John Amato astutely asks an excellent question: why are all of the Bush supporters celebrating the unauthorized leak to the Daily News of the FBI's arrests of alleged terrorists who were talking in Internet chat rooms about blowing up the Holland Tunnel (later news reports indicated that the plot was really aimed at the PATH commuter train)?
One Bush follower after the next who has been furiously protesting the publication of leaks by the NYT and other newspapers -- almost all of whom has accused the NYT of treason, of providing aid and comfort to their Al Qaeda friends, etc. for reporting leaked classified information -- have written today about this leaked story. But all of them are ecstatic over this story, celebrating it as a great and heroic blow for the Bush administration and as proof that The Terrorists really are the Epic Threat they've been claiming. And almost none of them are protesting the unauthorized leak, let alone calling for the reporters and editors at the Daily News to be sent to gas chambers or put in federal prison for the rest of their lives.
Their celebratory reaction to this leak is particularly noteworthy given that the Daily News article itself acknowledged that its source told it that the leaked law enforcement investigation "is an ongoing operation." And the FBI claims that this leak has jeopardized foreign intelligence sources:
It is not, of course, merely the leaker who "compromised the FBI's relationship with some foreign intelligence services," but also the Daily News for publishing the story. And yet those who claim to be so offended by leaks from the NYT, along with USA Today and The Washington Post, aren't decrying this leak at all. Instead, they are celebrating it.
Disclosure of the bomb plot coincided with the one-year anniversary of a terrorist bomb attack on London subways and a bus that killed 52 and injured about 700. Authorities said they hadn't intended to release details about the plot this early and that whoever leaked the information had compromised the FBI's relationship with some foreign intelligence services.
The person who leaked the details is clearly someone who doesn't understand the fragility of international relations,'' Mershon said. "We've had a number of uncomfortable questions and some upsetment (sic) with these foreign intelligence services that had been working with us on a daily basis.''
The only discernible difference between the leaks of the NYT and this leak is that the NYT leaks (as well as those of USA Today and The Washington Post) resulted in political embarrassment for the President. Those leaks resulted in reports that the President was breaking the law when eavesdropping on American citizens, or creating secret, lawless gulags in Eastern Europe, or compiling massive data bases of all domestic calls placed and received by Americans with no oversight or Congressional authorization. None of those leaked stories depicted the President as a Hero or glorified the administration. They were thus attacked as treasonous by the President's followers.
But this leak to the Daily News glorifies the administration and depicts them as caped crusaders protecting us from evil terrorism. And thus, the President's followers love this leak and their rage towards journalists who publish classified information -- along with their demands that they be imprisoned, or worse -- sure do seem to have evaporated into thin air.
This is not the first time this has happened. There have been plenty of leaks of classified information in the past which reflect well on the administration -- which depict them as our heroic protectors -- and which therefore provoke no protest at all from Bush followers. It is only the leaks which result in political embarrassment for the President that provoke their ire. Their accusations of treason against American journalists and their demands that they be prosecuted and imprisoned have nothing to do with concerns over national security and everything to do with punishing anyone and anything which harms the administration's political interests.
What other proof is required to demonstrate what is really motivating these extremely selective attacks on leaks? Unlike the other leaks (the bad ones which ended up in the treasonous NYT and Washington Post) which resulted in no demonstrable security damage of any kind, this leak to the Daily News at least preliminarily seems to have harmed national security. Yet it also results in potential political benefits for Republicans (and any doubt about tjat will be quickly dispelled by reading the posts linked to above, where this leaked story is immediately exploited to claim that Republicans are right and Democrats wrong about all national security and terrorism matters). Given the political benefits which Bush supporters believe come from this leak, the leak is celebrated -- and exploited -- rather than condemnend by those who relentlessly claim to detest leaks not for any partisan reason but only out of solemn devotion to the security of the United States.
One last point: Anyone arguing that this story is somehow proof that the President was right to engage in illegal eavesdropping or oversight-less monitoring of domestic calls and banking transactions -- and virtually all Bush followers are making that very point -- is indulging rank illogic. The President is fully empowered to eavesdrop on the conversations of terrorists or monitor their banking transactions while complying with the law and with oversight, and nobody argues that he should not be allowed to do that. Thus, anyone arguing that this story illustrates the need for surveillance is fighting a strawman, since nobody is against surveillance.
Nobody is complaining that the President is eavesdropping or monitoring terrorists, only that he refusing to abide by the law and submit to oversight when doing so. Isn't that point well-established enough by now that people ought to be embarrassed to pretend not to know it, and instead to act on the blatantly false premise that Bush critics are opposed to surveillance itself?
UPDATE: The blogger Catnip chronicles more reaction by Bush supporters to this leak, reactions which are conspicuously free of venom towards the Daily News, but which take the opportunity to claim that this constitutes further proof that the ultimate evil lies in the New York Times.
Because leaking a story about an alleged foiled attempt to blow something up supports the main RNC talking point: this administration is doing everything it can (lawlessly or otherwise) to disrupt the terrorists.
ReplyDelete"See? It's working."
We will see much more of this as we get closer to November.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteWell maybe because it doesn’t list & name a specific program used to foil the terrorists activities, just the end results or maybe because it wasn’t published solely to embarrass the administration, but to actually inform the public of measured steps being taken to insure their protection. What terrorist plot was prevented by the mentioning of the SWIFT database again? Oh that's right, a perfectly legal & useful program was outed in a pathetic effort to deface the Bush Administration – once again showing the left’s preference over public safety to political sabotage & political gain. Glenn will argue it was well known at the time of publication, but cannot supply one blogged post or major newspaper article about SWIFT’s identity or one that shows or mentions the program by name & its use to identify terrorists prior to the NYT & LAT articles - discounting an obscure & mostly unread UN file & a brief mention in the 9/11 Comission Report. Meanwhile the backlash on the NYT is affecting its subscription numbers & stock value, while Bush’s poll numbers are going no where but up!
[i]but cannot supply one blogged post or major newspaper article about SWIFT’s identity [/i]
ReplyDeleteI suppose SWIFT's own website does not count, then?
[i]but cannot supply one blogged post or major newspaper article about SWIFT’s identity [/i]
ReplyDeleteI suppose SWIFT's own website does not count, then?
"The only discernible difference... ...resulted in political embarrassment for the President"
ReplyDeleteI choked on the above Glenn, but was glad to see you did point out farther down the important distinction that the embattled leaks "resulted in no demonstrable security damage of any kind".
What's the diffrence between calling it the SWIFT program, and constantly hinting that we should "follow the money" for 5 years? Nothing.
ReplyDeleteLeaking about the government breaking the law vs leaking about a foreign on-going investigation. Those can't be compared.
Subscription numbers vs probable poll numbers of controlled leaks? Forget about it.
"Why are Bush supporters celebrating today's leak of classified information?"
ReplyDeleteThey need a major distraction from the vote fraud in Mexico (with repug help of course), the deteriorating situation in iraq, the many republican criminal prosecutions, the fact CIA is letting OBL off-the-hook, the economy...
I could go on-and-on, but will pare you.
A great summing up of what I suspect many of us have been thinking.
ReplyDelete(Meanwhile, speaking of conservative hypocrisy, will Fox dare call Coulter out on her plagiarism? Her pal Hannity ducked the issue entirely yesterday, and while Colmes confronted her on a few of her hypocritical statements, I believe he ducked the plagiarism issue as well. A few major outlets seem to be picking it up, though...)
Draft Glenn Greenwald, for Congress.
ReplyDelete"resulted in no demonstrable security damage of any kind".
ReplyDeleteDo lawsuits to shut the program down count as demonstrable security damage?
I say it does.
It was not reported in the original story today that the leak had caused damage to the FBI's investigation. Otherwise, it would have been seen in a different light.
I'm sorry that we on the right don't buy your claim that the left wants surveillance. The FISA court system cannot possibly work for datamining. You can't issue a million warrants a day. The FISA Court may work fine 80 percent of the time but other times it is too slow and too burdensome to track terrorists in 2006. To watch the NY Times purposely try to sabotoge a perfectly legal surveillance program was sickening. Your claim that we cannot argue that you are against surveillance rings hollow when you think that only an archaic FISA warrant system can get the job done.
The Daily News story on its face appears to be good news: terrorist plot foiled. Let's hope that's the case.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't help but think that this is probably another fake or highly misrepresented "aspirational" vs. "operational" plot that was found in an internet chat room.
For those who are shouting TREASON! from the rooftops for stories that interfere with thier fantasy world, these foiled plot stories don't add to your credibility when you don't acknowledge that they are a breach of national security. As it was in this case.
PMan squeaks and leaks...
ReplyDeleteGlenn will argue it was well known at the time of publication, but cannot supply one blogged post or major newspaper article about SWIFT’s identity or one that shows or mentions the program by name & its use to identify terrorists prior to the NYT & LAT articles - discounting an obscure & mostly unread UN file & a brief mention in the 9/11 Comission Report.
Does this from Defense Tech, (the future of the military, law enforcement and national security), count? Apparently the reporting, going back as far as 2001, was far more revealing, detailed and in depth than anything in the NYTimes. Luckily for us the "terrists" aren't any brighter than you. That's no comfort since the Bush administration ain't as bright as the "terrists".
White House NYT Bashers: Hypocrites
"Since 9/11, nobody -- and I mean nobody -- has done more reporting on the government's attempts to track terrorists through their data trails than the National Journal's Shane Harris. (The guy ate Spam and knocked back Tequizas with John Poindexter, for chrissake!) So I couldn't be more psyched to welcome Shane to the Defense Tech family. This is the first of what I hope will be a long string of posts for the site...."
"Why are Bush supporters celebrating today's leak of classified information?"
ReplyDeleteBecause they are going to use it in the war against the New York Times by claiming that if this investigation hadn’t been started before the New York Times published its treasonous articles, then it would have been successful.
For them, it will be proof positive that the Times must be shut down, and its employees prosecuted.
How many of them will even acknowledge your point that this was a leak that jeopardized an ongoing investigation? I don’t think any will.
No they’ll go directly to their “red meat” talking point about how the New York Times leak (not this leak) crippled the investigation.
The facts be damned, full speed ahead. The Times must be shut down.
Anonymous:
ReplyDelete"Your claim that we cannot argue that you are against surveillance rings hollow when you think that only an archaic FISA warrant system can get the job done."
FISA is the constitutional framework to obtain warrants for our government to institute surveillance of US citizens suspected of wrongdoing. I'm sorry that you feel that the fourth amendment is archaic. That amendment is one of the most important legs in the chair of our system of government. Shooting it out from under us because it is inconvenient makes people that don't agree with your position flabergasted and angry.
Data mining itself CAN be allowed through the FISA court. The governemnt doesn't have to ask for individual warrants for each nugget of data. They can explain to the court the purpose of the proposed surviellance and then the court can then decide whether or not to issue the warrant.
It's not hard. And, our constitution demands that we do it in a manner that satisfies the fourth amendment.
Your claim that we cannot argue that you are against surveillance rings hollow when you think that only an archaic FISA warrant system can get the job done.
ReplyDeleteYou are (intentionally!?) mischaracterizing the liberal argument here.
If the current law doesn't work, then change the law - but whatever the law, the president should follow it.
Well done. I thought the exact same thing when I read that article, but you beat me to the punch. Their capacity for hypocrisy is virtually limitless.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry that we on the right don't buy your claim that the left wants surveillance. The FISA court system cannot possibly work for datamining. You can't issue a million warrants a day. The FISA Court may work fine 80 percent of the time but other times it is too slow and too burdensome to track terrorists in 2006. To watch the NY Times purposely try to sabotoge a perfectly legal surveillance program was sickening. Your claim that we cannot argue that you are against surveillance rings hollow when you think that only an archaic FISA warrant system can get the job done.
ReplyDeleteEvery single query ran across the database can be logged and provided to FISA for verification... TRUST .. but VERIFY ... At least that is what an honest person would do... but for some suspicious reason they want everything secret even from Americans themselves... that doesnt smell right...
I'm sorry that we on the right don't buy your claim that the left wants surveillance. The FISA court system cannot possibly work for datamining. You can't issue a million warrants a day. The FISA Court may work fine 80 percent of the time but other times it is too slow and too burdensome to track terrorists in 2006. To watch the NY Times purposely try to sabotoge a perfectly legal surveillance program was sickening. Your claim that we cannot argue that you are against surveillance rings hollow when you think that only an archaic FISA warrant system can get the job done.
ReplyDeleteEvery single query ran across the database can be logged and provided to FISA for verification... TRUST .. but VERIFY ... At least that is what an honest person would do... but for some suspicious reason they want everything secret even from Americans themselves... that doesnt smell right...
Any leak that makes Bush look bad is treason. Any leak that helps him or makes him look good is Important Information That The Public Needs To Know.
ReplyDeletePolitically Lost said...
ReplyDeleteThe Daily News story on its face appears to be good news: terrorist plot foiled. Let's hope that's the case.
It's already been debunked as political fear-mongering nonsense.
I'm sorry that we on the right don't buy your claim that the left wants surveillance.
Nobody wants it, left or right. Why did we have the Cold war, again? Remind us.
Jon Stewart's take down of the Miami seven debunked that story.
ReplyDeleteLooks like he'll have some more material.
jay c: "Rank illogic" about nails it, Glenn
ReplyDeleteOnly from the point of view of someone with integrity. And that should be the main point: these people have no integrity.
You can talk about how 'irrational', 'self-contradictory', 'illogical' or otherwise defective these people's arguments are for centuries.
But it doesn't matter.
The bottom line is: they have no integrity. They will use whatever suits them to make their point. They will discard whatever suits them to make their point. Without regard to the truth. Without regard to anything except their objective: to stay in power.
From that point of view, these people's actions and arguments are very rational, consistent and logical.
It simply lacks any integrity, honor, or common decency.
Oops.
ReplyDeleteYou got me, Glenn, I must confess.
