Redstate

Well, it's a good thing we don't really need the help of THESE countries in the Global War on Terror.

Hat tip to The American Thinker

EASTERN European countries were yesterday scrambling to distance themselves from the CIA as officials in Washington searched for the source of an embarrassing leak that exposed a programme of secret jails for terrorist detainees.  Claims that the CIA has been hiding prominent Al-Qaeda members at a so-called "black site" facility in eastern Europe have prompted angry denials from Romania, Poland and Albania.

As details emerged yesterday of CIA flights to remote military airfields in northeast Poland and southeast Romania, George W Bush's administration ordered an internal inquiry into how classified data was leaked to The Washington Post and Human Rights Watch, a New York-based group.

you had seen zell's piece

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1105/02edmiller.html

because I am far more concerned (p*sseds off actually) about some folks at the CIA thinking they have the right to run their own foreign policy than I am about the 'secret' incarceration the b*astards who are trying to kill me.

Where is the demand for an investigation? We went around in small circles for two years to find the miscreant the might have spilled the beans about a maybe-once-upon-a-time-undercover CIA desk-jockey. And after two years what did we end up with? An indictment for testimony that disagreed with some d*mned reporter about a non-crime. But for some reason we can't seem to muster a full fledged investigation into the illegal conduct of people at the CIA leaking classified information and the press and Human Rights Watch for receiving classified information. One or more people at the CIA need to be stood up against a wall and shot.

Does anyone on the other side of the aisle give a rats-*ss about this country?

As always, smagar. Bumped.

Don't blame the media for doing its job.  This is a democracy and it is the press that keeps us informed.  If you want to censor the media I suggest you lobby lawmakers to pass legislation to do so.  Until that sad day comes, it I hope the press continues to tell is what is being done around the globe in our name.

If any person irresponsibly aid the nation's enemies in war, they will be blamed whether they are in the "media" or not. What is il;;lustrated by thei and their behavipor since wa;lter cropnkites tet ;lie, is that mpost in the media are enemies themsel;ves. Just ask them.\ they are "woprl;d citizens" first, nopt americans.\

well, the "world" is indifferent to good, evil, justice, and the slaughter of innocents. The world is amoral, unaccountable and aloof, and so serves the evil powers that profit from ignorant moral relativism.

the remedy is, partially, what we are doing now at redstate and the alternative media

we need aggresive conservative broadcast tv news and a better fox!!

BUT, an argument can be made that, given the blood many msm hands in this war, that action should be taken like that in ww2 to censor info that aids the enemy and us lives

freedom of the press is not a suicide pact

Show me where in the Constitution it says it is the job of the press to damage our security. All that these stories accomplish is to make it harder to protect the country and the press doesn't seem to give a d*mn so long as some so-called journalist breaks the story first.

The diary author didn't call for censorship.  He asked if the reporters care what their reporting does to America.

These MSM people are constantly claiming that they are the "guardians of the First Amendment," that they are an institution of this society.

If so, doesn't that mean they have an obligation to act in our long-term best interests, taking into account all possible effects of their reporting?

After all, these reporters are constantly harping on the virtues of keeping anonymous sources secret, so they do understand the principle that sometimes there are things left secret.

simply put: well said.

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said that if he had to pick between a free press and a government, he'd pick a free press. I see his point.

The day that the prevailing attitude is "go upstairs and play with you toys, kids.", we're in a lot of trouble.

This ofcourse is no excuse for irrepsonsible or yellow journalism that misinforms and misleads but I don't ee this as being the case.

I'll add that I think many disgruntled people here, for perverse partisan reasons, wouldn't be as angry if the Dems were in power.

It's worded as "freedom of the press" without passion or prejiduce to whom it pisses off.

leaks.

Seems to me, the damage caused by leaks like this are far worse than Novak printing Valarie Plame's name.

I also agree, that a leaky CIA will make countries reluctant to help us.  

Seems to me that the media should be more responsible, and the administration should investigate and fully prosecute these leaks.  

The press was censored during the Second World War - and for good reason.  And, frankly, they need it more than ever today, given the generally unpatriotic behavior of the press.

doesn't make it right to do it.

Just because it isn't illegal for the press to print info leaked to them, that doesn't mean it is ethical or wise for them to do so.

that's your opinion and is controlled by what you think is patriotic. Questioning authority and putting them under the test of scrutiny IS patriotic. I like it.

Politicans of all stripes should be careful how they handle the public trust (or squander it).

Yes, the press has done nothing criminal but as the Left's Eliot Ness pointed out, they are "witnesses to a crime".  And as the court has ruled, journalists do not have a special privilege that allows them to protect the identify of such criminals, the Left's Eliot Ness drove that point home quite well as Judith Miller can testify.

