in the middle of Baghdad – the center for US domination of the Middle East and its resources.
Or wouldn't there be any room here for all those secret extensions in which to keep the sex slaves obtained through human traffiking?
Bart: McCarthy obviously felt no compunction about disagreeing with the policies of the CiC for whom she worked and told the President himself he was wrong. Why did she not even complain to her supervisor in the CIA about the secret detention centers?
ReplyDeleteGood point. Actually, according to Larry Johnson, McCarthy was working for the CIA Inspector General on exactly this issue. Johnson thinks that she had no other way to find out about the rendition program. Johnson also notes that this side of the story should be the subject of follow-up media coverage.
According to Johnson:
I've heard through the grapevine that she was attending the seminar for officers who are retiring while working with the Inspector General (IG). Now things get interesting. She could find out about secret prisons if Intelligence Officers involved with that program had filed a complaint with the IG or if there was some incident that compelled senior CIA officials to determine an investigation was warranted. In other words, this program did not come to Mary's attention (if the allegations are true) because she worked on it as an ops officer. Instead, it appears an investigation of the practice had been proposed or was underway. That's another story reporters probably ought to be tracking down.
notherbob2:
ReplyDeleteFor weeks we are harangued that “No one is above the law! Not even the President, not even when he is acting to protect the homeland. We are a nation of laws and that is the bedrock of our sacred Constitution.” I would link to some of that rhetoric, but I an sure you are in no need of a memory refresher,...
Actually, I am. Where did Glenn ever say that "the President, [] even when he is acting to protect the homeland ... is [not] above the law"? I'm not sure that Glenn thinks that Dubya's spying on U.S. citizens without even bothering to get a warrant is "acting to protect the homeland". That's your characterisation of the situation, and it's woefully uninformed.
But that's hardly Glenn's point here, and his post is about the arrant hypocrisy and lack of principle of the RW foamers (like you), and really doesn't get into the legality of McCarthy's leaking per se, or of the prosecution against her. Go back and read it again, if you thought he was saying something different.
Cheers,
(sigh) Remember back in the good old days when it looked as if Libby and Rove were the only leakers in the administration? Then we found out about Condi Rice, then Richard Shelby, then Orrin hatch?
ReplyDeleteAh, those were the days when the leaks were kept to a bare minimum.
Some stoopid troll said:
ReplyDelete... the Constitution appears to immunize Representatives and Senators from prosecution for crimes committed while they are in session.
ROFLMAO. Bet that doofus never passed a bar exam. If he claims to be a lawyer, my money's on him having paid someone else to take the bar exam for him....
Cheers,
Consortium News on the Bush admin's attempt to silence criticism by threatening them with jail:
ReplyDeleteBush is trying to mark the boundaries of permissible political debate. He also wants total control of classified information so he can leak the information that helps him – as he did in summer 2003 to shore up his claims about Iraq’s WMD – while keeping a lid on secrets that might make him look bad.
The firing of CIA officer Mary McCarthy and the threats of criminal charges against various dissenters are just the latest skirmishes in the political war over who will decide what Americans get to see and hear.
The other signal to Bush’s critics, however, is this: If they ever thought he and his administration would accept accountability for their alleged abuses of power without a nasty fight, those critics are very mistaken.
Hypatia: "Does anyone have the scoop regarding the EU supposedly having investigated and found that McCarthy's claims about black prisons are false?"
ReplyDeleteThe EU has not finished its investigation; a preliminary report shows that European sites were used but their location isn't yet known. The ACLU has brought a case that parallels the European investigation. They've also asked the UN to intervene.
According to the ACLU press release:
Recently, both the Council of Europe and the European Parliament have initiated investigations into European cooperation with the CIA’s practice of extraordinary rendition and secret detention of terrorism suspects on European soil. Poland and Romania are conducting national investigations into the existence of CIA-run “black sites” in their respective countries, and other European governments, including Germany, are conducting public inquiries into the rendition program.
This episode illustrates how the Bush administration has attempted to actually outlaw its opposition. Isn't that a clear hallmark of fascism?
