Seriously. Why can’t we.
After the Annie Jacobsen story about what she was as a possible terrorist dry run broke over a week ago, would it kill some major news company to help flesh things out just a little bit? Supposedly the guys involved were a Syrian music band. Why don’t we know the name of the band? Why don’t we know where they were supposed to play? Why don’t we know if they actually played there? Or why don’t we know that there wasn’t some place where they were supposed to play? All I heard is that someone called the TSA and found out there was an investigation on that flight. Why don’t we know anything else? I want to believe the whole thing was innocent, but the press won’t help me.
On the Berger story. Did he take documents once or three times? Were the documents ‘drafts’ or ‘copies’? What about the inadvertantly destroyed documents? Why doesn’t someone ask how the documents were inadvertantly destroyed? How can the 9/11 Commission be so sure nothing important was in the missing documents if they are missing? Do they mean pants pockets? Doesn’t anyone think that the phrase ‘stuck the documents in his pants’ is a little odd? If you mean pockets say pockets! Sheesh. And if you don’t know, say in his pants perhaps in the pockets or something. Don’t leave us wondering.
I want to believe the whole thing was innocent, but the press won’t help me.
Well, given that you have no reason to believe that the whole thing was more than one flyer’s randomly racist paranoia – none – perhaps you should be asking yourself: Why is the American press corps (most of it) flaming the racist paranoia? Why would 14 musicians need to be publicly identified when no one is claiming they were anything but musicians? They didn’t ask for country-wide paranoia on the grounds that they’re all Syrians, or somesuch.
By the way, Ask The Pilot has a rather different (and rather more expert) take on the matter. (You need a Salon Day Pass to get in.)
Needs a new economic model. The current model is an extremely inefficient bundling. You pay for the whole mag/site, and have little say on how that money gets divvied out to stories. And the say you do have, unsubscribing, has an obnoxiously slow turnaround time.
I bet it’d work if they worked on commission, so you could aggregate individual payments in return for the reporter following up on certain stories for you. I’d pay 50 cents to figure out where in Sandy’s pants the documents went, and if 10,000 people agree, you’d get a good journalist on it.
Journalism in its current form is really, really broken.
Oh yeah, I have to weigh in on that.
“I want to believe the whole thing was innocent”
Then why don’t you? There’s certainly no evidentiary impediment.
My favorite was Bird Dog’s ‘smells like a dry run’. Apparently ‘sounds’ is what you use when there’s the slightest shred of evidence, and ‘smells’ when there isn’t.
PS I agree with you about Berger, by the way. I’m finding it very difficult to find any authoritative information. I would suspect this meant it was as much idiocy as Jacobsen’s hysteria, but I admit it’s not intrinsically implausible, as Jacobsen’s story is. (And I did assume, for a couple of months after the story originally surfaced, that the whole affair Plame was probably nonsense – after all, who could believe that someone senior in the Bush administration would really out a covert CIA operative just to take political revenge on her husband? – and I was wrong there: so I don’t want to just dismiss the Berger story. But hard facts would be nice.)
There are fine news organizations who get the story right.
:-p
Well, Sebastian, in her follow-up piece, Jacobsen listed a bunch of organizations trying to followup, from ABC to others.
On Berger, I’m at a bit of a loss that you’re complaining that not enough details have been revealed of a confidential investigation. Should the leakers hold a press conference? Doubtless. Who else do you expect to be holding forth on the facts, and why would you blame “the press” more than, say, yourself, for not having found out these details? And have you seen anyone who wasn’t out to demonstrate that Berger was a Bad Guy use the “stuck in his pants” phrase? Funny, that.
Why Can’t We Have A Better Press Corps?
Good question. My favorite recent find of press incompetence, is an AP piece inadvertantly preserved for posterity by that news source of record, Newsmax.com:
Libya Converted Uranium Into Plutonium
VIENNA, Austria – Libya used technology and know-how acquired on the black market to process uranium into a small amount of plutonium, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Friday.