So make these reporters give up these criminals from the crime scenes they have witnessed, or hold them in contempt until they do... or until they rot... whichever comes first.  The administration needs to learn to throw domestic fastballs.  Their opponents do so every day.

expect to keep secret forever CIA prison camps in Poland and Romania?  The truth would eventually come out.  Perhaps a Polish farmer disgusted by our prison in his country or a CIA jailer who grows a conscious.  In an open society (we are still an open society, aren't we?) you can't hope to keep such things secret.

There are other questions.  Are these CIA prison camps in accord with U.S. law?  Are they in accord with Polish and Romanian law?  Do they violate international treaties such as the "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment?"  

a secret CIA prison in Eastern Europe, outweigh the cost of potentially losing that prison, along with the cooperation of the nation who hosted it?

I don't get the sense the MSM thinks much about that.  They report whatever they can get their hands on, and let others deal with the problems that creates.  They leave (at least with me) the impression that they don't much care what they screw up, or who they imperil, with their reporting.

Has anyone, for example, seen any probing self-analysis by the MSM as to whether the benefit of outing the CIA's secret airline in Iraq (as the NYT did this past summer) outweighed the cost of imperiling those who worked for that airline?

Or, did you get the same feeling that I did:  That the NYT really didn't get a hoot if anyone got hurt.

I don't have a black/white view on the question on what the MSM should/shouldn't report on intelligence.  I value living in a country with a free press.  

But I also know that most useful intelligence partnerships are confidential ones.  Especially in today's touchy world.  And, without good partners in the Global War on Terrorism, we are much less effective and, most likely, much less safe.  

I just get the sense that the MSM doesn't care as much as it should about who gets hurt.  And they should.  Because that "who" could easily be us.

But the press has this wacky idea that "the public has the right to know."

Oddly, in spite of the MSM's constant bellowing to the contrary, this concept is not and never has been part of the bill of rights. You and I, frankly, don't have the "right" to know anything. And in some cases, I don't care if I know, but I hope you (the proverbial 'you') don't find out.

If the CIA were doing its job and keeping a tight lid on operations, the MSM would have nothing to work with.

Do I believe the MSM to be largely peopled with traitors or morons? Sure. The best way to fight back, though, is to simply black out the information coming their way. And I absolutely believe that, when it comes to certain information (CIA ops, prison camps, strategy, etc) this ought to be done.

You'd be surprised what the bad guys NEVER find out about.  Often, things you'd think they'd figure out--they don't.

Remember, during the Gulf War, the "Hail Mary" maneuver of the 24th Infantry Division.  It crossed the western Iraqi desert to cut off the Iraqi escape routes from Kuwait to Baghdad.

No one expected that an Army tank division would catch the Iraqis totally by surprise.  But, in a very real sense, it happened.  The lead tank companies of the 24th Infantry encountered columns of Iraqi heavy-equipment transporters (HETs) driving to Baghdad, with tanks tied down on the backs of the trucks.  As if they were cargo.  

Now, no one puts a tank on the back of a truck, with the barrel tied down, if you think you might, just possibly, run into the enemy.

But the Iraqis did.  Many were indeed fooled.

If the bad guys figure it out, fine.  We'll react.  But, make them do the hard work.  Make them figure it out.  Let's not make it easy for them.  

so, would it be in better conscience to know that a prisoner has vital information that could save hundreds or thousands of lives, but simply let it go, becuase you might have to hurt the guy to find out?

Seriously, we didn't actually torture prisoners in abu graib or guantanamo... humiliated, absolutely, but there was no real torture; and the left screamed bloody murder.

But what if we did have to resort to torture? I'm a Christian, and the thought of hurting another human being disgusts me. But the thought of letting many people die rather than harming one... that, to me, is unconscienable.

Even humiliating prisoners is against treaty law. And it is against EVERYTHING our country was founded upon.

If we begin with the philosophy that WE have no morality in this war. When we have secret prison camps (I seem to recall when the communists had them we thought it was evil) and a Vice-President urging Congress to permit torture, justifying it all as pursuit of the greater good, then what have we become?  You are a Christian.  Since when did Christians begin beliving in situational morality?

One big reason to be against torture -- I just did a post on this here -- is that torture is very likely to lead to false information.  People being tortured tend to say whatever they think will end the torture, not what is true.  As a matter of fact, some key false information about an Iraq-AlQaeda-WMD connection was received from an Al-Qaeda member who was being tortured.  Given that false information is often worse than no information at all, I don't see a good reason to have a policy of torturing people for information.  