ReplyDeleteImpeachable Offenses
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
Just because the President broke a law, doesn't mean that impeachment should even be seriously considered, much less carried through to conviction and removal from office. Clinton, for example, by his own admission, committed perjury. But, because the underlying matter about which he lied was purely personal, with no bearing on his official duties, and since he lied only because he was caught in a perjury trap, and shouldn't have ever been put in a position of having to answer questions under oath about his personal life anyway, most of the Senate voted, rightly, to acquit. Clinton's motive in lying wasn't to cover up a crime, but merely to spare himself the personal embarrassment of publicly admitting to adultery. Yes, it showed poor judgment to lie under oath anyway, but such a lie about his personal life did not in any way threaten the public with the potential for abuse of the power that they had vested in the President. I think that reasonable people would agree that Presidents should be removed from office only for such threats to democracy, whether or not their actions happen to fit the facts of a crime.
Bush clearly violated the FISA law. But the usual defense offered by his apologists is the very reasonable notion that, because he did nothing that threatens democracy, it is not reasonable to even be considering impeachment for the FISA bypass. They base this on the supposition that the folks actually surveilled by the NSA as a result of the bypass, were indeed legitimate targets of suspicion for involvement in terrorism. Perhaps it showed poor judgement to bypass the FISA judges when they would have granted the necessary warrants to surveil these folks, or to bypass the Congress if the law needed to be changed to allow some sort of preliminary "data mining" step. But if only legitimate terror suspects were actually spied on, then most people would not be in favor of overturning the last election purely on the proceduralist grounds that letting a President get away with violating some laws just because the public interest was still served, puts us on a slippery slope that will soon have them violating laws so as to harm the public interest in order to advance their own.
You may be enough of a purist proceduralist to want to halt very early down the slippery slope. You may think that extra-legal NSA surveillance is so far further down that slippery slope than perjury about adultery, that you're enough of a proceduralist to want to impeach this President, but not Clinton. My point is the practical one that you're not going to get conviction in the Senate, which requires two thirds, and probably not even the simple majority you need for impeachment in the House, on proceduralist grounds alone.
But I think it highly unlikely that the surveillance targets they bypassed FISA for, were indeed folks that many of us would agree were legitimate objects of suspicion for terrorist activity. Precisely because this is the key issue that would disarm critics, and end the scandal, the administration would have long since allowed its Congressional critics to review the list of targets -- if they at all fit any criteria for legitimate suspicion that most of us would agree to. They clearly don't fit such criteria. The list of targets must be radioactive and explosive in its potential impact if ever revealed, or they would have revealed it already.
My conjecture is that the list includes experts on Islam and the Mid-East whose opinions on their area of expertise the administration found threatening to their electoral security, which the administration has a track record of not clearly distinguishing from the national security. These people would be likely to be Arabic or Farsi speakers, with contacts in the region whom they phone on a fairly regular basis. This is bad enough, but the smoking gun is probably the fact that some of these folks became involved advising Democratic candidates in 2002 and 2004. Since all of their conversations would have been tapped after they were put under surveillance, the NSA presumably listened in on some of, say, Kerry's, phone conversations with some of these folks during the 2004 campaign. Were this ever revealed, you wouldn't have to be a proceduralist to vote to convict the President. Even folks like Hatch (who I chose as an example of how far into GOP ranks you would have to get to arrive at 67 votes for conviction) would find it hard to resist voting to convict.
We finally get to the connection with the McCarthy affair. The only effective defense the administration would be able to make were such NSA activities to become public (which might happen if the Dems took over either chamber in 2006), would be a credible prior suspicion of some sort of illegal activity involving national security connected with the Kerry campaign. They would say that McCarthy at least compromised sources and methods in her leaking, even if she did not endanger ongoing operations by revealing locations of prisons or other such operational details, therefore the administration had a legitimate, national security, interest in surveilling in pursuit of her leaks to make sure she wasn't leaking to advisers of the Kerry political campaign she supported, who might in turn reveal things to terrorists that they might find useful. A long, involved train of rationalizations, but all they have to do is give Senators like Hatch a fig leaf, some pretext to justify the vote to acquit that they will want to cast anyway. The earlier they start building the case, the better, thus they polygraph folks in the CIA with known ties to Dem campaigns for leaking behavior, then make a cause celebre of the results of their fishing expedition. I predict that this McCarthy case will go nowhere until and unless they need to bring it forth as part of an impeachment defense after 2006.