Good lord, those Libyans have technology more advanced than ours! No wonder Doc Brown got his plutonium from the Libyans! Maybe they use some sort of nanotechnology-derived alchemy that could be used to turn lead into gold!
Good lord, those Libyans have technology more advanced than ours! No wonder Doc Brown got his plutonium from the Libyans! Maybe they use some sort of nanotechnology-derived alchemy that could be used to turn lead into gold!
I’m guessing this is more of what you’re calling “humor”, but for the life of me I can’t figure out what the joke is supposed to be…
Considering the number of people in the right-wing blogosphere who are absolutely convinced that the Syrian guys were terrorists, regardless of the investigation that cleared them, I’m glad that their names haven’t been released. It seems obvious to me that they would be targets for vigilantism.
“I’m guessing this is more of what you’re calling “humor”, but for the life of me I can’t figure out what the joke is supposed to be…”
That it’s as impossible to transmute uranium into plutonium as gold into lead, of course. Is this news to anyone? In other news, anti-gravity not yet invented.
I’m sorry, I’ve had a rough day. So, given that: why is making plutonium from uranium funny? It’s done all the time.
That it’s as impossible to transmute uranium into plutonium as gold into lead, of course. Is this news to anyone?
Converting U238 into Pu239 is the whole purpose of breeder reactors. I’m not terribly impressed by Newsmax, but this is something they got right.
Um, oh, yeah. Did I mention that I’m in agonizing pain from gout?
Look, Halley’s comet! [points, runs]
Exactly. For example, U238->U239 by neutron capture, then U239->Pu239 by beta decay. It ain’t magic, and it ain’t alchemy.
Converting U238 into Pu239 is the whole purpose of breeder reactors.
Oy. Bad example then! I always had figured breeder reactors used uranium based reaction to convert a non-fissionable plutonium into Pu-239.
Why can’t we have a better press corps?
I may be Pollyanna-ish (and if you really knew me you’d realize how extraordinary that statement is) but I think that’s part of what we’re doing. Cross-checking. Remembering. Giving feedback.
N. Z. Bear has an interesting observation today that’s directly on point:
I don’t honestly believe that the press will survive anything like the level of scrutiny it will be receiving over the next few years. But it will be interesting to see it try. Maybe it’s an institution that we’ve outgrown in its current form.
The FBI investigation is not enough on its own. Congress has a grave constitutional duty to investigate this matter.
Unlike, say, the Plame Affair, as Drum points out. But that’s not what bothers me.
Unlike the abuses at Abu Ghraib, or the torture memos, or the memos that the Red Cross has asked the administration to release. There was a hearing or two to ritually denounce torture and affirm that the United States does not do these things, but no serious effort to find out what had happened or to stop it. No subpoenas have been issued, and now it’s all been postponed till after the election, oops I mean court martial. If not postponed indefinitely.
Unlike the Arar case, or other reports of “extraordinary rendition.” Leahy sent a bunch of written requests, got a bunch of total non-answers, and no help at all from his colleagues. To my knowledge, the White House has never been asked about this at all, and no ranking administration official has been asked about it before Congress.
Unlike the DOJ’s roundups of immigrants in violation of the Patriot Act. Unlike the abuses at the Brooklyn and Jersey detention centers documented by the inspector general.
Unlike any number of smaller misdeeds that are probably more serious than Berger’s wrongdoing, and do not have their own FBI probes.
I don’t usually use this word, but that’s partly to reserve it for situations like this: I hate the GOP leadership of Congress.
To anyone who plans to vote for Bush despite some reservations: I strongly urge–no, scratch that, I abjectly plead with you to consider splitting your ticket. Obviously this depends on your Senators and reps and their opponents, and I know most of the Democrats are not noble statesmen either, but consider it.