I did somehow skip right over the part where this story was said to be leaked. Perhaps it is because the Daily News story I read didn't say anything about leaks and didn't use the NY Times shorthand for leaker we've come to know so well, anonymous sources., and instead, simply attributed the story to "sources" and "counterterrorism officials."
I was sloppy in reading this, and I admit it.
Now that I'm back from my aunt's funeral, and know that it is an unauthorized leak (as upon further review, it most certainly appears to be), I think Allison Gendar and James Gordon Meek and their employer, the Daily News, should be investigated, and the "government officials" and "sources" who leaked this information should be prosecuted.
They apparently caught one guy, but the other plotters know know they are being hunted. This is completely unacceptable.
I apologize for letting a death in the family distract me, and you have my sincere apologies.
Bob Owens
Confederate Yankee Blog
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/
The end is power so all means are justified. America can still be all powerful and retain some integrity. It's likely to hold onto that power longer and not let it corrupt so completely and absolutely.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, you are a silly whore to the Islamofascists. Will you do us a favor and commit an honor killing of yourself?
ReplyDeleteMuch obliged.
Bob Owens
ReplyDeleteConfederate Yankee Blog
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/
I think Allison Gendar and James Gordon Meek and their employer, the Daily News, should be investigated, and the "government officials" and "sources" who leaked this information should be prosecuted.
We all want the Bush/Cheney administration investigate and prosecuted. When did you that invasive manipulative procedure with the crowbar to alleviate the severe crani-anal impaction you were suffering from?
confederate: Take a look at the RawStory article:
ReplyDelete“The so-called New York tunnel plot was a result of discussions held on an open Jihadi web site,” said Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer and contributor to American Conservative magazine, in a late Friday afternoon conversation. Although Giraldi acknowledges that the persons involved – “three of whom have already been arrested in Lebanon and elsewhere - are indeed extremists," their online chatter is considerably overblown by allegations of an actual plot.
Typical disinformation and propaganda from an administration so corrupt that it speaks not only out of both sides of its corporate mouth but its a** as well.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteGlenn, you are a silly whore to the Islamofascists. Will you do us a favor and commit an honor killing of yourself?
Much obliged.
Are Ann Malkin's flying monkey hit squads interminably lost when they leave the confines of the militia compound or did they forget how to hotwire the pick-up truck again?
[[The FISA court system cannot possibly work for datamining. You can't issue a million warrants a day.]]
ReplyDeleteFirst, this isn't how FISA works w/r/t datamining.
Second, when I want you to forfeit my constitutional rights FOR ME, I'll let you know. 'Til then I expect you to expect our governmental officials to follow the law, and to seek appropriate changes through appropriate venues if they think change is needed.
Third, I stopped taking this whole episode seriously the moment I understood it was predicated on terrorists so evil they could make the Hudson River flow uphill.
Jeebus.
Mr. Greenwald, Your making a habit of exposing Right Wing Hypocrits.
ReplyDeletePlease, keep up the good work!
Glenn is on the Majority Report right now!!!
ReplyDeleteThe interviewer (Jon Elliott) was interesting. (Sam Seder is filling in for Al Franken.) He didn't ask questions that would have allowed Glenn to run with a question. Glenn can clearly talk...he's a lawyer!!! Therefore, let him. Set him up and he's knock 'em down.
ReplyDeleteIn spite of that, Glenn did a great job. Keep up the great work Glenn!
Where's the Outrage?
You're right that the leaker did a bad thing. I am a Bush supporter and the Daily News should be in trouble JUST LIKE THE TREASONOUS NEW YORK TIMES. BTW you seem more upset about the reaction to the story than the plot. Why am I not surprised? Partisan hack.
ReplyDeleteronnie: ... deranged death-obsessed lunatics are coming here ...
ReplyDeleteIOW 8-Legged Freaks 2.
Your link on the word "ecstatic" leads to the little green footballs post, but the entirety of his comment is:
ReplyDeleteFeds Say Terror Plot Targeted Train Tunnels
A report at Fox says that the terror plot disrupted by the FBI was directed not at the Holland Tunnel, but at the PATH train system.
{quote from fox news story redacted for space]
UPDATE at 7/7/06 9:35:05 am:
Did the New York Times’ exposure of the SWIFT program jeopardize the tunnel bombing investigation? What the New York Times Has Wrought.
[quote from the spectator redacted for space]
This quite simply does not live up to your description of it as "ecstatic".
Hey! LGF readers. Give my best to Iron Fist. His service at our table last night at Red Lobster was exemplary. Those who stand and wait also serve! We salute you busboys, dishwashers and waiters from Sizzler and the Red Lobster. Keep up the good work in the fight against Islamofascism!
ReplyDeleteBad Penny... This quite simply does not live up to your description of it as "ecstatic".
ReplyDeletePlease contact our refund dept. We will get you a refund immediately. One good penny.
HWSNBN was touting this "success" and citing the methods, etc. on the last thread. I called him on this hypocrisy there. Let's see fi he keeps it up here....
ReplyDeletepmain:
ReplyDeleteWell maybe because it doesn’t list & name a specific program used to foil the terrorists activities, ...
Oh, you mean, they didn't say they caught wind of this by monitoring chat groups and were ready to monitor any financial transcations using SWIFT? Good thing they didn't, eh? Oh. Nevermind.
Cheers,
As someone trained in the 'dark arts', I shall be proud to join this group. Over on LGF (Little Green Footballs) we've been having a good groupthink about torture techniques to get the 411 out of captured Terrorists. I am also a professional cook (5 years at Red Lobster).
ReplyDeletePosted by: Iron Fist, LGF at January 9, 2005 07:37 PM
pmain continues his cluelessness:
ReplyDeleteWhat terrorist plot was prevented by the mentioning of the SWIFT database again?
Huh? What (alleged) "terrorist plot' was "prevented" by publishing this latest little tid-bit to fluff the maladministration?
Cheers,
Horowitz! Brain Bleach, Stat!
ReplyDeleteGuapo Di Peepo!
anonymousL
ReplyDelete[i]but cannot supply one blogged post or major newspaper article about SWIFT’s identity [/i]
To italicise, you need to put angle brackets around it as such:
<i>text to be italicised</i>
Same goes for bold, but use "b" rather than "i".
HTH.
Cheers,
Iron Fist's blog...
ReplyDeleteBwahahahaha!
Business must be booming at Red Lobster. He's doing double shifts. No time to blog. Or he's trying to think and nothing is happening.
ka-bar said...
ReplyDeleteHorowitz is such a joke.
Hey ka-bar.
JT here. Being anonymously obnoxious.
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteThe FISA Court may work fine 80 percent of the time but other times it is too slow and too burdensome to track terrorists in 2006....
According to who??? Any evidence?
... To watch the NY Times purposely try to sabotoge a perfectly legal surveillance program was sickening....
They didn't sabotage it.
... Your claim that we cannot argue that you are against surveillance rings hollow when you think that only an archaic FISA warrant system can get the job done.
As Glenn has pointed out, Dubya refused to ask for even minor changes in the law. But if he asks for more authority and gets it, he'd be legal (providing not 4th Am. bars to the programs). Instead, as Glenn has repeatedly pointed out, he just ignored the law and violated it, rather than trying to get it "fixed" to his satisfaciton. I suspect the "oversight" stuff is part of his recitence.
Cheers,
The major is correct. We must fight them on the bridges so we don't have to fight them in the tunnels.
ReplyDeleteFight them in the streets so we don't have to fight them on the sidewalk! Blood on the sidewalk is a hazard.
ReplyDeleteGlenn can't say, "Excuse me, this isn't Fox News, like Lamont said to Joe Loserman."
ReplyDeleteHe's destroying Horroshitz. High pitched WATBaby voice. Draft Glenn Greenwald for Congress.
ka-bar said...
ReplyDeleteHorowitz is embarrassing himself.
More than usual. Glenn is not the guy you want to go up against. trained litigator, with an incisive mind like a razor that will catch you in a steel trap.
Pamela @ Atlas Jugs is David Horrorshitz love child. Who's the mom?
ReplyDeleteOh my gosh. Horowitz is so retarded that it's sad to hear him talking...
ReplyDeleteGlenn, you rock, seriously. Keep it up!
He primes the pump and hangs back and lets him gush. The Alan Colmes has David crying, and Alan is a lightweight.
ReplyDeleteka-bar said...
ReplyDeleteHe just called Glenn an enemy of America.
One note johnny, er... david.
These guys are pathetic dupes. The Bush-Cheney cabal is using them like old dishrags. All this stuff is totally politically motivated, aimed at polls and fund raising, and the Instapies, Coulters and Malkins are just shovelin' manure. We'll be getting stories about jihadists threatening to blow something up once a week until November 8th. The only amusing part of this fiasco part is that the nattering piss pants bloggers think they're in cahoots with the Bush crew while the Bush crew realizes those saps are out in the stable pushing horseshit around.
ReplyDeleteGuapo Di Peepo is bizarre.
ReplyDeleteThis is just silly. Let's just round them up and put them in a place for the mentally unstable. It's the civilized thing to do.
ReplyDeleteles izmore... The only amusing part of this fiasco part is that the nattering piss pants bloggers think they're in cahoots with the Bush crew while the Bush crew realizes those saps are out in the stable pushing horseshit around.
ReplyDeleteDitto!
Just kidding...
I think that the reason you witness a more violent reaction toward the NYT is the fact that they have a well established history of leaking stories, but only those which can be framed in such a way that it is damaging to the Bush adminsitration. This leads to (well founded, IMO) suspicions of partisan editorial judgement.
ReplyDeleteAnd, for what its worth, I don't think that either of the conservative posts you linked to can be objectively described as "celebratory". To the extent that there is any hint of celebratory language, it appears to be with respect to the fact that our government has thwarted a terrorist plot rather than the fact that yet another national security secret has been leaked.
ej said...
ReplyDeleteThe NY Times Travel Section twisted the arm of Donald Rumsfeld, according to Rocco Dipippo. Poor Mr. Rumsfeld just had to give his permission to publish the story, otherwise he would have looked mean...or something.
This is the guy who....
Rumsfeld agreed but complained. "I find it strange," he said to the investigators, on the grounds that as a government official "the laws apply to me" anyway.
Rocco is dumber than his name makes him sound.
I'm not trying to make any sort of point, BUT the Air America interview was a smooth stream -- without a blip -- on my dinly little dialup service. On the other hand, the Fox feed only got me every third word between tons of buffering.
ReplyDeleteAny posibility that some kind soul could give quick summary of the Fox interview. Don't go to any bother for me -- but if someone is thinking about doing it -- maybe link it here :)
I really enjoyed the first interview, even though it was far too short for me.
Thanks for all you do Glenn.
Anonymous @ 12:05 said...
ReplyDeleteI can't agree with what you say unless I try to put myself in the mindset of someone who reads The Turner Diaries and celebrates the OKC Murrah bldg. bombing. Then I can sorta wrap my warped brain around it.
Dorita,
ReplyDeleteMaybe Glenn can get a transcript, but there was so much crosstalk and interruptions of Glenn it may be unclear. The beauty part, he just primed them, they gushed and really hung themselves. That's not partisan, or biased. That's a fact.
They hung themselves with their own words and they sounded like whackos. Glenn never does. Always cool and composed.
And Glenn was polite, they were not. No one should go up against Glenn without an attorney present.
ReplyDelete"Isn't is funny/strange how the one big theme unifying these right-wing nutjobs is fear, as in fear of invisible terrorists, fear of Muslims, fear of Arabs, fear of Iranians, fear of leaking whistleblowers, fear of "liberal" journalists and media sources, fear of "extremist" Democrats, ... fear, ... fear, ... fear, ... fear, ... fear, ... fear, ... fear, ... fear, ... fear, ... fear, ..."
ReplyDeleteWow. Talk about strawmen!
I sure someone has already caught this, but a "reasonable" commenter states:
ReplyDeletea more violent reaction toward the NYT is the fact that they have a well established history of leaking stories . . .
That explains so much.
I listened to the Glenn/David Horowitz debate. I was in a state of shock. I never heard Horowitz speak before and was prepared to be underwhelmed, but I was not prepared for a raving lunatic, a deranged fool who belongs on the inside of an insane asylym. He kept denying he had said certain things, and then when countered with evidence he had said those exact words, changed his story. I was visualizing foam coming out of his mouth. Why would anyone familiar with him listen to or read a word he says or writes?
ReplyDeleteI really don't think this is a political story. It's obvious the man is insane and deranged. The only question is how a person so disturbed got into a position to be heard by anyone other than a few late stage psychopaths in some mental ward.
Glenn was good, and kept his cool as always, and was quite polite despite unbelievable provocation.
Frightening.
Anonymous... fear, ... fear, ... fear, ... fear, ..."
ReplyDeleteWow. Talk about strawmen!
Scarecrows are scary, if you are a crow.
Pantywaist Liberals.
ReplyDeleteFear of the Patriot Act, fear of George Bush, fear of Karl Rove, fear of racial profiling, fear of NSA wiretaps, fear of phone companies datamining, fear of SWIFT, fear of right wing media, fear of Rush Limbaugh, fear of Ann Coulter, fear of Littlegreenfootballs, fear holding journalists accountable for treason, fear of morality, fear of christians, fear of god.
Pantywaist liberals.
EWO .... Frightening.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to sanity. I hope you can stay awhile. It's not so bad here. You can always get drunk, do crazy shit for nite and wake up feeling like crap but otherwise normal in the AM.
ej said...
ReplyDeleteEveryone, Rocco wants us to talk about Sulzberger's teddy bear. I'll start.
Nice teddy bear. Pretty teddy bear.
That's no teddy bear. It's the Chewbacca defense!
Thanks anon. I think I will be able to listen to it later; I may even run up to work tomorrow.
ReplyDeletein my last comment -- sorry s/b "I'm"
Last thing -- it's always interesting to see the LGF types out of their habitat.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletePantywaist Liberals.