Impeachable Offenses
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
Just because the President broke a law, doesn't mean that impeachment should even be seriously considered, much less carried through to conviction and removal from office. Clinton, for example, by his own admission, committed perjury. But, because the underlying matter about which he lied was purely personal, with no bearing on his official duties, and since he lied only because he was caught in a perjury trap, and shouldn't have ever been put in a position of having to answer questions under oath about his personal life anyway, most of the Senate voted, rightly, to acquit. Clinton's motive in lying wasn't to cover up a crime, but merely to spare himself the personal embarrassment of publicly admitting to adultery. Yes, it showed poor judgment to lie under oath anyway, but such a lie about his personal life did not in any way threaten the public with the potential for abuse of the power that they had vested in the President. I think that reasonable people would agree that Presidents should be removed from office only for such threats to democracy, whether or not their actions happen to fit the facts of a crime.
Bush clearly violated the FISA law. But the usual defense offered by his apologists is the very reasonable notion that, because he did nothing that threatens democracy, it is not reasonable to even be considering impeachment for the FISA bypass. They base this on the supposition that the folks actually surveilled by the NSA as a result of the bypass, were indeed legitimate targets of suspicion for involvement in terrorism. Perhaps it showed poor judgement to bypass the FISA judges when they would have granted the necessary warrants to surveil these folks, or to bypass the Congress if the law needed to be changed to allow some sort of preliminary "data mining" step. But if only legitimate terror suspects were actually spied on, then most people would not be in favor of overturning the last election purely on the proceduralist grounds that letting a President get away with violating some laws just because the public interest was still served, puts us on a slippery slope that will soon have them violating laws so as to harm the public interest in order to advance their own.
You may be enough of a purist proceduralist to want to halt very early down the slippery slope. You may think that extra-legal NSA surveillance is so far further down that slippery slope than perjury about adultery, that you're enough of a proceduralist to want to impeach this President, but not Clinton. My point is the practical one that you're not going to get conviction in the Senate, which requires two thirds, and probably not even the simple majority you need for impeachment in the House, on proceduralist grounds alone.
But I think it highly unlikely that the surveillance targets they bypassed FISA for, were indeed folks that many of us would agree were legitimate objects of suspicion for terrorist activity. Precisely because this is the key issue that would disarm critics, and end the scandal, the administration would have long since allowed its Congressional critics to review the list of targets -- if they at all fit any criteria for legitimate suspicion that most of us would agree to. They clearly don't fit such criteria. The list of targets must be radioactive and explosive in its potential impact if ever revealed, or they would have revealed it already.
My conjecture is that the list includes experts on Islam and the Mid-East whose opinions on their area of expertise the administration found threatening to their electoral security, which the administration has a track record of not clearly distinguishing from the national security. These people would be likely to be Arabic or Farsi speakers, with contacts in the region whom they phone on a fairly regular basis. This is bad enough, but the smoking gun is probably the fact that some of these folks became involved advising Democratic candidates in 2002 and 2004. Since all of their conversations would have been tapped after they were put under surveillance, the NSA presumably listened in on some of, say, Kerry's, phone conversations with some of these folks during the 2004 campaign. Were this ever revealed, you wouldn't have to be a proceduralist to vote to convict the President. Even folks like Hatch (who I chose as an example of how far into GOP ranks you would have to get to arrive at 67 votes for conviction) would find it hard to resist voting to convict.