We have an administration that has an almost unlimited belief in its own power. Clear evidence that this power has been abused. The administration keeps things secret from the public as much as it possibly can. The Congress has completely ceased to function as an independent branch of government. The press corps, as Sebastian points out in his excellent post, cannot be counted on to do a good job investigating these stories. There are some exceptions, but Seymour Hersh can’t do it himself. The Supreme Court hsa done its bit, but it has no power or Constitutional authority over most of this stuff. You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist or even a Democrat to see the dangers in that situation. What if Nixon had a Congress like this?
Also, a divided government would slow down the jaunty march towards bankruptcy, and maybe help bring about to better leadership for the GOP. It’s not like you don’t have decent Congressmen. Who here prefers Frist and Santorum to Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Dick Lugar? And surely you can do better than DeLay.
Yes, I realize my argument implies that Kerry will lose. What can I say, I’m a pessimist. Certainly the odds of a Kerry loss are greater than the odds of the Dems taking both houses.
I think the odds for the Democrats retaking the Senate are pretty fair, actually, though I wouldn’t bet my hypothetical farm on it. Retaking the House isn’t out of the question, but I’d agree that it’s not likely.
. . . I’m glad that their names haven’t been released. It seems obvious to me that they would be targets for vigilantism.
Yep. I would like to think that all the would-be Todd Beamers at Michelle Malkin’s and other blogs would be ashamed at their public statements that, had they been Ms. Jacobsen, they would’ve gotten together a group of “red-blooded [i.e., white] American men” on that flight and restrained these men until the flight landed. But I don’t have a lot of confidence in the ability of that kind of person to feel shame.
“And have you seen anyone who wasn’t out to demonstrate that Berger was a Bad Guy use the “stuck in his pants” phrase?”
Actually I see his lawyers using the phrase, which is what makes me so suspicious. It seems like a very lawyerly phrase.
“Actually I see his lawyers using the phrase, which is what makes me so suspicious. It seems like a very lawyerly phrase.”
Cite?
“Mr. Berger and his attorney told The Associated Press that he knowingly removed handwritten notes he made by sticking them in his jacket and pants.” cite
I can’t find the original AP wire (they seem to write over old ones on similar topics unless I’m searching improperly) so I can’t tell if this is a bad summary of the AP report or otherwise.
Furthermore, what the hell is inadvertant about knowingly putting classified material in (even just) your pocket?
According to this article, a grad student and his research assistant (a “Mr. Google”) tracked down the band in about an hour.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/taylor200407211921.asp
And don’t say I never cite to NRO…
Here’s another example: the Army Inspector General reports 94 incidents of prisoner abuse in U.S. custody in Iraq or Afghanistan. That is more than previously reported, but less than I feared. Lots of newspapers have picked this up, though most have just re-run the same AP story.
What’s really odd is that only 21 incidents are alleged at all detention centers (including Abu Ghraib), and only 8 incidents are alleged to have taken place during or surrounding interrogations. I would have guessed we’d seen pictures of more detainees than that, and we’ve seen only a small fraction of the pictures.
Here are some questions I wish I knew the answer to:
1) What is the definition of “abuse”? Physical abuse only, or do “stress positions”, exposure to extreme temperatures, forced nudity, and sexual humiliation also qualify?
2) What is the definition of “incident”? If guards beat up 12 men in the same room, is that 1 incident or 12? If guards beat up 1 man 12 times, is that 1 incident or 12?
Or is it broader than that–does “the events at Abu Ghraib in November” count as one incident?
3) What counts as an allegation? Did they examine press accounts and the Abu Ghraib photographs and try to reconstruct individual prisoners or incidents of abuse, or only on abuse specifically reported to the U.S. military? Is information from Taguba’s report included? Is it safe to assume that the fiIf the latter, is there any procedure for prisoners to report abuse, or does it only happen when a U.S. soldier protests and an investigation starts?
4) Does this cover abuse by CIA agents, other intelligence officers, or private contractors?
5) Are there any publicly available excerpts from the report? Any relevant Senators’ questions and answers?
So weak. Maybe they just haven’t had time to follow up because they’re all reading the 9/11 report & they’ll do it later, but I wonder.