Fear of the Patriot Act, fear of George Bush, fear of Karl Rove, fear of racial profiling, fear of NSA wiretaps, fear of phone companies datamining, fear of SWIFT, fear of right wing media, fear of Rush Limbaugh, fear of Ann Coulter, fear of Littlegreenfootballs, fear holding journalists accountable for treason, fear of morality, fear of christians, fear of god.
Pantywaist liberals.
Not afeared of "terrists". And you are fighting them how? By wetting your fucking pants and giving into an oppressive and intrusive big government like the Soviet union? Big man.
There, there. Don't cry. Stand behind Mommy.
We should be thankful that George W. Bush is protecting us. Who knows how many people would of died if they blew up that tunnell...
ReplyDeleteMister, PLEASE do yourself a favor... go back to school and learn to write and spell properly before you embarrass yourself again. You and your illiterate Chief could use a few lessons. A lesson we all quickly learned with this Presidency is to never believe anything he says. You should all know by now that this story is purposely "leaked" by Rove and "Ass"ociates right before election time. Anyone who can't see through this should wake up and smell the propaganda. This administration is an insult to all intelligence.
You are welcome, Dorita. :-)
ReplyDeletea more violent reaction toward the NYT is the fact that they have a well established history of leaking stories . . .
That explains so much.
It does.
ka-bar...Well I have to say I do agree with Horowitz on one thing. He is correct... we are at war with our own people.
ReplyDeleteIn many ways, the Revolution sparked a civil war that flared up in 1861 and continues to this day. Politics is like civil war without the bloodshed.
How can they take yet another hypocritical position? Practice, brothers and sisters, practice.
ReplyDeleteBut don't be distressed, because none of this is real. What's important is not the defeat of terrorism or the suffering that we have exported beyond our earshot, conscience, and memory.
What's important is that the Bush family and its allies profit even more than they have in generations past. We need to protect what they have stolen and help them to steal even more, and any sacrifice is justified in pursuit of that goal.
As these greedy, vicious parasites prove time and time again, short-term gains are the only ones they can be sure of. If the timing feels right, it makes sense to burn a little intelligence for transitory advantage. Even if it isn't true that there will be more intelligence where that came from, they believe (with good reason) that they can always manufacture more.
Welcome to sanity. I hope you can stay awhile. It's not so bad here.
ReplyDeleteShirley you don't suggest where you are is sanity? I thought the Major had the humor locked up on this blog....
PS. Feh.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteWhy are Bush supporters celebrating today's leak of classified information?
This is ridiculous.
Maybe I missed something, but exactly what do you allege is classified about the enemy plan, the name of the captured al Qaeda or the location of the capture? Did the President or one of his subordinates classify this information?
There is an quantum difference between the NYT's felony criminal disclosures of multiple United States intelligence gathering programs to the enemy in violation of at least two provisions of the federal criminal code and perhaps also the treason statute and disclosure of unclassified enemy plans to attack the United States.
It is not, of course, merely the leaker who "compromised the FBI's relationship with some foreign intelligence services," but also the Daily News for publishing the story.
The diplomatic embarrassment of the Lebanese being seen cooperating with the United States and perhaps pissing off the Hamas Islamic fascists in that country is hardly a crime.
And yet those who claim to be so offended by leaks from the NYT, along with USA Today and The Washington Post, aren't decrying this leak at all. Instead, they are celebrating it.
Horse hockey. We are celebrating the our government doing its job well in preventing an attack against your city, not the fact of the leak.
The question is why are you not also celebrating this bust?
One last point: Anyone arguing that this story is somehow proof that the President was right to engage in illegal eavesdropping or oversight-less monitoring of domestic calls and banking transactions -- and virtually all Bush followers are making that very point -- is indulging rank illogic. The President is fully empowered to eavesdrop on the conversations of terrorists or monitor their banking transactions while complying with the law and with oversight, and nobody argues that he should not be allowed to do that. Thus, anyone arguing that this story illustrates the need for surveillance is fighting a strawman, since nobody is against surveillance.
You cannot have it both ways.
Either the surveillance is illegal and should presumably be stopped or it is perfectly legal and should be continued.
The lack of oversight argument is similarly nonsense. All the intelligence gathering programs disclosed by the press were previously briefed to Congress and, in the case of the NSA Program, to the FISA Court.
If Congress wanted more information, they only needed to ask. They never did until the program was blown to the enemy and the Donkey anti war base. Then the Donkeys who did not raise a peep for years, all the sudden found high crimes and misdemeanors. What rank hypocrisy.
If Congress was in the least bit upset about any of these programs, they were free to take action to defund them. They continued to fund these programs.
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI think that the reason you witness a more violent reaction toward the NYT is the fact that they have a well established history of leaking stories, but only those which can be framed in such a way that it is damaging to the Bush adminsitration. This leads to (well founded, IMO) suspicions of partisan editorial judgement.
You misspelled "Nixon" there. But I'd point out that the NYT is pretty "non-partisan" (others would say opportunistic); just look at Gerth's hack jobs on Clinton over the Whitewater kerfluffle....
On a more basic level, it's the job of newspapers to hold the gummint's toes to the fire, not to fluff them. They don't need encouragement, believe me, what they really need is a sense of accountability ... and a sense of shame.
Cheers,
ewo, leave it. You have no standing to be critical of anyone. Just leave it, please.
ReplyDeleteanon @ 12:24am said (emphasis mine),
ReplyDeleteFear of the Patriot Act, fear of George Bush, fear of Karl Rove, fear of racial profiling, fear of NSA wiretaps, fear of phone companies datamining, fear of SWIFT, fear of right wing media, fear of Rush Limbaugh, fear of Ann Coulter, fear of Littlegreenfootballs, fear holding journalists accountable for treason, fear of morality, fear of christians, fear of god.
Ah well, you did have something resembling a point...
Regardless, fear is largely the result of incomprehension, and frankly everything you cite the typical liberal comprehends all too well. Eliminationist rhetoric is you and yours little shtick, not ours. You have mistaken fear for what is usually utter and complete disgust.
HWSNBN finally says something that is unarguably true:
ReplyDeleteMaybe I missed something,...
Bingo, Sherlock. We're making progress ... of a sort.
HWSNBN simply doesn't want to inform himself about (or ignores, more likely) the description of the methods used to find this (alleged) plot. Actually, come to think of it, he's a lying sack'o'shite because in fact HWSNBN himself(!) went and disclosed all this stuff in the last thread!
A mind like swiss cheese, HWSNBN has. Can't even remember what he said a half a day earlier.
Cheers,
Actually, I've seen some right-wing concerns based on the idea that this news came out before the authorities could get information on others involved in the plot.
ReplyDeleteBut another DOJ source added something interesting to the mix: “If you go back and look at some of our more successful anti-terrorism cases, they have focused on taking down entire networks. How do we do that? From the inside, peeling off a lead actor, turning him and using him to keep the plot moving forward so we can trace everyone else, the money, the accounts, the weapons dealers, everyone. I’ll just note that we weren’t able to do that with this case and leave it at that. We could have, but we weren’t able to. You’ll have to do the math for the Times.”
They seem to be suggesting that this particular case 'dried up' as a result of the Times' revelations of late, at which point there was nothing to gain from waiting to pull the trigger on it.
Same ol' sh*te from HWSNBN (and it stinks even more than it did last month):
ReplyDeleteYou cannot have it both ways.
Either the surveillance is illegal and should presumably be stopped or it is perfectly legal and should be continued.
No one is "trying to have it both ways". HWSNBN is simply wrong here. As for his attempt to 'reframe the issues', yes, illegal surveillances should not be done (and I hope that HWSNBN, as an officer of the court, agrees with that). The question is whether, when doing surveillances, the gummint should follow the law (if they do not, then the surveillance is illegal by definition). It is not (as Glenn has repeatedly pointed out but HWSNBN ignores) a choice between Dubya's warrantless surveillances and none at all. FISA allows any surveillance the gummint might reasonably want, and even if there are specific types the gummint would like to do but which are (arguably) not permitted, all Dubya had to do was say, "these are the changes I need" when COngress asked him if he needed FISA updated. That he didn't do.
Of course, this is the 387,243rd time this has been pointed out to HWSNBN, and he's ignored it each and every time. But it needs to be said, particularly with all the new guests here (Hi, all you visiting LittleGreenF*ckwits!)....
Cheers,
bart sez,
ReplyDeleteThe diplomatic embarrassment of the Lebanese being seen cooperating with the United States and perhaps pissing off the Hamas Islamic fascists in that country is hardly a crime.
Funny how actions that are unequivocally labelled "compromising" to intelligence gathering by the FBI is merely embarassment yet actions that are yet to be described as anything greater than political embarassment by any non-partisan is somehow criminal and perhaps treasonous.
Very funny indeed.
dorita said...
ReplyDeleteewo, leave it. You have no standing to be critical of anyone. Just leave it, please.
Thanks, Dorita. But, it's cool. EWO and I have been doing this for awhile. He keeps threatening to leave and swearing he won't respond to any anonymous posters, but he's still here, and as you can see, he just did, and if he actually left, or quit responding, I would be inconsolable. :-)
spark said...
ReplyDeleteanon @ 12:24am said (emphasis mine),
Fear of the Patriot Act, fear of George Bush, fear of Karl Rove, fear of racial profiling, fear of NSA wiretaps, fear of phone companies datamining, fear of SWIFT, fear of right wing media, fear of Rush Limbaugh, fear of Ann Coulter, fear of Littlegreenfootballs, fear holding journalists accountable for treason, fear of morality, fear of christians, fear of god.
If that was intended as parody, it was a good. I couldn't really tell, but if it was, the fear of god(sic) was a brilliant stroke. Glad you picked up on that, spark.
I think that many are missing the leak that could have helped prevent the London bombings also. Somebody in the maladministration leaked that we had a mole inside of Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and they new about the plot in London, but because his cover was blown here, all that work was lost as well.
ReplyDeleteIt seems ridiculous to keep arguing over what the Times has divulged about the illegalities being perpetrated by our Prez. The idiots in the White House keep doing things to prove that they are winning the war on a verb, and setting the war back 2 steps everytime they do. As for the bank tracking, I thought that the gov't had already stated that they had nabbed finances they tracked around the world. Unless one is a total idiot, I think one could figure out how they do it.
I like the fear rational. As one Dem president once said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
ReplyDeleteI think this prez is going with we have to fear everything but fear.
The Monster said...
ReplyDeleteActually, I've seen some right-wing concerns
You link to the American Spectator article. That's not right wing. Eisehower is right wing. The American Spectator is extremist. And that's not a partisan opinion.
"Neo-conservative magazine ... set up what was called the Arkansas Project to villify then President Bill Clinton. The principal character at the center of this project was David Brock, who subsequently recanted his allegations, and refers to the project now as "political terrorism". "
dorita said...
ReplyDeleteewo, leave it. You have no standing to be critical of anyone. Just leave it, please.
I may have read funnier things in my life, but I can't remember doing so.
Dorita, I'd go on, but I am laughing too much to type. Check your warranties. I'd say it's time for a reality tune-up.
The thought that a person suffering from grandiose delusions of adequacy like dorita would think she had some position from which to say who has standing and who doesn't dwarfs anything Horowitz said on the radio tonight.
What a hoot.
EWO... The thought that a person suffering from grandiose delusions of adequacy like dorita would think she had some position from which to say who has standing and who doesn't dwarfs anything Horowitz said on the radio tonight.
ReplyDeleteWell that didn't last long, did it? You sound like Horowitz again. Keep trying.
For all the left wing blather and name calling, there seems to be a lack of defense for Glen's mis-characterization of LGF's post,...and it's conspicious by it's abscence.
ReplyDelete“As a sidenote, your blog is horrible. I wandered here by accident and thought to myself, "who actually reads this shit?"
ReplyDeleteD. Ho, Jim Beam keeping you company tonite?
I actually agree with Mr. Hysteria on this one. It proves his point exactly - some of us on the right are very selective in condemning leaks.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I disagree that other leaks from the Times have not damaged our national security. This is especially true of the bank monitoring leak of a program that is legal and actually caught some bad guys. It also apparently shut down other ongoing investigations not to mention exposing our partners in Europe to POLITICAL embarassment. Nor did Mr. Greenwald mention leaks of classified information that were initiated to damage the Administration. Those are the most despicable of all in that they don't harm national security but are generated to give a political advantage to the President's enemies.
But in this case, Greenwald nails it.
Why do the people who believe the NYT leaked a classified program and that leak is criminal,fail to note the nature of the meetings with the government prior to publication?
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone think that Keller went to these meetings without counsel? The NYT is a publically traded corp and it's highly unlikely that their attorneys let the news side meet alone with the gov't and more unlikely that the gov't was without counsel.
Further,the gov't probably made the case that the publication of the story would violate the very laws being cited.If,in fact,both sides were armed,then it seems to me that the gov't made a less than compelling case.
I'd hardly call leaks initiated to damage the president politically the most despicable. The leaking of other classified information, such as the names of covert agents or pending troop movements, can potentially lead to people dying. That's much worse than hurting someone's poll numbers, regardless of his/her political affiliation.
ReplyDeleteI think the double-standard in leak reaction speaks for itself. I think the obviousness of this "Orange Alert," er, I mean "dangerous terrorist plot" being released for political purposes is without question.
ReplyDeleteAs far as core issue of this leak, the "plot" was a joke, so I don't even care it was leaked. And in hindsight, I'm glad it got prematurly leaked so early as to prevent some electioneering benifit like the "Orange Alerts" during the Presidential campaign.
Let's face it, when you read the CIA comments in a few articles about this blow-up, reading between the lines you get the impression the CIA thinks this case is a joke. Honestly, it looks to be (basicially) a bunch of terrorist-wannabes who are the equivalent of the 101st Fighting Keyboarists -- mama's boys posting from their mother's basements.
Think about it. Terrorists in an internet chat room on a Jihadi web-site for tough-talking, do-nothings? Sure, most of these guys are criminals, but they sound like Islamic Freepers, not real hard-core, trained terrorists.
Moses,
ReplyDeleteYou hit the nail on the head -- tbese boneheads couldn't even figure out that blowing up the Holland Tunnel wasn't going to flood Wall St. (which is at a higher altitude).