Really. I'm not a huge fan of torture. I mentioned in another post that I was pro-assassination. Believe it or not, I'm not a huge fan of that either. But are there occassions when morals (Yes, morals!) and ethics call for either? In some situations I think so. It's called the lesser of two evils.

You're right... I don't like situational ethics, and I really do have a hard time with things like this. But the question you have to ask is, which is the more moral option? Is it more moral to let the hundreds or thousands die? Or to let one terrorist get knocked around a little?

"Hail Mary" was kept secret for a few weeks.  "Operation Overlord" was kept secret for a few months.  "Enigma" was kept secret for five years, and many people lost their lives keeping that secret.

The CIA prison camps were kept secret for a couple of years.  That is a long time.  This is the kind of secret that would have to be kept FOREVER.  That is impossible.  Also, it's unfair to blame the MSM.  European countries were beginning to suspect.  They were filing complaints about CIA prisoner overflights.  The s*** was going to hit the fan on this soon no matter what the MSM did.  Unless we propose censoring the entire world.

Here's a question for the readership: what do you think would constitute grounds for intelligence personnel to speak out about a policy or program they found objectionable?  Anything in particular? Nothing at all?

If not gulags on our tax dollar operating without legal oversight and potentially employing abduction and torture and producing destabilizing embarrassment to host nations, then what?

How about if you knew of specific violations of law?  What if you were aware of intelligence collections against American citizens in contravention of intelligence oversight laws?  What if financial fraud was being committed?  How about if you were ordered to perform actions that you knew to be illegal or destructive?

In short...what, if any, are acceptable grounds for one to "blow the whistle" on such activity?  And where on the continuum between minor violations of regulations and comitting mass slaughter would be the threshold where you'd feel compelled to take action?

I find these arguments for moral relativism and the ends justifying the means disturbing, particularly when coupled with the insinuation that any who'd object are somehow treasonous or abetting the enemy.  Dubious acts that flout our laws and values for short term gain and long term damage to our security strike me as the real crime and un-American conduct.

it prohibits "degrading" treatment

we can't tie our hands with such a word and telegraph our limitatins to the  enemy

mccain proves pow experience does not guarantee war wisdom

he also wanted lawyers for gitmo terrorists, incl UBLs bodyguard!!

thats madness

we had hundreds of thousands of pows in wwii

hes not qualified to be president thinking like that

Under the "Uniform Code of Military Justice" personnel have an obligation and a duty to obey lawful orders and have an obligation and duty to disobey unlawful orders.  It was under this concept that the the Nuremberg trials disallowed the "just following orders" defense.

If FDR, or JFK or WJC were still president, the MSM would not bring out info about things like this.  The democrats can do no wrong.  The Liberal, Socialists, Communists brethern in West Europe are the be all and end all for the American MSM.  The MSM in the U.S. and to some extent, even Fox News Channel, are THE FIFTH COLUMN that will bring this country to its knees! When there is an autocratic, dictatorship in the U.S., either be it a left wing or right wing regime, the so call "freedom of the press" the MSM thinks it is promoting will be non-existent.  One of the first things an authoritarian government will put a stop to is the "free press" and start a tight control of all media.  The "unidentified source" will bring this country down more and more each day.  I could say anything harmful about our government, our military, our intelligence services, our FBI or any operation trying to protect this country from terrorism and with the hate driven MSM personnel not willing nor able to check out my statements and would publish or report my statements as fact, just to scoop the story and make the USA look bad.  This is not my conspiracy theory, it is my firm belief.

it's time to investigate the CIA.  Something is seriously wrong at Langley, and the men in black have got to be forced into line--or forced out.

We need the media to do what we want, like the Swift Boat ad. We need the media to uphold our values, not the values of every american.

All right.

Good job.

:)

At the risk of asking a stupid question, what does a response of "5" mean?

and should be prosecuted if committed. That answers your question.

innocent opposers of communist oppression were put in gulags

want to re-phrase

oh, and I know, you love the troops and america...but no more than any other country right, citizen of the world?

when we go to war, we authorize the president to KILL

the means: kill

thats the most extreme means

get it

ends:  freedom

Let's say you're a jailor, and you have a prisoner who you know has info that will save hundreds or thousands or millions. Do you sit back and not torture them , if that's required? No, you do it... and take the consequences.

The consequence could be that a jury of your peers will let you off... or rot in prison for 20 years. If you saved the people, though, I suspect you could live with yourself.