(I should mention, the Armed Service’s committee did apparently hold a hearing today, though I think that’s the last one planned. Warner’s doing something, though it’s far from enough.)
Furthermore, what the hell is inadvertant about knowingly putting classified material in (even just) your pocket?
The current Berger-is-more-or-less-innocent theory seems to be that some copies of classified documents were mixed in with some of his private, non-classified material which were in his various pockets. [That Berger is alleged only to have removed copies of documentation appears confirmed; it’s the latter mix-up that is theorizing.] Make of that what you will.
Interesting how this thread turned into an opportunity for Katherine to bash the Bush administration.
To anyone who plans to vote for Bush despite some reservations: I strongly urge–no, scratch that, I abjectly plead with you to consider splitting your ticket.
I urge anyone reading this to ignore Katherine’s request and vote the way you think is best.
I don’t hate the leadership of the Dem’s in Congress, but I am thankful they aren’t in charge.
I’m mainly fixing the blockquotes….Everyone will obviously vote as they choose, but I wanted to make sure that people who say they have concerns about Bush but don’t trust Kerry on foreign policy had considered deliberate ticket-splitting.
The memos disclosed were not irrelevant, but they were incomplete and chosen selectively. Many of the documents requested were not released. (Has Congress even gotten the whole Taguba report yet?)
Sorry ’bout the blockquote…
Is that your analysis in total of what was released?
It just seems that you have great passion for this subject… but in your pursuit of the truth the released papers have been dismissed. I find that awfully convenient.
I try to check the site out often… maybe I have missed your detailed analysis about thier contents.
blue: Interesting how this thread turned into an opportunity for Katherine to bash the Bush administration.
But the Bush administration is in itself an opportunity for bashing: anything’s a good reason. 😉
Well the Dem’s have Berger, which seems to be the one person who is willfully breaking the law.
You mean, apart from whoever outed Plame? And whoever signed off on deporting Maher Arar to Syria? And… so on.
Thanks for making my point…
There is no proof whatsover of the Bush administration outing Plame. For all you know it could have been a Dem… it could have even been me… but don’t let the fact that you don’t know stop you from reaching a verdict about Bush.
And you can’t say that the Bush administration commited an illegal act in deporting that guy to Syria. You can say someone was wrong to do it. It could even have been a mistake for all you know.
Berger did break the law. Even he has admitted that. Whether it was willful or not will be the debate.
Where’s the honesty?
And you can’t say that the Bush administration commited an illegal act in deporting that guy to Syria.
“They said they wanted to know why I did not want to go back to Syria. I told them I would be tortured there.” – Maher Arar
” No State Party shall expel, return (‘refouler’) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture” – UN Convention Against Torture
“United States of America – 18 Apr 1988” – Status of CAT Ratification
“In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision.” – Chief Justice Marshall
Your turn
Blue claimed: There is no proof whatsover of the Bush administration outing Plame.
You mean, apart from the fact that Novak said it was someone senior in the administration who had told him? And that Bush sees the need to have independent counsel? There is evidence – considerable, circumstancial evidence – that it was someone senior in the Bush administration who committed this felony. There is, you’re right, no proof – no more than there is proof yet that Berger committed a misdemeanour: merely circumstancial evidence that may suggest it.
And you can’t say that the Bush administration commited an illegal act in deporting that guy to Syria.
Sidereal already pointed out why you’re wrong there. (Thanks, Sidereal.)
Where’s the honesty?
Indeed, where is it? Republicans seem to be strongly inclined to cover up their own crimes and point noisily at the lesser crimes committed by others. Walking out with secret documents is unquestionably wrong, but Berger appears to have cooperated with the investigation, and if it was simply a misunderstanding about what he was and was not allowed to remove, can hardly have done much damage to national security by what he did. Misdemeanour. Possibly worse, but thus far, no evidence of it.