This story is just another example of the Miami 7, Brooklyn Bridge Blowtorch, etc. faux terrorist BS. If this is the best al Qaeda's got -- what the hell are we still doing worrying about them? I mean, even Richard Reid was so stupid as to try to light his shoelaces in his seat -- why not just walk into the bathroom for a little privacy?
It seems to me that the remaining vestiges of al Qaeda are a cross between "Fitness Celebrity" Osama bin Laden and a crew of Barney Fifes.
Wow...seriously...I have not read a more idiotic post anywhere on the web.
ReplyDeleteGlenn...it looks like you won the race to the bottom.
Congrats
Well, gosh, do you think the Lebanese goverment and intelligence service may be a little embarassed and face some internal problems because they co-operated with the US
ReplyDeletePerhaps, perhaps not. They requested FBI assistance in the investigation of the failed hit on reporter May Chidiac
Um, guys, FISA and the Patriot Act have nothing to do with this case at all. As it says in the CNN article that Glenn links to, "...none of the suspects has been to the United States." Since they're strictly outside the US, FISA (which applies to domestic spying) does not apply. The US government can listen to them all they want and its got nothing to do with FISA or the PATRIOT Act.
ReplyDeleteGlenn's points are dead on. But using this story as an argument for or against domestic spying is like using the World Cup finals as an argument for or against the designated hitter rule.
-pfc
Apologize for being off topic but feel this is important info everyone should be aware of:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.counterpunch.org
/whitney07052006.html
July 5, 2006
The Veep's Curious Investment Portfolio
Is Cheney Betting On Economic Collapse?
By MIKE WHITNEY
Wouldn't you like to know where Dick Cheney puts his money? Then you'd know whether his "deficits don't matter" claim is just baloney or not.
Well, as it turns out, Kiplinger Magazine ran an article based on Cheney's financial disclosure statement and, sure enough, found out that the VP is lying to the American people for the umpteenth time. Deficits do matter and Cheney has invested his money accordingly.
The article is called "Cheney's betting on bad news" and provides an account of where Cheney has socked away more than $25 million. While the figures may be estimates, the investments are not. According to Tom Blackburn of the Palm Beach Post, Cheney has invested heavily in "a fund that specializes in short-term municipal bonds, a tax-exempt money market fund and an inflation protected securities fund. The first two hold up if interest rates rise with inflation. The third is protected against inflation."
Cheney has dumped another (estimated) $10 to $25 million in a European bond fund which tells us that he is counting on a steadily weakening dollar. So, while working class Americans are losing ground to inflation and rising energy costs, Darth Cheney will be enhancing his wealth in "Old Europe". As Blackburn sagely notes, "Not all bad news' is bad for everybody."
one thing we can say with metaphysical certainty is that the miserly Cheney would never plunk his money into an investment that wasn't a sure thing. If Cheney is counting on the dollar tanking and interest rates going up, then, by Gawd, that's what'll happen.
The Bush-Cheney team has racked up another $3 trillion in debt in just 6 years. The US national debt now stands at $8.4 trillion dollars while the trade deficit has ballooned to $800 billion nearly 7% of GDP.
This is lunacy. No country, however powerful, can maintain these staggering numbers. The country is in hock up to its neck and has to borrow $2.5 billion per day just to stay above water. Presently, the Fed is expanding the money supply and buying back its own treasuries to hide the hemorrhaging from the public. Its utter madness.
Last month the trade deficit climbed to $70 billion. More importantly, foreign central banks only purchased a meager $47 billion in treasuries to shore up our ravenous appetite for cheap junk from China.
Do the math! They're not investing in America anymore. They are decreasing their stockpiles of dollars. We're sinking fast and Cheney and his pals are manning the lifeboats while the public is diverted with gay marriage amendments and "American Celebrity".
Arne Langsetmo said...
ReplyDeleteHWSNBN finally says something that is unarguably true: Maybe I missed something,...
It appears that you as well as Glenn cannot tell me what exactly was classified about the NYP story.
Next...
JaO said...
ReplyDeletebart; Either the surveillance is illegal and should presumably be stopped or it is perfectly legal and should be continued.
Of course, the only way to settle this legal question is to test the merits in court...
One note Nate...
First, you have to find someone with standing who has actually been injured by the program to bring the complaint. The alleged defendant does not bring a case in our system of justice.
spark said...
ReplyDeleteFunny how actions that are unequivocally labelled "compromising" to intelligence gathering by the FBI is merely embarassment yet actions that are yet to be described as anything greater than political embarassment by any non-partisan is somehow criminal and perhaps treasonous.
Nice spin.
I have given you the statutes violated by the NYT and its fellow papers and the evidence proving guilt.
You are free to do the same with the NYP.
You will not because you cannot. Glenn's argument about the moral equivalence between the NYT and the NYP is misleading spin meant to excuse the criminal behavior of the NYT.
The WP reported this morning:
ReplyDeleteThe FBI uncovered the alleged plot last summer and intercepted e-mails and chat-room postings on Web sites used to recruit Islamic terrorists.
Sounds like exactly what the NSA Program does. Perhaps, the Spectator article source at Justice was correct about the NSA participating...
I wonder if they had FISA warrants when they first identified the enemy cell (as opposed to later when they gathered criminal evidence)???
Terrorists in an internet chat room, discussing the next operation that will lead to the collapse of Western civilization? Hilarious! Next they'll be telling us they caught OBL because of coded information in his profile on MySpace.
ReplyDeleteAddendum to anon at 12:05.
ReplyDeleteThe last panic was directed at people who believe that a puff piece in the travel section of the NYT might be an invitation to assassinate Cheney and Rumsfeld. I suppose numbskulls who believe that will believe anything.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAs a sidenote, your blog is horrible. I wandered here by accident and thought to myself, "who actually reads this shit?"
Glenn didn't know what a link to LGF would dredge up. That'll teach him.
Though I absolutely DESPISE Sean Hannity, I must volunteer that on the way home I heard Hannity blasting the leaker for this exact reason.
ReplyDeleteanonymous:
ReplyDeleteYou link to the American Spectator article. That's not right wing. Eisehower is right wing. The American Spectator is extremist. And that's not a partisan opinion.
The American Spectator is a part of the RW Mighty Wurlitzer, a tool of the Republican party (which, in this case, doesn't rule out it's being "extreme" as well). It's one of the outlets that Richard Mellon Scaife was funding to make noise for the "conservatives" and viciously attack anything "lib'rul". It's where David Brock really cut his teeth on sliming, and where he finally saw the light and wrote "Blinded By The Right". All this is documented in Lyons's and Conason's book "The Hunting Of The President.
True, Scaife seems to have got in a tiff with Tyrell, and cut him off, but Tyrell continues in the same vein.
Cheers,
HWSNBN:
ReplyDelete[Arne]: HWSNBN finally says something that is unarguably true:
[HWSNBN]: Maybe I missed something,...
It appears that you as well as Glenn cannot tell me what exactly was classified about the NYP story.
HWSNBN is right. Because I am not privy to current secrecy classification levels of particular documents or items, I have to rely on others to inform me on such things. Strangely, this very same impairment has never seemed to stop HWSNBN from spouting off at length.
But HWSNBN is missing yet another thing: The argument isn't about whether something is "classified" or not, it's about whether it's sensitive information. In fact, the Espionage laws (18 USC 792 et seq. make this a distinction, in specifying that the revelation should be known to possibly cause "injury to the United States" or give "advantage to any foreign nation". So we're talking damage here, not the mere fact of classification (albeit if something is really of no consequence when revealed [at least until generally know anyway], it's hard to show it was properly classified). The question, or at least one question, is whether the revelation potentially impaired intelligence or criminal investigations. Seems like the N.Y. Daily News may have, from comments of others in the gummint [HWSNBN mistakes who teh paper was, too: Not the N.Y. Post].
A FYI, just because some of the content of a classified document is disclosed doesn't mean that the classified parts have been,as we see in redacted documents revealed under FOIA requests.
Cheers,
Sorry, if this is off topic, but the implications of this report are outrageous...
ReplyDeleteExhibit A in why you do not provide lawyers to detained enemy combatants in a war:
Signs of Detainees' Planning Alleged
Messages Found On Legal Papers
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 8, 2006; A01
Three suicides at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may have been part of a broader plot by detainees who were using confidential lawyer-client papers and envelopes to pass handwritten notes their guards could not intercept, according to documents that government lawyers filed yesterday in federal court.
Detainees could apparently hide documents in their cells -- including instructions on how to tie knots and a classified U.S. military memo regarding cell locations of detainees and camp operational matters at Guantanamo -- by keeping the materials in envelopes labeled as lawyer-client communications. Notes that investigators found after the suicides on June 10 were apparently written on the back of notepaper stamped "Attorney Client Privilege," which allowed detainees to communicate secretly without interference, according to government officials.
The alleged discoveries have led military commanders to suspend allowing detainees to have paper provided by defense lawyers. Government lawyers have also asked a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to allow them to assemble "filter teams" to scour more than 1,100 pounds of documents seized by investigators, some of which are protected by lawyer-client privilege and would usually be off-limits to authorities.
Defense lawyers for Guantanamo detainees said that their clients are closely monitored and should have no way to pass such notes, and that the filing yesterday is designed to complicate their efforts.
In an affidavit filed with the court, Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., the facility's commander, said the Naval Criminal Investigative Service has information that suggests the suicides "may have been part of a larger plan or pact for more suicides that day or in the immediate future."
He also said that on June 22, he asked NCIS to investigate whether the suicides were "otherwise encouraged, ordered, or assisted by other detainees or third persons" -- implying that the probe could extend to lawyers for the men -- and whether their private communications could have included improper materials.
Lawyers are permitted to share with detainees legal communications or publicly filed documents, but they are not allowed to pass classified or "protected" information to clients.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/07/
AR2006070701590_pf.html
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteTerrorists in an internet chat room, discussing the next operation that will lead to the collapse of Western civilization? Hilarious! Next they'll be telling us they caught OBL because of coded information in his profile on MySpace.
Fool, tell it to the Brits slaughtered on 7/7. The internet is a primary means of organizing cells in other countries.
Politically Lost is spot on. This from the FBI's Mark Mershon: "They were about to go to a phase where they would attempt to surveil targets, establish a regimen of attack and acquire the resources necessary...." Another big splash of media coverage for something "aspirational" v "operational," which will amount to nothing but the memory of another Administration victory in the GWOT.
ReplyDeleteArne Langsetmo said...
ReplyDeleteBart: It appears that you as well as Glenn cannot tell me what exactly was classified about the NYP story.
HWSNBN is right. Because I am not privy to current secrecy classification levels of particular documents or items, I have to rely on others to inform me on such things. Strangely, this very same impairment has never seemed to stop HWSNBN from spouting off at length.
Then you admit that Glenn had no basis in fact when he claimed that the NYP leaked classified information.
BTW, The NYT articles admit that they were warned that the intelligence programs which they disclosed to the enemy we highly confidential. You could make out an entire criminal indictment out of their articles.
But HWSNBN is missing yet another thing: The argument isn't about whether something is "classified" or not, it's about whether it's sensitive information.
Here comes the back tracking...
In fact, the Espionage laws (18 USC 792 et seq. make this a distinction, in specifying that the revelation should be known to possibly cause "injury to the United States" or give "advantage to any foreign nation".
You appear to referring to Section 793, not 792, and to the subsections prohibiting possession or transfer of national defense documents. There is no evidence that the NYP was involved in this kind of criminal activity.
So we're talking damage here, not the mere fact of classification...The question, or at least one question, is whether the revelation potentially impaired intelligence or criminal investigations.
How was the investigation damaged? Have the Lebanese stopped cooperating? Given that the FBI is publicly speaking of an ongoing investigation, I don't see any evidence of this.
A FYI, just because some of the content of a classified document is disclosed doesn't mean that the classified parts have been,as we see in redacted documents revealed under FOIA requests.
I agree. The NYT was not disclosing documents declassified and made available through the FOIA.
Rick Moran is clueless:
ReplyDeleteNor did Mr. Greenwald mention leaks of classified information that were initiated to damage the Administration. Those are the most despicable of all in that they don't harm national security but are generated to give a political advantage to the President's enemies.
Hard to "embarrass" someone if they're not doing something they oughtn't be doing. It can hardly "damage" them if what is exposed is a perfectly legal and proper program; in fact if the programs are so good and successful, that can hardly redound to the preznit's political opponents. On a more general level, informed discourse on the policies and options is a "good", in my mind, regardless of who benefits, and I suspect the Times's motivations were quite similar at base.
But what is truly curious here is the airhead Moran's claim: "Those are the most despicable of all in that they don't harm national security..." WTF?!?!? The "most despicable" are the leaks (for whatever motivation) that cause no damage?
You know, this is a prime example of why I don't understand Republican "thinking".....
Cheers,
Clueless as ever, HWSNBN:
ReplyDeleteI have given you the statutes violated by the NYT and its fellow papers and the evidence proving guilt.
You are free to do the same with the NYP.
The guy can't even manange a simple cite (which leads one to believe his claim to have "authored" and opinion during his stoodent intern daze is a crock'o'sh*te; hell, one of the first things they make you do if you make law review is to cite-check the articles).
It was the New York Daily News, not Murdoch's fish-wrap, the New York Post. Two rather different newspapers, even if the covers look somehwat similar from 50 feet away. The Daily News is somewhat conservative, but had such luminaries as Lars-Eric Nelson before his untimely demise. The Post is just another Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece for the RW Mighty Wurlitzer, a loss leader that has to descent to a quarter a pop to even get anyone to pick it up.
Cheers,
O/T, but...
ReplyDeleteI used to tout the level of discourse in the comments section. Even HWSNBN and [choke] Shooter maintain a respectable level of decorum along with a glimmer of rationality every now and then. Sadly, it seems that as awareness of Glenn's commentary grows, the trolls have arrived en masse. And Glenn pretty much maintains a strict "hands-off" policy w.r.t. the commments. Is this how things inevitably wind up? I'm pinin' for the "good old days" of say, a couple of weeks ago.