We managed the flow of information very well in the first gulf war.  In his daily briefings, General Schwartzkopf only gave away crumbs to the media.  The media hated it, but it was all they had to go on.  As you recall, CNN's Peter Arnett got so mad about it that he cozied up to the Iraqi's to get more info.

For whatever reason, we tried this Glasnost with the media this time around, even allowing embedded reporters.  I admire President Bush for extending olive branches to his enemies, but each time he's done that the olive branch has turned into a switch with which his enemies welt his backside.  Kennedy writing the education bill.  Allowing the media more war access.  Allowing Harry Reid to "suggest" Harriet Miers.  Thank you sir may I have another!  Might be time to switch strategies.

Ed Murrow should have blabbed all of D-Day's secret plans to the whole world.

Or it was fine for Judy Miller to tip off Islamic Charities they were under investigation for funneling money to Al Qaeda.

Or it's fine to phone up a suspected Serial Killer so he can hide the evidence. Or trumpet confidential details about murder investigations just to impede investigations.

At a certain level, the Free Press depends on restraint based on shared interest of all citizens: military operations should succeed at time of War; terror and murder investigations should be allowed to finish before blaring info; and that journalists are US citizens with US interests first and journalists second.

Operating according to Mike Wallace's famous dictum that he was a journalist first and would not warn Marines of ambush so he could get the story is a sure fire way to erode freedom of the Press. The People will not long tolerate an institution actively hostile to it's larger interests, no matter what the monied, hereditary, elite say. Ala Anderson Cooper being Gloria Vanderbilt's kid.

I am neither a republican nor a democrat, I am an active duty Staff Sergeant and Iraq war Veteran. I love my country, I would do anything for it. I arrived in Iraq in April 2003, I originally believed in the Weapons of Mass Destruction reasoning to go into Iraq. I admit, i bought into the "fear" that this administration and the extremly weak media sold on the american people. Stupid me. While in Iraq, I discovered that we were not only in Iraq to remove Saddam of WMD, it wasn't only to liberate Iraq from Saddam, it wasn't only to "spread freedom", nor was it to "fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here". I am a mechanic that worked for a construction engineer battalion, our job was to build permanent military bases in northern iraq. Yes I said "permanent", bases that included PX, shoppettes, phone centers, internet cafe's, chow halls, churches, and Air-Assault centers. Why would we build these places if American soldiers were only going to be in Iraq until Iraqi's can take care of themselves? Notice the downsizing of S. Korea, Maybe thats because we will now have american servicemen and women stationed in Iraq forever. Just like we did in Korea for the last 50 years. You know maybe I would be fine with this today, if the administration had told me this from the beginning, just maybe. Know I'll wait for the responses to this post, just maybe one or two of you will call me a liar for what I've said, or maybe you'll even doubt my service all together. Keep supporting the troops.

...thinking in you analogy is that you KNOW they have info.

Now what if your a jailer and you think he might know some information, do you beat him, electrode him, flush him via enema, force feed him, urinate on him, cut him, leave him close to death and he give up some info.

GREAT! It worked. Only the info that he gave you is bogus, and now you are even madder and you beat him more.

Start using the fold, if you would. Makes the bumping of diaries much easier.

The extent of the radio decrypt effort in the Pacific, which tied in diplomatic (including our allies) and military radio traffic and had an army of analysts doing essentially data mining without computers (the entire "Magic" codebreaking effort in the Pacific which was much larger than just breaking codes) was concealed for decades by Truman and his successors.

Even when the totality of the data allowed Truman to rebut arguments that he was bloodthirsty and ignorant in dropping the Atomic Bomb. The totality of the "data mining" showed the Japanese to be unwilling to surrender until after the second bomb.

The effort and ability to co-ordinate and collect this intelligence, which was highly technical, was the decisive advantage throughout the Cold War and the Soviets never matched it. It was protected for approximately 30 plus years until disclosed in the Early 1980s.

So...if it's that simple...could the President just borrow a sidearm from an agent, walk out of the White House, and shoot someone in the street he regards as an enemy?  Are there no limits on the power of the executive branch and its conduct?

We're a nation of law.  It defines us and our civic culture.  If we simply dispense with it when it's inconvenient, what distinguishes us from banana republics and African juntas?  Lots of countries have fabulous sounding Constitutions on the books.  What makes us special is that we take ours seriously.

First of all, thanks for your service to our country. Believe it or not, it's actually perfectly well within the range of our imagination that someone who has gone over and fought in the war could be: (a) a Democrat and/or (b) disillusioned with the current administration. So no, I've got no reason to doubt what you are saying or your service.

Second, it's a bit disingenuous of you to imply  that you're a disinterested non-partisan by saying that "you're neither Republican or Democrat," when your posting history on other blogs (Huffington Post, for example - RadioEqualizer for another) indicates that this is anything but the truth.