Whoever outed Plame, though, committed a felony. So far from cooperating with the investigation, whoever was responsible is keeping their head down. So far from acknowledging that what happened was wrong, Bush took no action whatsoever until pushed into it by the DoJ investigation – and then, memorably, informed the investigators that he didn’t think they’d ever find out who did it. And outing a covert CIA agent unquestionably damages national security: it puts all her previous contacts in jeopardy. Even if the person who did it escapes prosecution by a technicality, nothing can make it less than dastardly.
Where is your honesty, Blue?
As I’ve said elsewhere, the Plame case and the Berger case are, believe it or not, two entirely separate cases!
Or perhaps I should have said cases!!!!
Berger case: we have the perp, and we have the crime. All that’s missing is a full definition of the crime committed (as in: was this just spectacularly shoddy procedure that might earn Berger a couple of years in the clink, or was this something more deliberate and sinister? Me? How the hell should I know?).
Plame case: no perp yet. Outing-as-crime still unclear, at this point. Did I mention, no perp yet?
Best of all, the Plame and Berger case (at this point) have absolutely nothing in common. Which, of course, makes it utterly impossible to throw the book at Berger until Plame’s shadowy molestar is publicly crucified, and the Bush administration imprisoned en masse.
Or, we could just go ahead and proceed with those cases in which we actually have evidence. I know I’m torn.
“Or, we could just go ahead and proceed with those cases in which we actually have evidence. I know I’m torn.”
Well, you know, the DOJ has been “investigating” since October. One has to wonder a bit about just how that has been proceeding. If all were completely clear, one might think they wouldn’t be shy about waiting to put the cuffs on, mightn’t one?
In any case, surely no one is accusing this DOJ of covering up for Berger, I trust? Therefore things are “proceeding,” so there’s nothing to complain about, and nothing to do but shut up, sit back, and wait, as wise folk advise us.
There isn’t actually a rule that says we have to pontificate and make partisan points about this on the Internet, so far as I know.
I could, of course, be wrong.
There isn’t actually a rule that says we have to pontificate and make partisan points about this on the Internet, so far as I know.
And if there were, I’m sure most of us would actively be disobeying, no?
Jes & Side,
You guys continuously miss the point…
Show me some evidence that the decision to deporting this guy was made at the top level of the Bush administration…
Show me some evidence that the Bush administration intentionally broke the law when Plame’s name was disclosed.
You can’t because you don’t have any evidence whatsover that would hold up. You have opinions and rumors… not facts.
The Berger case seems to have alot of facts involved. I can’t believe that you can honestly see the difference.
Show me some evidence that the decision to deporting this guy was made at the top level of the Bush administration…
Oh, now you’re reaching. Your assertion was initially that Berger was “the one person who is willfully breaking the law”. When I pointed out to you that over the past couple of years, several other people in the Bush administration have wilfully broken the law, you started trying to fudge that maybe a law wasn’t broken: then when it was pointed out to you that deporting Maher Arar was unquestionably a crime, and not one committed “accidentally”, you’re now trying avert attention by saying “it wasn’t someone top level”… and so? As Katherine has pointed out in her many well-researched posts on this subject, the decision to deport Mahar Arar was made at a fairly high level – it wasn’t just some flunky signing off. No, no idea how high: how high do you want to go?
Show me some evidence that the Bush administration intentionally broke the law when Plame’s name was disclosed.
“Intentionally”? To quote Toby Ziegler, “You tripped or something”? Divulging that a NOC agent works for the CIA is breaching the law. The person who did it may have believed that it was okay to do if the the NOC agent is married to someone on whom the administration wants to take political revenge – but ignorance, even ignorance on that scale, is no defense.
Slarti: As I’ve said elsewhere, the Plame case and the Berger case are, believe it or not, two entirely separate cases!
Indeed, and I promise I wouldn’t have brought it up in this thread if little Blue hadn’t been trying to act like everyone else in the administration is snowy-white and pure. (Well, okay, I did bring it up earlier: as an example of how while I don’t believe anything serious has really happened with Berger, I didn’t believe that with Plame either – until the scale of the crime became too evident for anyone but Bush-worshippers to deny.)