Anonymous 12:24 AM said...
ReplyDeletePantywaist Liberals.
Fear of the Patriot Act, fear of George Bush, fear of Karl Rove, fear of racial profiling, fear of NSA wiretaps, fear of phone companies datamining, fear of SWIFT, fear of right wing media, fear of Rush Limbaugh, fear of Ann Coulter, fear of Littlegreenfootballs, fear holding journalists accountable for treason, fear of morality, fear of christians, fear of god.
Pantywaist liberals.
Anon, very little of that made any sense at all. You're just stringing words together and hoping no one will notice.
Why not just sum it up accurately: afraid of fascism? if I'm a pantywaist for that, so be it.
I need to warn you creepy freaks out there. Before I let you waive my rights and destroy my Constitution, I will kill you. They aren't yours to give away, no matter how frightened you are of the bad things out there in the big, wide world.
Pantywaist Fascists.
HWSNBN:
ReplyDeleteThree suicides at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may have been part of a broader plot by detainees who were using confidential lawyer-client papers and envelopes to pass handwritten notes their guards could not intercept, according to documents that government lawyers filed yesterday in federal court.
Good to know that we're stamping down on these illegal "homicide suicides". They're clearly an attack at the very heart of the United States of Eff'in Aya, and worthy of abrogating yet another Bill of Rights Amendment (the 6th, in this case).
I note in passing that the one letter I managed to get published on the Letters page of the N.Y. Times was in defence of ACP (the Supes saw it the same way as I did).
Cheers,
HWSNBN sez:
ReplyDelete[Arne]: HWSNBN is right. Because I am not privy to current secrecy classification levels of particular documents or items, I have to rely on others to inform me on such things. Strangely, this very same impairment has never seemed to stop HWSNBN from spouting off at length.
Then you admit that Glenn had no basis in fact when he claimed that the NYP leaked classified information.
Talk to the hand, Bart. Why would I admit such a thing? First, I speak for myself, and have no knowledge as to what Glenn knows. Second, I wouldn't claim "no basis in fact"; I simply say I don't know. It may be true, or it may not.
Cheers,
Back in the late 50's and 60's, when black-americans became organized and motivated their comments were viewed through a similar prism to republican actions today. When they said something provocative, many whites kind of diverted their eyes and ears in a condescending "what do you expect from "them?" Many were afraid to respond for fear of being insensitive, attacked, or not even worthy of response. I think this dynamic explains the hypocrical dual standard applied to republicans today. Most americans with a smidgeon of intellect and cognitive ability simply dismiss republican comments as coming from a group so alien to our understanding of morality, and decency that they can be excused. We would not, in mixed company, speak ill of faith healers, snake handlers, or tongue speakers. So we regard republicans as mentally and morally defective, and as such, deserving of a "pass." How else do we explain the media's 24/7 lunatic orgy of coverage of a President's blowjob, which paralyzed our government for two years, yet the wholesale, wanton, orgy of destruction of our civil liberties are regarded as "debatable?"
ReplyDeleteAfter all, every point has two sides, right? Kristollnacht was a display of government violence, but weren't the Jews guilty of littering the sidewalks?
From Bart:
ReplyDelete"You could make out an entire criminal indictment out of their articles."
Why, pray tell, hasn't the administration done so then? I mean, if it's so open and shut I'd have expected it would have been done by now given all their blathering about the topic.
I'm also curious regarding your contention that the Daily News did not release any classified info: How often is an on-going investigation of a terrorist scheme public information, especially with this particular administration?
Finally, regarding your Exhibit A of "why you don't allow lawyers to enemy combatants", how would that be any different than the typical criminal case? In other words, any criminal defendant could aid in on-going criminal activites using the Attorney-Client Privilege as a shield, yet we are still willing to provide these folks with access to attorneys. So what is the relevant distinction between your "Exhibit A" and the typical attorney-client relationship in a criminal case?
Holland Tunnel LEAK?
ReplyDeletehttp://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2006/07/holland-tunnel-leak.html
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"As a sidenote, your blog is horrible. I wandered here by accident and thought to myself, "who actually reads this shit?"
Apparently you. Given your stated opinion why would you bother commenting? Of course I guess you could be a sado masochist chained to your computer that was directed to this site by someone other than yourself.
Anonymous, also known as Walter Mitty in real life typed furiously:
ReplyDeletePantywaist Liberals.
Fear of the Patriot Act, fear of George Bush, fear of Karl Rove, fear of racial profiling, fear of NSA wiretaps, fear of phone companies datamining, fear of SWIFT, fear of right wing media, fear of Rush Limbaugh, fear of Ann Coulter, fear of Littlegreenfootballs, fear holding journalists accountable for treason, fear of morality, fear of christians, fear of god.
Pantywaist liberals.
JaO said...
ReplyDeleteMe: Of course, the only way to settle this legal question is to test the merits in court...
bart: First, you have to find someone with standing who has actually been injured by the program to bring the complaint. The alleged defendant does not bring a case in our system of justice.
Actually, it is the DOJ that has full standing to initiate a test case of the warrantless wiretaps in the FISA court, as has been well established and explained to bart here multiple times.
Regurgitating the same vomit does not make it food.
I have taught you the concept of standing. You will have to get your remedial instruction from some one else.
ka-bar - I heard an interview w/ Mr. Brown on "Democracy NOW!" He's apparently got quite a few offers for legal assistance, including from the ACLU...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart: "You could make out an entire criminal indictment out of their articles."
Why, pray tell, hasn't the administration done so then?
As I explained before, the WH does not want to pick a fight with the press in an election season and give the Donkeys tens of millions of dollars in free campaign commercials masquerading as news.
I'm also curious regarding your contention that the Daily News did not release any classified info: How often is an on-going investigation of a terrorist scheme public information, especially with this particular administration?
The general fact that the government is investigating something is not classified.
For example, the general fact that the government was investigating financial records to find al Qaeda was not classified. Where the NYT crossed the line into criminality is when they described the specific means and methods of the programs being used by the government if investigate financial records, which were classified.
Finally, regarding your Exhibit A of "why you don't allow lawyers to enemy combatants", how would that be any different than the typical criminal case?
The magnitude of the threat and the fact that the Constitution does not give captured foreign enemy combatants lawyers.
Even in civil cases, lawyers may not assist their clients in committing crimes. Ask Glenn about this. He has first hand experience in refusing such assistance to his client.
There is a very disturbing possibility that some of the self appointed lawyers for these enemy combatants are assisting in the passage of information between the detainee and al Qaeda on the outside.
That would not be the first time. "Radical lawyer Lynne Stewart was convicted of smuggling messages from her jailed client -- a blind Muslim cleric convicted of terrorism -- to his Islamic fundamentalist followers in Egypt, actions that a jury found amounted to material support for terrorism."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
articles/A15444-2005Feb10.html
If any of the Gitmo attorneys are transferring information, they need to be likewise criminally charged and all attorney contact should be shut off until each attorney can pass a top secret clearance.
Bart is regressing the EWO realm His rants are growing longer, more pointless, and seem like the frustrated foot-stamping of a five year old.
ReplyDelete"I need to warn you creepy freaks out there. Before I let you waive my rights and destroy my Constitution, I will kill you."
ReplyDeleteNice sane response from the left.
And they call the right wingnuts!!
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"I need to warn you creepy freaks out there. Before I let you waive my rights and destroy my Constitution, I will kill you."
Nice sane response from the left.
And they call the right wingnuts!!
Scares the crap outta ya, don't it? Everything scares the crap outta you people. Maybe that big gubmint nanny state you are always railing against will protect you.
We should be celebrating, too. We should be licking our chops at the secret, unlimited powers those naive right-wingers are about to hand over to Hillary. Bring it on!
ReplyDeletejt davis said....
ReplyDelete"Republicans are second class citizens with their own gold-plated drinking fountains! When can we turn the dogs loose on you and spray you down with firehoses? Can we beat you too? How about make you just ride on a bus? You can even sit in the front, just forget about driving it over the cliff untill the rest of us get off"
*************************
Talk slow to me, JT. I'm getting on in years. Maybe I'm missing something? Even dusted off my Capt.Video de-coding ring,... nada.
I need to warn you creepy freaks out there. Before I let you waive my rights and destroy my Constitution, I will kill you. They aren't yours to give away, no matter how frightened you are of the bad things out there in the big, wide world.
ReplyDeletePantywaist Fascists.
Ditto!
Shouldn't Bart have mastered some of the basics that the more polished of your profession are constantly schooling him on before hanging out his shingle?I realize drunk driving cases rarely go to the Supreme Court,but how can a lawyer present a rigorous defense with such large gaps in his knowledge of the law?
ReplyDelete"I need to warn you creepy freaks out there. Before I let you waive my Islamic rights and destroy my Koran, I will kill you. They aren't yours to give away, no matter how frightened you are of the bad things out there in the big, wide world."
ReplyDeleteSound familiar?
ReplyDeleteWe should be celebrating, too. We should be licking our chops at the secret, unlimited powers those naive right-wingers are about to hand over to Hillary
It is axiomatic that if a political party makes structural, permanent changes in a country's organic law that would redound to their disadvantage upon their next return to opposition that that party never intends to return to opposition again
"What in your mind is the appropriate response to someone or a group that is attacking civil liberties and subverting and thereby, at best, marginalizing the constitution?"
ReplyDeleteThe constitution is not a suicide pact.
There are few liberties being subverted except those of enemy combatants that deserve minimal.
W's system can be dangerous. Your system to allow enemy combatants access to our court system is even more dangerous. Making surveillance so difficult that it is discouraged is more dangerous.
So far the list of Americans harmed by the NSA and other programs is virtually nil.
That is why your side is getting slaughtered in this argument.
You are blogging, supporting your candidates, writing letters to the editor, organizing. Yeah, that is what is you are supposed to do. Imitating Timothy McVeigh is not a patriotic act.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThe constitution is not a suicide pact. blah...blah... blah...
That might be a compelling argument but Lincoln never said that.
From Bart at 5:05pm:
ReplyDeleteAs I explained before, the WH does not want to pick a fight with the press in an election season and give the Donkeys tens of millions of dollars in free campaign commercials masquerading as news.
I hope you realize you've just stated the Bush Administration is essentially playing politics with national security.
Let me commend you on concluding what the rest of us already know.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"I need to warn you creepy freaks out there. Before I let you waive my Islamic rights and destroy my Koran, I will kill you. They aren't yours to give away, no matter how frightened you are of the bad things out there in the big, wide world."
Sound familiar?
Not really. "Islamic rights"? First of all, Islam is a "revealed religion" like Christianity. Some might call it superstition. The Constitution is an entirely different thing, laws and rights created by men, not decreed by some imaginary being. You are about to get your ass kicked and naturally you are backpedaling. Cowards always do.
bart said, "Nice spin."
ReplyDeleteOh really? So there is a non-partisan entity like the FBI that has unequivocally pronounced the revelations of the NYT wrt to SWIFT or the NSA wiretapping as "compromising" to intelligence gathering?
So far the list of Americans harmed by the NSA and other programs is virtually nil.
ReplyDeleteI didn’t know there was a list available. I’d be very interested in just who is on it, who complies this list, and who publishes it.
Isn’t what the administration doing completely secret? Why do you pretend that you have access to the inner workings of everything this administration is up to?
No one knows just what they’re doing That’s our point. Congress expressed surprise when being informed of these programs, and the administration has done everything possible to avoid legal judgment of their activities.
They’ve rendered the separation of powers “quaint” and “checks and balances” have been relegated to the history books of previous administrations.
We are standing up for the Constitution, for checks and balances against an all powerful autocratic leader, accountable to no one.
That is why your side is getting slaughtered in this argument.
Just when exactly did democracy become un-American? Just when did having and American dictator - a “decider” not accountable to the Courts or Congress - become popular and fashionable?
Please, explain when this happened, and how so many of us missed such an important development. Thanks.
Wingnut....That is why your side is getting slaughtered in this argument.
ReplyDeleteBwahahaha!
Where? In the media? Here? Oh, you mean over at LGF and other fever swamps of stupidity and vapidity. Well, one sided arguments are the only kind you tools can win. Maybe if you bathed once in awhile, stopped foaming at the mouth and washed the cheeto stains from your faces we might come down and kick your asses there. Nah... probably not.
It might behoove those of us commenting here to remember a few things:
ReplyDelete1. The investigation into this alleged 'plot' is ongoing and reportedly involve both domestic and foreign intelligence services.
2. The details revealed to date suggest this 'plot' was little more than wishful thinking on the part of the plotters, who discussed their plans on open forums and did little to disguise or conceal their intentions.
3. The FBI's investigation into this 'plot' apparently owes little to either the NSA's surveillance capacity nor monitoring currency transfers; but full details haven't been released yet, so we don't know if this is definitely the case.
4. The publication of the FBI's investigation by the Daily News has apparently caused tension with foreign intelligence services (the only named thus far is Lebanon, but there may be others) and could conceivably jeapordized additional investigations, but this is unclear.
5. An unsurprising double-standard is at play, whereby leaks that cast the Bush Administration in a favorable light are celebrated, while those that reveal more critical or controversial policies and practices are immediately condemned.
6. To repeat, the investigation is still ongoing. Further detail may come to light, they may not; but thus far this story is proving to be a non-story. Trying to link it into any larger narrative is a stretch (in the extreme).
Just when exactly did democracy become un-American? Just when did having and American dictator - a “decider” not accountable to the Courts or Congress - become popular and fashionable?
ReplyDelete9-11 changed everything. Pearl Harbor was a commie planned and executed off by FDR. It almost worked but we are here now to undo the damage.
From Bart:
ReplyDelete"As I explained before, the WH does not want to pick a fight with the press in an election season and give the Donkeys tens of millions of dollars in free campaign commercials masquerading as news."
You are kidding right? This administration and conservatives in general are declaring war on the NY Times. If they could bring a criminal complaint against them, they'd do it in a heart beat.