We finally get to the connection with the McCarthy affair. The only effective defense the administration would be able to make were such NSA activities to become public (which might happen if the Dems took over either chamber in 2006), would be a credible prior suspicion of some sort of illegal activity involving national security connected with the Kerry campaign. They would say that McCarthy at least compromised sources and methods in her leaking, even if she did not endanger ongoing operations by revealing locations of prisons or other such operational details, therefore the administration had a legitimate, national security, interest in surveilling in pursuit of her leaks to make sure she wasn't leaking to advisers of the Kerry political campaign she supported, who might in turn reveal things to terrorists that they might find useful. A long, involved train of rationalizations, but all they have to do is give Senators like Hatch a fig leaf, some pretext to justify the vote to acquit that they will want to cast anyway. The earlier they start building the case, the better, thus they polygraph folks in the CIA with known ties to Dem campaigns for leaking behavior, then make a cause celebre of the results of their fishing expedition. I predict that this McCarthy case will go nowhere until and unless they need to bring it forth as part of an impeachment defense after 2006.
From Bart at 10:22PM:
ReplyDelete"I am relying upon the account provided by your leaker to the press. Isn't the presumption here that she is a "truth teller?""
I see nowhere in any 'account' or interview that Ms. McCarthy stated these black sites house solely Al Qaeda operatives. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
"To start, exactly when have you raised these particular points to me in relation to McCarthy's leak?"
Go back up the thread and re-read my comments. Also check through my responses to you directly over the past several threads.
"To the points themselves...
"You don't need a "central registry" of al Qaeda. You capture one al Qaeda and interrogations lead to further al Qaeda and so on and so forth. This is how they take down any criminal organization."
This presupposes (a) the person under interrogation knows anything in the first place and (b) the word of someone held under extreme duress and possibly tortured is really worth anything, which history and simple common sense show it isn't. A person will say quite literally anything under sufficient emotional and physical pressure, even to the point of making convincing enough nonsense up just for relief from it.
Hence the need for external sources of data and hard intelligence. The same reason no lawyer worth their salt will rely *solely* up eye-witness accounts to make their case in court (at least not if they can help it).
"I have previously posted that I was concerned about the cases of the ten Gitmoe prisoners who were allegedly still being held after being found not to be illegal combatants in the hearing required by the Geneva Conventions. I simply do not know why they are still being held. However, what exactly does this have to do with the other al Qaeda prisons?"
I can't believe you actually wrote this, if only because its so stupidily obvious.
The reason to be concerned is that given the Bush Administration has proven itself inclined to continue to hold those already determined to be innocent of any crime or ciminal association, what guarantee is there that those held at these black sites in Europe haven't themselves already been determined as innocent? With no mechanisms of oversight or legal recourse in place, no such guarantees are possible. And with such sites sufficiently outside the law as to be untouchable, what is to stop the Administration (now or in the future) from simply 'disappearing' other political enemies into them?
Re: the 'evidence' of McCarthy's bias:
"However, this circumstantial case keeps getting stronger. We now know that McCarthy did not make similar leaks when she disagreed with her Democratic President when he was essentially committing murder by bombing a plant and killing a security guard without sufficient evidence in her opinion. However, she has no trouble leaking top secret information about perfectly legal detention facilities with which she disagrees when the President is a Republican."
Ironically, while the circumstantial evidence against her is 'strong' (whatever that determination means), actual evidence she knew or could have known about the black sites is so thin as to be nonexistant. As Larry Johnson points out on his own weblog, she wasn't involved in the Operations Directorate, but in the Intelligence/Analytic side; precisely how she found out about those sites has yet to be spelled out. So, again, let's all withhold judgement here.
As to her 'objections' over the Sudan cruise missile attack in 1998 - which if I recall was in retaliation for the Al Qaeda bombing of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya - I haven't read or heard any account she raised any prior to the operation's execution. And in any event, this is a case of 'false equivalence' as the attack itself was executed and ended with the firing of the missiles *and* President Clinton publically admitted to the operation and made no effort to either disavow or redirect responsibility for it. The fact it apparently accomplished nothing of military or practical value makes it mildly embarrassing, but not criminal.
By contrast, these "perfectly legal detention facilities" (your own words) are a matter of ongoing policy, even if the President won't actually admit responsibility for them, that fit nowhere under US Statute that I am aware of (please don't start with the Article II defense; that's become a dead horse that only you buy into anymore) and whose operation very possibly are a direct violation of both the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture, both of which the US is a signatory to.
Credit where it's due, Bart. You tried, and at least you didn't insult our intelligence further by trying to answer the last points I raised.