“Show me some evidence that the decision to deporting this guy was made at the top level of the Bush administration…”
The order to deport Arar was signed by then-Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson. John Ashcroft was out of town, so Larry Thompson was Acting Attorney General at the time. So, cabinet level or just under depending on your interpretation. I think it would have been Ashcroft if he’d been in town, but the news stories are not entirely clear.
There is probably a presidential finding that authorizes “extraordinary rendition” as a general policy, but it’s classified. I doubt Bush signs off on a particular case.
Also, the LA Times has answered one of my questions about the Inspector General’s report:
Peace, Jesurgislac.
Peace, Slartibartfast:
Plame, Wilson, yellowcake, Niger;
Berger; separate.
Katherine,
So is that an admission that it wasn’t some evil plot that the Bush administration actually cooked up?
Show me some evidence that the Sandy Berger intentionally broke the law.
You can’t because there has yet to be even an official statement from the investigation, let alone any charges filed. You have opinions and rumors, not facts.
“The Berger case seems to have alot of facts involved.
Hint: “alot” is not a word. It’s “a lot.” And, gee, most things have “facts involved,” whatever that means.
“I can’t believe that you can honestly see the difference.”
Okay.
Gary,
I am not sure where you are going, but the facts released so far SEEM to be much more substantive than the other cases. Even if we only look at his own press release. He admitted to screwing up.
Alot ain’t a word, but I ‘magine you get da point. What’s your deal? Why would you harp on the use of alot… it is used that way alot by alot of people.
“…the facts released so far….”
But, of course, there have been no “facts released.” There have only been leaks, rumors, assertions of opinion, and defensive statements from Berger’s attorney, as well as bits and pieces of reporting. No facts “released” at all, though.
See, it’s good to be able to tell the difference. Kinda important, even. And, yes, this applies equally to the Plame case and to Berger.
“…it is used that way alot by alot of people.”
Yes, there are many subliterate people.
Gary, Sir…
There’s no Chicago Manual of Style adherence requirements in the Posting Rules. Give Blue a break.
Hell, if we’re gonna try and enforce a standard like that around here, we’re gonna have to ban half the readers (and don’t get me started on Navy Davy) right away.
I’m not enforcing any standard, Edward; I have no power to do so, as you know. I made an incidental comment (which does not meet any definition of “harp”).
“Alot” isn’t significant, it’s just something that drives me crazy (along with random incorrect use of ellipses); a significant problem, in some cases, however, with people who can’t manage punctuation or grammar is that frequently one can’t tell what the heck they’re trying to say. On some other occasions, one can manage, if one is willing to put tremendous effort into deciphering and speculative reconstruction, but that’s a rather unfair burden to put on other people due purely to one’s own lack of care or effort.
In any case, as a rule, I try to reserve my grammatical/punctuational remarks to only those which are either a) teasing/amusing; or b) relevant because the person is being so bloody incompetently incoherent. “Alot,” to be sure, is neither, and I merely plead jesus-christ-man-that’s-fifth-grade-spelling-for-god’s -sake-try-not-to-look-like-an-idiot-for-the-sake-of-your-own-dignity.
I’m aware the court might not accept that plea, and I stand willing to accept my punishment, m’lud.
I’m aware the court might not accept that plea, and I stand willing to accept my punishment, m’lud.
Pun-ishment is one thing. “Punishment,” well, I like to think we’re more of a positive re-enforcment sort of place so if you just check that “Remember personal info?” box above, we’ll give you a nice cookie.
hmm. Actually, “that ‘Remember personal info?’ box above” was only “above” when I was typing. Now it’s below…(and oddly above, as I’m typing again)…too early for relativity.
Gary,
I guess you are right… statements released in defense of Berger by his own team probably shouldn’t be considered factual!
I still say Berger is the only one of the cases mentioned on this thread were one admits that they breached the law. We don’t have anyone admitting to that in the other situations.
Edward,
I’m touch by coming to my defense. That doesn’t happen alot. ; -)