"The general fact that the government is investigating something is not classified.
For example, the general fact that the government was investigating financial records to find al Qaeda was not classified. Where the NYT crossed the line into criminality is when they described the specific means and methods of the programs being used by the government if investigate financial records, which were classified."
Except the NY Times didn't reveal any specifics at all outside of the SWIFT name. That's it. The article at issue here revealed exactly the same amount of information--i.e. the monitoring of internet chat rooms.
"Even in civil cases, lawyers may not assist their clients in committing crimes. Ask Glenn about this. He has first hand experience in refusing such assistance to his client.
There is a very disturbing possibility that some of the self appointed lawyers for these enemy combatants are assisting in the passage of information between the detainee and al Qaeda on the outside.
. . .
If any of the Gitmo attorneys are transferring information, they need to be likewise criminally charged and all attorney contact should be shut off until each attorney can pass a top secret clearance."
As an attorney myself, I am well aware that attorneys are not allowed to assist in criminal acts. You have yet to explain why an attorney for a Gitmo detainee would be any more likely to violate such ethical/criminal standards versus the typical criminal case. The possibility of abuse is the same in each.
The notion that someone shouldn't be allowed to act on behalf of a detainee absent top secret clearance is ludicrous. The percentage of people that can obtain such clearance is ridiculously small and would effectively eliminate representation for any of the detainees.
M. Lamb
9-11 changed everything
ReplyDeleteIt sure did.
Just as our great and wonderful “decider” can issue a “signing statement” that renders any legislation Congress passes irrelevant, he – being all-powerful – can overrule any Supreme Court decision he doesn’t like by holding a press conference and proclaiming that the Supreme Court “accepted” his position – even though they ripped it apart.
You see, Supreme Court decisions are complicated and many people without legal background find them unfathomable. That’s why “our decider” can redefine what this case was about, and no one can challenge him.
He can pretend it didn’t have anything to do with his military tribunals (which were struck down) and fake it completely that it was whether or not Gitmo was legal:
"It didn't say we couldn't have done -- couldn't have made that decision, see?" Mr. Bush said at a news conference in Chicago. "They were silent on whether or not Guantánamo -- whether or not we should have used Guantánamo. In other words, they accepted the use of Guantánamo, the decision I made
See, that’s how you do it. Just completely ignore what the case was really all about, and state, very simply, that the Court completely agreed with what your decision was.
Brilliant.
In one single press conference in Chicago, “our decider” renders an important Supreme Court decision “null and void” – in one single, simple paragraph that even Fox News viewers can understand.
They can create their “own reality now” – this administration is an empire, and the law is what the emperor says it is – he’s decided.
"The FBI's investigation into this 'plot' apparently owes little to either the NSA's surveillance capacity nor monitoring currency transfers; but full details haven't been released yet, so we don't know if this is definitely the case."
ReplyDeleteThe American Spectator blog reports:
Our Treasury source wouldn't comment on the case. One DOJ source indicated that this case initially took off from monitoring of chat rooms that had been identified as havens for some of the plotters (that monitoring was undertaken in part by the NSA, and some of the monitoring required FISA court filings, something the New York Times doesn't support, either).
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10058
The investigation is still ongoing and your attempt to sweep it under the rug as a "non-story" I'm sure is just beginning.
anon: "The constitution is not a suicide pact."
ReplyDeleteMight be so. But as pointed out in another thread at Digby's, the Declaration of Independence was.
-Dan S.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"The FBI's investigation into this 'plot' apparently owes little to either the NSA's surveillance capacity nor monitoring currency transfers; but full details haven't been released yet, so we don't know if this is definitely the case."
The American Spectator blog reports:
The American Spectator is for the John Bircher's with AA degrees in barberology.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteanon: "The constitution is not a suicide pact."
Might be so. But as pointed out in another thread at Digby's, the Declaration of Independence was.
-Dan S.
Give that man a prize. Brilliant observation.
"The constitution is not a suicide pact." is a rhetorical phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must give way to urgent practical needs. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Though the phrase echoes statements made by Lincoln, the precise phrase "suicide pact" was first used by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteAfter habeas corpus was suspended by General Winfield Scott in one theater of the Civil War in 1861, Lincoln did write that Scott "could arrest, and detain, without resort to ordinary processes and forms of law, such individulas as he might deem dangerous to public safety." After Chief Justice Roger B. Taney attacked the president for this policy, Lincoln responded in his First Message to Congress in December 1861 that an insurrection "in nearly one-third of the States had subverted the whole of the laws . . . Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"
Later in the war, after some had criticized the arrest and detention of Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio, Lincoln wrote to Erastus Corning in June 1862 that Vallandigham was arrested "because he was laboring, with some effect, to prevent the raising of troops, to encourage desertions from the army, and to leave the rebellion withoutan adequate military force to suppress it. . . . Must I shoot a simple-minded deserter, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert?"
In the Terminiello case, the majority opinion, by Justice William O. Douglas overturned the disorderly conduct conviction of a priest whose anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi rantings at a rally had incited a riot. The court held that Chicago's breach of the peace ordinance violated the First Amendment.
Jackson wrote a twenty-four page dissent in response to the Court's four page decision, which concluded: "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."
Would Lincoln do what Bush is doing? I doubt it very much, unless a violent insurrection "in nearly one-third of the States had subverted the whole of the laws . . . Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"
ReplyDeleteIf that's what Bush's intention is, it might be the only thing he's done that is even halfway working.
From anonymous at 8:40pm:
ReplyDeleteThe investigation is still ongoing and your attempt to sweep it under the rug as a "non-story" I'm sure is just beginning.
For the record, details to date suggest there's nothing timely, compelling, or even mildly interesting to this story. As I emphasized: the investigation is still ongoing and new details may shed new light on this.
And don't think a quote from the American Spectator's blog is in any way impressive; it's a bit like quoting passages from The Secret Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a serious study of theology.
For myself, increasingly I wish we would let these people secede. Put them on a reservation someplace, just like they did to the indians. I grow weary of them and their constant bullshit. 70% of the country probably agrees with me. Give them a place to try their fucked up ideas and see how long it lasts. Someplace like Idaho or Utah. If their ideas are so hot, they should be able to make water in to wine in no time.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution IS a suicide pact. Better yet, the end result of the act of courage the DOI was. The founders chose to lay it all on the line. Almost to a man, they all died peacefully in their beds of old age. Bushco fans would just pee their pants and tremble under their beds. Or they would if they weren't afraid their were commies and terrists under there.
ReplyDeletekabar...Well that might be an option if what they wanted to do was secede. But unfortunately that is not what they want.
ReplyDeleteSome do, not all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession
Here's the text of the link Ka-bar referenced:
ReplyDeleteHas This Country Gone Completely Insane?
Friday 30 June 2006, by Mike Ferner
This afternoon, drinking a cup of coffee while sitting in the Jesse Brown V.A. Medical Center on Chicago’s south side, a Veterans Administration cop walked up to me and said, "OK, you’ve had your 15 minutes, it’s time to go."
"Huh?", I asked intelligently, not quite sure what he was talking about.
"You can’t be in here protesting," officer Adkins said, pointing to my Veterans For Peace shirt.
"Well, I’m not protesting, I’m having a cup of coffee," I returned, thinking that logic would convince Adkins to go back to his earlier duties of guarding against serious terrorists.
Flipping his badge open, he said, "No, not with that shirt. You’re protesting and you have to go."
Beginning to get his drift, I said firmly, "Not before I finish my coffee."
He insisted that I leave, but still not quite believing my ears, I tried one more approach to reason. "Hey, listen. I’m a veteran. This is a V.A. facility. I’m sitting here not talking to anybody, having a cup of coffee. I’m not protesting and you can’t kick me out."
"You’ll either go or we’ll arrest you," Adkins threatened.
"Well, you’ll just have to arrest me," I said, wondering what strange land I was now living in.
You know the rest. Handcuffed, led away to the facility’s security office past people with surprised looks on their faces, read my rights, searched, and written up.
The officer who did the formalities, Eric Ousley, was professional in his duties. When I asked him if he was a vet, it turned out he had been a hospital corpsman in the Navy. We exchanged a couple sea stories. He uncuffed me early. And he allowed as to how he would only charge me with disorderly conduct, letting me go on charges of criminal trespass and weapons possession — a pocket knife — which he said would have to be destroyed (something I rather doubt since it was a nifty Swiss Army knife with not only a bottle opener, but a tweezers AND a toothpick).
After informing me I could either pay the $275 fine on the citation or appear in court, Ousley escorted me off the premises, warning me if I returned with "that shirt" on, I’d be arrested and booked into jail.
I’m sure I could go back to officers Adkins’ and Ousleys’ fiefdom with a shirt that said, "Nuke all the hajis," or "Show us your tits," or any number of truly obscene things and no one would care. Just so it’s not "that shirt" again.
And just for the record? I’m not paying the fine. I’ll see Adkins and Ousley and Dubya’s Director of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, if he wants to show up, in United States District Court on the appointed date. And if there’s a Chicago area attorney who’d like to take the case, I’d really like to sue them — from Dubya on down. I have to believe that this whole country has not yet gone insane, just the government. This kind of behavior can’t be tolerated. It must be challenged.
*********************************
This below is from Vaclev Havel's The Power of the Powerless:
He could start doing only things he believes in and saying only things he thinks, and proceed to lose his job, upset his social position, and compromise his children's future. It would not be easy. But ultimately, he would be living within the truth, which is the only way out, for both the individual and the country. For "living within the lie can constitute the system only if it is universal... there are no terms whatsoever on which it can coexist with living within the truth, and therefore everyone who steps out of line denies it in principle and threatens it in its entirety." The essay concludes not by calling people to specific political action, but by simply stating the imperative of a life lived truthfully.
*******************************
A commenter named Incorrigibleness on Everything2 wrote:
Joseph Rothschild and Nancy M. Wingfield sum the prevailing attitude up quite well:
Citizens who refrained from political involvement, sought no sensitive data, asked no embarrassing questions, disseminated no awkward information, flaunted no countercultural symbols, meddled in no public affairs, participated mechanically in the annual May Day rally, and voted reflexively for the party's slate of candidates, could reasonably anticipate being allowed to live their depoliticized and deideologized lives in peace, though as internal emigrants in their own country.
"The Power of the Powerless" was widely circulated in samizdat form, and was influential for many young activists and intellectuals in Czechoslovakia and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. An activist from the Polish Solidarity movement, Zbygniew Bujak, later said that "this essay reached us in the Ursus factory in 1979 at a point when we felt we were at the end of the road. Reading it gave us the theoretical underpinnings for our activity. It maintained our spirits; we did not give up..." Havel's greengrocer even managed to snake his way through time and space to take me by the hand one day in a college history class, and make me think a little more about what it means to be an honest person. Vaclav Havel himself went on to lead the Velvet Revolution of 1989, and become the first president of post-communist Czechoslovakia, and later of the Czech Republic.
*******************************
And who said this?
Q: What should be done about the killing of innocent people in war?
Ans: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. If by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overturn their bad government and choose a better one, then they have to pay the price for the sins of their government—as all of us are paying for the sins of ours.
That's why we have to be interested in the philosophy of government and in seeing, to the extent we can, that we have a good government. A government is not an independent entity: it's supposed to represent the people of a nation.
If some people put up with dictatorship—as some did in Soviet Russia and as they did in Germany—they deserve whatever their government deserves.
The only thing to be concerned with is: who started that war? And once you can establish that it is a given country, there is no such thing as consideration for the "rights" of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of rights.
Who started the war in Iraq? Which nation state initiated force against another nation state?
And are we at the point in this country where anyone who donates to help the guy with the tee-shirt risks being hounded and "put on a list" by our government?
All, I tend to go with Greg Palast on at least one side effect of the NSA data mining of the communications of American citizens - massive data harvesting for rethuglican voter lists:
ReplyDeleteInterview
Ohio 2004
caging lists
This is one effect of a spying campaign with no oversight. Oversight being a vital component of this United States government. What keeps us "the land of the free".
I do not pretend to understand cryptanalysis but I know enough about it to appreciate the fact that the TIA program proposed under Clinton could indeed do massive data mining yet keep secret all names/identities except that of the alleged 'perp'. Obviously abandoned under Bush II. No links provided but you folks can 'google', can you not?
Bart, I appreciate that you can construct grammatical sentences and use a spell checker, but I have been reading your comments for some time and can only conclude that you are a dumbass. For proof, please examine this SWIFT: About taken in context with the fact the GW announced in 2001 that his administration would follow terrorist money trails.
It will not be Al Quaeda forcing me into that secret van at 3 AM...
Glenn, thank you so much for posting -
jao:
ReplyDeleteMister President, tell it to the judge.
Jao? You cannot see the inconsistency of writing this now? It may have been a good point some time ago.
However, it strikes a wrong chord coming from you now. We (most of us) just saw in the Gitmo decision that the MAJORITY came up with the right decision, but the minority did not.
You support the justices who are now the minority. One more appointment, and they could be in the majority.
Then what good would "telling it to a judge" do?
You can say you agree with the minority opinion in Gitmo. However, the same people with whom you are argreeing, ostensibly, by saying "Mr. President, tell it to a judge" emphatically do not.
I just cannot understand why you don't see the inconsistency in your continuing with that mantra at this point in time.
The Major said...
ReplyDeleteWe should be thankful that George W. Bush is protecting us. Who knows how many people would of died if they blew up that tunnell. Instead your all upset that some newspaper told us about it. I don't understand what the big problem is. What the New York Times did in blowing the sources and methods of the spying on terrorists puts us all in danger. But then you don't want to hear any good news out of Iraq either do you.
11:36 PM
Besides bestowing upon yourself a military rank that you have neither sacrificed for, nor done the hard work to earn, you fail to tell anyone exactly how it is that George Bush is protecting us.
Is it because he caught Osama bin Laden who was responsible for killing three thousand innocent Americans? Can't be that because he hasn't done it.