The Ugly American said...
ReplyDeleteI firmly believe we have been and continue to be the greatest nation in the world.
What I think Ender is you are insane. One of us certainly must be.
Yet who among us today would condone the practice of keeping our crazy Aunt Ethel chained to a bed in the basement?
The most worrisome aspect of these revelations has to do with the credibility of the "Air Force One is next" message. It is described clearly as a threat, not a friendly warning — but if so, why would the terrorists send the message? More to the point, how did they get the code-word information and transponder know-how that established their mala fides?
ReplyDeleteThat knowledge of code words and presidential whereabouts and possession of secret procedures indicates that the terrorists may have a mole in the White House — that, or informants in the Secret Service, F.B.I., F.A.A. or C.I.A. If so, the first thing our war on terror needs is an Angleton-type counterspy.
The above is from William Safire's 9/13/01 column. The leaker of this lie was most likely Cheney. It was leaked (can you leak a lie?) to explain why Bush disappeared on 9/11. The whole thing was quietly dropped a few weeks later.
I am surprised by republicans who don't trust the government to do anything right will, when it comes to war, say, "I believe."
pmain keeps singing the top-hit songs of the Republican Mighty Wurlitzer:
ReplyDelete... inadvertently releasing the identity of a non-covert CIA employee using her maiden name,...
She was a NOC. Most dangerous job in the CIA. Deal with it. And the "crime" wasn't revealing her maiden name (no matter how many times Novakula tries to make it so). It was revealing that she worked for the CIA.
HTH. But it probably won't.
Cheers,
With Bush in the white house and the repubs controlling everything, we have adopted the tactics of our "enemy" in the persuit of the "war on terror". Torture, rendition, holding American citizens without charge, wars of agression. To support this administration is to support all of the above which is the exact opposite of what America is supposed to be.
ReplyDeleteLame-ass excuse for hypocrisy #1:
ReplyDeleteTwo major differences here:
1) Franklin's criminal activity was plainly intended to aid Israel, not for partisan political reasons. I'll let others determine whether criminal activity harming national security is worse when committed for Israel or to regain power for the Dems.
"Circulus in demonstrando" is not a valid argument. McCarthy may, and almost assuredly does, have reasons other than simple desire to help Democrats for her leak. Simply repeating it as fact is a fallacy. But also just as wrong in this purported 'argument' is the assumption that "crim[es] ... committed for Israel" are not political in nature. Just different 'parties', that's all.... But nice of HWSNBN to extol the political edge of the Likud party as being in the highest 'national interest'. Goes a step beyond "what's good for GM is good for the country", don't you think?
Cheers,
This is too funny:
ReplyDelete"those critics would be wise to remember that the alternative road leads to the continued oppression of hundreds of millions of people and the continued festering of the pathologies that led to 9/11."
This is the same bs we have been hearing all along from this administration. It's their way or the other way, which leads to distruction. To suggest this is not only foolish, it closes off debate and virtually garentees failure. Flexible and open to suggestions they are not and it is proving disaterous. It is this black and white, my way or the highway crap that makes them look so foolish as the "circle of suporters" grows smaller and smaller. It is not lack of resolve that shrinks the circle, it is acknowlegement of failure of policy. Some of us have been saying bush's strategy was wrong form the begining and have been proven right. Thus the circle grows smaller leaving less and less inhabitants that look increasingly foolish holding onto their neo-con dreams.
Ugly:
ReplyDeleteI love that you attempt to use a (terminally shortsighted) article written by someone who was trapped in a gulag to defend an administration which uses gulags. Fuh-nee.
Ugly,
ReplyDeleteGo ahead and re-read my post and tell me where it says anything about gulags comming. My post was about something different than that but I can't say that I am suprised that you did not discuss it. Placing yourself within the dwindling circle would confirm what many here already know. You look silly holding firm to a philosophy that has ever fewer suporters as its efects are proving disasterous. When not ONE administraton critic has escaped being smeared as unpatriotic, politically motivated or just bitter, you lose all creditibilty as we know no one person or policy is perfect. You are like the Iraqi general that was saying, "We are winning" as Bagdad fell.