Is it because of the WMD's in Iraq that he saved us from? Nope, can't be that, there weren't any.
Is it because of the terrorists he is fighting in Iraq? Nope, can't be that either since there weren't any there until we illegally invaded the country.
Mabe it's because he has made our southern border safe by screening everyone who crosses it to catch terrorists trying to enter the country. Nope can't be that either since it isn't being done.
Or mabe it's because he has made our ports more secure by screening all or at least most of the cargo that enters the country. Nope again. Less than 2% of cargo entering the U.S. gets screened.
So fess up, just how is George protecting us?
HWSNBN claims to be a "lawyer":
ReplyDelete[Arne]: In fact, the Espionage laws (18 USC 792 et seq.) make this a distinction, in specifying that the revelation should be known to possibly cause "injury to the United States" or give "advantage to any foreign nation".
You appear to referring to Section 793, not 792,...
HWSNBN seems to be clueless as to what "et seq." means ... and he's a freakin' lawyer?!?!?
<*sheesh*> Gimme a break. Standards (such as they were) have slipped....
Cheers,
HWSNBN, clueless as ever:
ReplyDeleteHow was the investigation damaged? Have the Lebanese stopped cooperating? Given that the FBI is publicly speaking of an ongoing investigation, I don't see any evidence of this.
There's an "ongoing investigation" (hell, HWSNBN just told us this himself), and he thinks that revealing it couldn't possibly harm the investigation.... Some folks are born stoopid; but to reach the acme of cluelessness that HWSNBN manages, you have to actually purposefully try for it....
Cheers,
"For the record, details to date suggest there's nothing timely, compelling, or even mildly interesting to this story. As I emphasized: the investigation is still ongoing and new details may shed new light on this."
ReplyDeleteOh, I guess not. Nothing compelling or timely about a bombing in New York City.
They are probably used to it now with World Trade Center being bombed or knocked down by airplanes. Of course, the Brits probably wouldn't care about bomb plots either.
Finding the plots on an Al Quaeda computer and a confession from an Al Quaeda member means nothing.
As long as we don't datamine, that would be so much more dangerous.
JT Davis.....thanks for the explanation, you're a mensch, and it reminds me why I have remained hopeful. As long as there are people capable of duking things out honestly, we have a shot at fulfilling our founder's dream. When we fear and respect the potency of thoughtful argument, we will rediscover, as they revelled in, the notion that a well placed stilleto, loaded with fact, knowledge, wit, even sarcasm,and, of course, empathy is more potent than a 50 caliber.
ReplyDeleteka-bar says:
ReplyDeleteTo which I respond: Fuck you.
Yes, screw you Abraham Lincoln.
Yes, screw you Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Screw the both of you for destroying our constitution in times of great stress. Screw you both.
p-main
ReplyDeleteGo to www.whitehouse.gov, (yes, the White House's official web site), and type "terrorist finance tracking surveillance" into THEIR search window. 6000 articles about SWIFT and other means the Bush administration are using are the results of the search. Why does the Bush administration make it so easy for any terrorist with an internet connection to find out how we are tracking them? It's... it's... treasonous, wouldn't you agree? Stop with the ridiculous talk about Bush's poll numbers, Bush doesn't care about polls, never did. If he cared about polls, he would have the stones to admit he wasn't elected in 2000 or 2004.
jao: If your definition of "the right decision" simply means that the government loses on every question within all wartime cases, then you are not burdened by such analytical complexity.
ReplyDeleteHardly. By "right decision" I mean the government loses every case where its position violates the Constitution and is an affront to morality.
June 30, 2006
'Unlawful Combatants' Do Have Rights, Court Rules
by Jim Lobe
In a major defeat for President George W. Bush with potentially far-reaching implications for his conduct of the "war on terror," the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday ruled that military tribunals established by the Pentagon to try suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, violated the U.S. Constitution.
Writing for a 5-3 court majority, Justice John Paul Stevens also rejected the administration's long-held position that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to suspected al-Qaeda detainees or so-called "unlawful combatants."
In so doing, Stevens appeared also to reject the administration's legal claims that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon, combined with his position as commander in chief in wartime, gave Bush sweeping powers to ignore existing laws and treaties.
The administration has relied on those claims not only to set up the military tribunals and deny Geneva protections to suspected terrorists, but also to disregard existing laws with respect to the wiretapping of citizens and other controversial actions in carrying out its "global war on terror."
"This is a huge victory for the rule of law and for the role that the founders envisioned for the court, which is as a check on executive power," said Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First. "Its rejection of the reliance on the AUMF is hugely significant and reaffirms the role of Congress."
"The Supreme Court is saying that the president can't go and create some new legal universe where he makes the rules," said Barbara Olshansky, the deputy legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which represents some 200 of the 450 detainees who remain in Guantanamo. "This is an astounding blow to the notion of a unitary executive."
That's how I see it. It appears there are some who are not burdened by rational analysis of proper interpretation of the Constitution's intent or trivial matters like morality.
They hide behind their own bizarre concepts about "the law."
PS. I saw yours and Hypatia's former discussion of the legal aspects of the ruling. I dismissed them in two words: Al Kelly.
HWSNBN pretends he's not the clueless one:
ReplyDeleteRegurgitating the same vomit does not make it food.
Yet that's precisely what HWSNBN is famous for, going on almost half a year now or so.
I have taught you the concept of standing. You will have to get your remedial instruction from some one else.
HWSNBN pretends he's "schooled" others (including actual competent lawyers) on standing, but he's been repeatedly shown to have skipped these lectures in law school himself (maybe getting donuts for the DAs). But one thing here is clear: JAO's statement of one way of how the maladministration would have standing to bring up the legitimacy of the warrantless wiretapping is pretty clear-cut. If the maladministration wanted to defend the legitimacy of their snoops, all they need to do is to try and use the fruits of such in court. As JAO has pointed out, they've avoided any court test (on this, or any other controversial maladministration program) like the plague.
Cheers,
ka-bar:
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, I admire this guys patience. If it had been me the only response that "cop" would have gotten would have been: "get fucked". And, depending on the cops attitude, their probably would have been alot of "resisting arrest" happening also.
I once "resisted arrest" too: My eye got in the way of this little sh*t's fist in a holding cell, while surrounded by about a half dozen other cops. I was told later by counsel that there wasn't a whole lot I could do about it given the circumstances, so now that I know better, if I ever run into that brave little sh*t excuse for a policeman again, I'll give him a "lecture" on what "resisting arrest" actually is....
Cheers,
HWSNBN:
ReplyDelete[HWSNBN]: "You could make out an entire criminal indictment out of their articles."
[anonymous]: Why, pray tell, hasn't the administration done so then?
As I explained before, the WH does not want to pick a fight with the press in an election season and give the Donkeys tens of millions of dollars in free campaign commercials masquerading as news.
Yes, yes, yes, I can see the ads right now: "This maladministration has been breaking the law and gotten slapped down repeatedly by the courts for it. Time to throw the crooks out and put in some folks that will actually follow the law!"
Cheers,
HWSNBN:
ReplyDeleteFinally, regarding your Exhibit A of "why you don't allow lawyers to enemy combatants", how would that be any different than the typical criminal case?
The magnitude of the threat ...
What does that have to do with the price of tea in Sri Lanka?
... and the fact that the Constitution does not give captured foreign enemy combatants lawyers.
HWSNBN thinks that the Sixth Amendment applies only to citizens. He's wrong, as usual. But even for the case of captured alleged foreign combatants, the government has seen fit to provide them with lawyers (and in fact, one could persuasively argue that they should have lawyers, given Hamdan), and once it does that, it ought to respect ACP, or the granting of the right to a lawyer becomes a bit of a joke....
Cheers,
HWSNBN:
ReplyDeleteEven in civil cases, lawyers may not assist their clients in committing crimes.
Quite true. If they do so, they can be prosecuted (as well as dealt other sanctions).
What does that have to do with the price of tea in Sri Lanka?
Cheers,
The Major said...
ReplyDelete"You have no proof that I never earned my rank. Your just taunting me. Typical."
I believe your own incorrect description of the rank of Major says more than enough about whether you have ever held that rank in the military or not.
As for the rest of your post I challenge you to provide a link showing where any WMD's have been found in Iraq since we invaded.
Hell, I challenge you to show proof, any proof that the war in Iraq is being won.
jao: I do wonder how a court is supposed to enforce your personal definition of "morality" instead of "the law."
ReplyDeletel) Whose definition of "morality" is the agreed upon definition?
Yours? Whose? And are you saying that decisions should be immoral?
If not, and I assume you are not, then it would boil down, wouldn't it, to whether a person thinks the Consitution the framers left us (with a few well recognized exceptions) was a moral document?
I think it was. Perhaps that's where we differ. If you think it was, then we get back, don't we, to an interpretation of the Constitution which is accordance with what each person or justice thinks is moral.
Reading the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights gives you a flavor of the thinking of the founders of this country. Not bad reading.
So since I am I, I'll use my definition of morality to assess the rulings of the various justices. If you know somebody who has one view of morality but prefers to use another person's different one, let me know.
Not to mention, there have been many brilliant articles, many of which I would imagine you have read, punching holes in the oft stated theories that a justice of the United States Supreme Court can separate his interpretation of the Constitution from his own personal morality when deciding which laws violate the Constitution and which do not.
The truth is they can't, which is the precise reason you have majority and minority opinions on so many cases. They all know how to read. None are stupid. How they interpret words comes back to the "personal", n'est ce pas? I doubt too many female atheistic justices would think abortion should be illegal, by states or by anyone. (BTW, you do, don't you?)
I also wonder why you spend so much time on this blog, where Glenn repeatedly has made the central point that the most serious problem with Bush's behaviour is that he violates the law and the Constitution -- not someone's personal "morality."
I dispute that is Glenn's central is "the law". This statement of yours belies your point to me: Glenn repeatedly has made the central point that the most serious problem with Bush's behaviour is that he violates the law and the Constitution
I am the one arguing to include the last three words, and you are the one whose objections to my post suggest you would prefer to end it just at "the law." You cannot, imo, extract the concept of "morality" and properly interpret the Consitution, despite the fact that, imo, you continuouly try to do just that to sanction wrong interpretations of the Constitution. Yes, wrong. If there is a word "wrong" and a word "right" that implies there is a person making that judgment.
I never said that any stray individual's personal morality was the issue. I am talking about what rational, moral, American citizens who are somewhat familiar with our nation's legal history would view the Constitution as meaning.
I spend time here because Glenn is one of my favorite thinkers, and I think he is brilliant, highly moral, honorable, very patriotic, extremely compassionate and has a proper interpretation of the Constitution that he would like to see be the prevailing one.
I don't think if every state passed a law that our government could cut off the ear of every citizen whose name began with an A just for fun, Glenn would go along with that because it is "the law."
I could ask why you take the time away from confirmthem.com and Orin Kerr's words of wisdom to be on this blog. I guess you see the site as a reflection of the mindset of Robert Bork. You like him, don't you?
And while we're at it, how many on this blog, and Glenn himself, are fans of the present day Federalist Society or of the recent stances of the four conservative justices of the Supreme Court?
As for A.L., I enjoy some of his writings. Not all. But I come to this blog because of Glenn and some of the commenters.
However, I will write and ask Glen if your comment about "his central point" being breaking "the law" is how he would best describe his mission.
Somehow I don't think if Glenn lived in Nazi Germany at its heyday he would be urging people to "obey all laws."
Which does get us back, doesn't it, to the Constitution of the United States and the concept of the moral doctrines which were central to the formation of our country. If laws are passed here which are in violation of the Constitution, they are supposed to be struck down. If laws were passed here that mirrored those in Nazi Germany, by your argument, Glenn would have no problem with that because it's outside of what you see as his "central point".
Because the minute you want to subtract using a "moral compass" to interpret a moral document, you are reduced to just talking (like Orin Kerr) about "the law."
However, I will write and ask Glen if your comment about "his central point" being breaking "the law" is how he would best describe his mission.
ReplyDeleteHis mission, dear little Eyes Wide Open, is the promotion of the ideas of Ayn Rand. What else could it possibly be?
After all, you’ve come here and insisted that this was “the only objectivist blog on the internet” so, of course, Glenn’s mission is to convert us all to being full-time raving Randians, just like yourself.
So far, he’s failed miserably in that mission, and surprisingly he doesn’t constantly quote Ayn Rand, he hasn’t endorsed Janice Brown or Lou “Reconquista” Dobbs and Katherine Harris, like you have either. Why?
He also has appeared in public without a photo button of Paul Craig Roberts on his lapel.
What is his problem?
Either he’s a horrible advocate for his political positions, or you are projecting your eccentric beliefs upon him without any justification for doing so.
Yes, little Wide Eyes, do ask Glenn about his mission. And if his mission is to have a readable comment thread perhaps he will ask you nicely to stop posting interminably long copy and pastes of full copyrighted articles here.
If you think all of us here are too stupid to click on a link, why do you even bother with us?
Merry Frisch-mas, one and all...
ReplyDeleteMichelle,
I have word from the head of Human Resources here that Deborah Frisch has tendered her resignation.
Jeff Harrison
University Communications
The University of Arizona
I find it astoundingly hilarious that various morons can post here frothing at the mouth about how the NYT damaged national security by revealing the administration's asset freezing plans. Especially when I see this press release from the White House revealing the administration's asset freezing plans:
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/qf4tf
(tinyURLed for clarity)
Keep up the good work, right wing kooks. The world needs laughter.
Anonymous: "You FDR loving commies are all the same. We should outlaw you. You have tried to destoy God and country and yet we let you live?"
ReplyDeleteDrop dead.
Holy Moly
ReplyDeleteI haven't read most of this strain, but just read EWO and JaO's exhange heer at the end...
EWO - you suffer from some serious effin tunnel vision sometimes.
Your claims in this latest post seem to boil down to some theory in which:
The Constitution is a moral document,
therefore morality should be the highest judge of the land.
jao: I do wonder how a court is supposed to enforce your personal definition of "morality" instead of "the law."
{EWO}l) Whose definition of "morality" is the agreed upon definition?
Yours? Whose? And are you saying that decisions should be immoral?
You are totally pulling a Bart here. JaO states an opinion with which you disagree, so you frame it in the worst possible light and distort it until it means absolutely nothing like what was orignially said.
The argument was that law and morality are separate societal constructs, and should not be treated as such. The attempt is to remove human caprice from the implementation of justice in society. Your completely idiotic statements here about how Glenn would not have followed the laws in Nazi Germany violate Godwin (that's the first time I have ever written that!) and good taste. Glenn has spent the last six months explicating in detail his positions very eloquently with little help from you or Ayn Rand. Please stop your hero worship from blinding you to facts and discussion.
The fact that a law can be in violation of the Constitution is enitrely missing from your mental framework as delineated within your last post.
The Constitution allows for some meta-legal actions; this is one of the things that make it such an awesome document.
Certainly noone wants laws to violently contradict one's sense of morality. I am reminded of the differences between Dukakis' and Clinton's response in regards to a death sentence imposition on someone who had harmed their family. Dukakis took the high, moral ground and explained, simply, that he didn't believe the death penalty was a moral choice and intoned for a while and came off looking like an unfeeling weakling to almost everyone watching. Clinton responded to almost exactly the same question by saying he didn't think, in such a situation, he would talk it over with the press.
Morality is personal, introspective, situational. Legality is public, meant to be debated, refined, honed to a sharp edge. To imply that a legal debate is necessitated by two opposing moral viewpoints is so simple-minded as to be ludicrous.
By the way, I don't have the problem with Ayn Rand that many do here. My problem is mainly with the people that attach themselves to her thinking like she was the only person who was ever right in the history of mankind about anything.
Kind of like a friend of mine once said about Billy Joel, when I said that I just didn't seem to be enjoying his music that much - "Billy Joel is not nearly as bad as the people who play Billy Joel constantly on the jukebox."
xFrom dipshite at 10:23am:
ReplyDeleteI have word from the head of Human Resources here that Deborah Frisch has tendered her resignation.
So?
Merry Frisch-mas, one and all...
ReplyDeleteWell said, Mr. Dipshit.
As we all know, Glenn Greenwald must get down on his knees and humbly apologize to the esteemed Jeff Goldstein and Michelle Malkin.
After all, Greenwald has constantly quoted Frisch, she is without doubt the most famous liberal in country, and appears regularly on all cable TV shows advocating the death of conservatives. Her best-selling books are the most widely read liberal political books in the country.
Her blog is prominently linked to on every single liberal web site. The blogofascist “circle of links” prominently endorses everything she says. How can this be?
Glenn Greenwald is absolutely morally responsible for every word Frisch and Ward Churchill have ever said.
It’s time for him to make amends, and to apologize. All liberals must. All Bush opponents must apologize for their words.
tbogg shows how it’s done.
Glenn, you must apologize. Bow your head in shame. Threatening children. Really Glenn, we expect better from you.
I know I'm late to the party here, but there's one thing that's been bothering me with all the screaming about "No one would have known about SWIFT if it wasn't for the NYT story."
ReplyDeleteThey would have if they had ever tried to tranfer money between countries.
I used to work in Germany and used to send money to people in the US for e-bay transactions, or back to the UK where my folks lived.
One day I go into my bank and they say "All money transactions are going through a thing called SWIFT now. You'll need the SWFIT number of the receiving bank, and a bunch of new codes identifying the bank account you're going for. If you get the owner of that account to go into their bank, they'll be able to get that information."
I find it incredibly hard to believe that even the most stupid people in the world wouldn't work out that if you are transfering money, and you need a transaction number, and the SWIFT codes for the transacting institutions - it's possible someone has a record of it.
Ok - got that off my chest :) As you were. I'll go back to lurking
Man, conversations in this place are impossible to keep up with. First time poster here, I was just wondering if anyone can link to an audiofile/transcript of this interview with Glenn and Horowits that was discussed a few thousand posts up?
ReplyDeleteJT Davis said...
ReplyDelete"gris lobo...Hell, I challenge you to show proof, any proof that the war in Iraq is being won.
It's difficult to say if the Major is a parody or not. The SitRep in Iraq is that it's over, done, lost, finished, an abject failure. If the Major or Bart have anything they would like to share to the contrary, let's hear it. Like I said, we do have enemies, but being in Iraq has not made us safer. They are starting to realize that over there."
I certainly agree with you that there is some debate as to whether "the major" is a parody or not. I also agree that the war in Iraq is lost. Actually IMO it was lost before it ever started. Started by a bunch of wannabe's that had no idea of the consequences of what they were starting.
To me a title is something that deserves respect because of the sacrifice and hard work it represents. It is not something that one bestows on oneself because they are a wannabe
My main gripe with "the major", parody or not, is that he has assumed a title which IMO he has not earned, and in doing so has insulted the thousands of individuals that have sacrificed and worked hard to obtain the title legitimately.
As a veteran I am especially outraged in this instance but I would also be offended by anyone who put DR. in front of their name without having earned a doctorate degree, or had not gone through the lengthy sacrifice required to become an MD.
Now the NYT is coming out against stopping enemy attacks before they happen...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/us/
09plot.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&
pagewanted=print
Is there anything which provides aid and comfort to the enemy that this pathetic rag will not print?
Bart is regressing the EWO realm His rants are growing longer, more pointless, and seem like the frustrated foot-stamping of a five year old.
ReplyDeleteNope. Bart's rants have always been long and pointless.
It's just the fact that he can compose a sentence that has both a subject and a predicate that sets him apart from the other trolls.
One last thing for "the major"
ReplyDeleteThe Major said:
"I bet anything YOU wouldn't of caught Osama Bin Ladin either if you were president. Lucky for all of us you aren't!"
I would not only have caught Osama bin Laden, I would have stuck his head on a pike and paraded it down 5th Ave, in New York city on the back of a camel.
You are aware of course that we had Osama cornered and wounded in the Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan aren't you? And that George Bush let him escape by outsourcing his capture to the Pakistani Army and some Afghan warlords.
Why does David Brooks not defend his employer? Another army of freepers may attack yet again with their slogans and costumes and cause much damage.
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 1:52pm:
ReplyDeleteIs there anything which provides aid and comfort to the enemy that this pathetic rag will not print?
I see. The perfectly justified re-examination of a questionable doctrine (that has thus far proven an unmitigated disaster) in light of a recent ruling from the SCOTUS now qualifies as "aid and comfort" to an enemy you've yet to clearly define.
Bart, if your worldview is so fragile it can't take the occasional intellectual challenge, please feel free to air out your braincase. Otherwise do quit it with the hysteronics; they were embarrassing enough coming from Ashcroft.
Jao, will address some of your points at another time.
ReplyDeleteAs to anon's (in sheep's clothing) post, I started reading this blog in November. To this day, I have
not seen a single commenter post a sentence from an article by Ayn Rand with which he/she took issue and stated a contrary position and why he held it.
So, which of these statements do commenters here think Glenn would reject? Which does this "anon" take such issue with? And why?
"Religion is a primitive form of philosophy, [the] attempt to offer a comprehensive view of reality."
"Everyone has the right to make his own decision/s, but none has the right to force his decision on others."
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction [that] you give it."
"It is not a question of whether man chooses to be guided by [philosophy]: he is not equipped to live without it."
"The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles."
"Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values."
"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."
"Reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses, is man's basic tool of survival."
"A rational man is guided by his thinking – by a process of Reason –not by his feelings and desires."
"Reason is a faculty that man has to exercise by choice."
"We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality."
"To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion."
"I consider National Review the worst and most dangerous magazine in America. The kind of defense that it offers to capitalism results in nothing except the discrediting and destruction of capitalism"
"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
"Upper classes are a nation's past; the middle class is its future."
"The right to vote is a consequence, not a primary cause, of a free social system – and its value depends on the constitutional structure implementing and strictly delimiting the voters' power; unlimited majority rule is an instance of the principle of tyranny.
"I am an innovator. This is a term of distinction, a term of honor, rather than something to hide or apologize for. Anyone who has new or valuable ideas to offer stands outside the intellectual status quo. But the status quo is not a stream, let alone a 'mainstream'. It is a stagnant swamp. It is the innovators who carry mankind forward."
"Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense against the chaos of mental disintegration."
"Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone."
"No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the sum of his knowledge."
"I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows. This – the supremacy of reason – was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism."
"What objectivity and the study of philosophy requires is not an 'open mind,' but an active mind - a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them criticially."
"When I say 'capitalism,' I mean a pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism – with a separation of economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as a separation of state and church."
"In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, he must know what he is and where he is – i.e. he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge) and the nature of the universe in which he acts – i.e. he needs metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, which means: philosophy. He cannot escape from this need; his only alternative is whether the philosophy guiding him is to be chosen by his mind or by chance."
"The man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap."
"Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy ... Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions."
As for whether this blog is "Randian", I would say Glenn certainly is, in my opinion, but most of the commenters, alas, are not.
BTW, contrary to accusation, I am not a "blind" follower of the thinking of Ayn Rand. As a matter of fact I take issue with one of the core tenets of her philosophy:
"Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man's life"
If she were around, I suspect I could convince her this statement has fallacies. But I also suspect by the time she was on her deathbed, she knew it.
EWO,
ReplyDeleteI have no idea if Glenn agrees with all of those statements or not. Even if he agrees with almost all of them, that does not mean he’s an “objectivist” or an adherent of Ayn Rand, because she’s said many other things as well - some, I suspect that Glenn would disagree with, just as I suspect he would disagree with quite a few things you have said here as well.
That was my point (and Jao’s too) that you are “projecting” your version (or beliefs) on others. Let Glenn speak for himself. If he’s proclaimed somewhere that “this is the only objectivist blog on the internet” then please provide a link where he said that, because I missed it.
Otherwise, speak for yourself and don’t attempt to speak for Glenn. He really doesn’t need any help from you.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 1:52pm: Is there anything which provides aid and comfort to the enemy that this pathetic rag will not print?
I see. The perfectly justified re-examination of a questionable doctrine (that has thus far proven an unmitigated disaster) in light of a recent ruling from the SCOTUS now qualifies as "aid and comfort" to an enemy you've yet to clearly define.
My God, did you even read the article to which I linked? The NYT was attacking the strategy of stopping terrorist plots while they are in the planning stage and before they start murdering our people. Ask the families of the 9/11 and 7/7 victims whether this is a "questionable doctrine."
Bart, if your worldview is so fragile it can't take the occasional intellectual challenge, please feel free to air out your braincase.
I am perfectly comfortable with my world view of preemptively stopping the terrorists before they can murder our citizens. So far, it has proven the only strategy able to completely shut down enemy attacks on our citizens and interests outside of the terrorists' home countries.
What I just did was slam the NYT (and now you) for arguing that we should allow these animals to murder our citizens before acting. Adopting such an insane policy would be clear aid and comfort to the enemy and a clear and present danger to our country.
Is your blind partisan hatred so strong that you would see our fellow citizens murdered rather than have a lame duck President get any credit for doing his job???
"Now the NYT is coming out against stopping enemy attacks before they happen..."
ReplyDeleteBart, now you're being silly. The Times is reporting on a debate over pre-emptive action. The last word - in fact, the last few papagraphs - go to supporters of pre-emption, including Chertoff.
The debate isn't over whether we should or shouldn't stop enemy attacks before they happen - that's ridiculous - but if we should step in at the point when you have "[t]alk without any kind of an action . . ."
Action?! You mean, like blowing up stuff? No, silly:
"In the two most recent plots, the authorities have simultaneously warned that the suspects were contemplating horrific attacks . . . but then added that as far as they knew, no one was close to actually making such a strike.
In the Miami case, an F.B.I. official said at a recent hearing that the suspects apparently did not have written information on how to make explosives, details on the layout of the Sears Tower or any known link to a terrorist group.
In New York, officials said Friday that none of the eight suspects believed to be planning the tunnel attack were in the United States, and that they apparently did not have bomb materials and had not completed reconnaissance work on their supposed target . . . . One American official said the members of the group had never met one another."
I'm pretty risk adverse, but although:
"federal officials, including Mr. Chertoff, said the government could not waste time trying to determine whether the suspects were smart enough or serious enough to turn their threats into destructive action."
certainly isn't entirely unreasonable, this version of the One Percent Doctrine could, if followed too mindlessly or zealously, squander resources, waste chances of roping in more guys, and raise the risk of false positives (because nothing aids our cause like arresting, abusing, and endlessly interrogating folks because of vague suspicions and a mistranslated word (if this account is accurate)).
-Dan S.
From Bart at 5:33pm:
ReplyDeleteMy God, did you even read the article to which I linked?
I did. I have to wonder if we're reading the same thing.
I am perfectly comfortable with my world view of preemptively stopping the terrorists before they can murder our citizens. So far, it has proven the only strategy able to completely shut down enemy attacks on our citizens and interests outside of the terrorists' home countries.
Good. Something we agree on.
However that has very little to do with the article's point, given this 'doctrine' of "pre-emption" was directed at established nation-states (such as Iraq).
What I just did was slam the NYT (and now you) for arguing that we should allow these animals to murder our citizens before acting. Adopting such an insane policy would be clear aid and comfort to the enemy and a clear and present danger to our country.
What you did was use the same trite phrase Ashcroft and his ilk use to silence and debate. No-one is arguing we shouldn't stop terrorists before they act, merely that we should re-examine if attacking whole countries that may pose a possible danger someday is necessarily a wise course of action.
Is your blind partisan hatred so strong that you would see our fellow citizens murdered rather than have a lame duck President get any credit for doing his job???
Hardly. And I'd be overjoyed if this same lame duck occupant of the Oval Office actually started doing his job in the first place; the last six years are nothing to be proud of and are in the running for the "Worst Administration Ever" award.
The fairer question to ask is whether or not your partisan loyalty is so blind you can't think beyond the 'official line' and tolerate a bit of debate.