FTR, we welcome Democrats and Liberals here, but one thing we frown on is Democrats and Liberals pretending they're not Democrats and Liberals. That's called trolling.

Be what you are and who you are, be respectful of others, and welcome to RedState.

Former POWs who WERE tortured admitted it worked. So do former Soviet Torturers in the Great Patriotic War. It does indeed work. It's why it's used. It can also be used to make POWS make statements against America (which happened all the time in Vietnam; former POWS don't blame those who finally cracked because they understand the horrible tortures, every man had his own limits).

There are sound reasons morally not to torture; but that it does not work is not one of them. It certainly does. It is also wicked and we should not do it. All else is PC blather.

Your comment had nothing at all to do with the post to which you responded. Please try and keep it on-topic. Thanks!

but not a liar.

We might, for example, point out that this diary is about how the Mainstream Media seems indifferent to the impact of broadcasting leaks on intelligence.  As your comments seem to be off that topic, you might want to consider writing your own diary, instead of pulling this one off topic.

I'm sorry you felt deceived, and you feel embittered.  But, many American and foreign leaders felt that Hussein had WMD, and we couldn't wait for him to fire some missiles and prove it.

As for the permanent bases, I remember many of our leaders saying that we could easily be in Iraq for a long time.  There were some who thought we could leave soon after Hussein was toppled, but most (e.g., former SecState Colin Powell) predicted we'd be there for several years, while the Iraqi government got on its feet.  So, if that's turned out to be the case, then why shouldn't we build some more permanent facilities.

As for anyone here doubting your service or calling you a liar---well, is that what you want?  Are you looking to be insulted?  Are you here to play the martyr and the victim?  I hope not.

We all honor your service.  Your country is proud of you, and grateful for what you did.  But, no one was trying to mislead you.  With all due respect, if you'd paid attention, the warnings of a long and hard slog ahead were there for all to see and hear.

you can take this faux naivete down the hall. The fact that the press can report something does not mean that they should. I suppose you'd think it just peachy for them to print the security plan for the nuclear plant down the road? Or the guard schedule for the Pantex nuclear weapons plant.

We aren't taling about passion, prejudice or who ti p*sses off, we are talking about the safety and security of this country and everyone in it, including you and your wife, kids and parents.

The Constitution of the United States is not a suicide pact.

Are not the same as crimes against the status quo ante policy.

MOST/ALL of the CIA leaks are driven by personal and bureaucratic politics not genuine human rights abuses.

The same agency that happily aided Iran-Contra; various paramilitary schemes throughout Central America, complicity in the assassination of archbishops and nuns throughout Latin America, the assasination of Drug Kingpin Pablo Escobar, various paramilitary death squads in Columbia etc suddenly has a crisis of concience? Please, my laugh meter only goes so far.

The way to respond to these genuine abuses of human rights is to resign, and when legally able to do so, speak out as much as you can on the abuses.

President Clinton started the practice of "rendering" terrorists that the US was unable to deal with legally (crimes outside the US and not directly against US citizens) but who nevertheless presented a mortal threat to US lives. It was only when Bush started policies that threatened the CIA's ability to move up and find employment post-CIA that the leaks started.

The leaks started with the Afghan War? Why? Because the CIA depends on friendly relations with even overtly hostile intelligence services (Syria being a good example) to get work product and thus move up. It matters not that the intelligence is often worthless, only that you HAVE some. As a practical matter if foreign intelligence services stop handing CIA agents information they stop advancing. They don't get promoted. They have post Iran-Contra no way to run any direct spies etc. so they depend on foreign intelligence services that were enraged by the Afghan War and livid over the Iraq War.

In addition, CIA and State Dept folks post-career depend on brokering various shady deals that would otherwise fall apart with often hostile regimes. Bush also threatens this with the war on terror or whatever he calls it. This is why the CIA leaks, the could care less about human rights or policy, they only care about promotions and lucrative consulting post-government.

There is a political case to be against renditions. That case is in the Congress and op-eds by professional politicians who are accountable for risking our National Security, not leakers in the CIA. If you think we should openly hold dangerous Al Qaeda terrorists and leave ourselves open to reprisals (including the WMD kind aimed at cities; let KSM go or we kill NYC for example) then that is a political case to be made in the halls of Congress.

That it's driven by anon leaks is an indication that the case is a loser politically and no one wants to back it.

as interrogation tools, would you support that?

Not torture.  Not the gratuitous infliction of pain.  I'm referring to the practice of making a prisoner uncomfortable, disoreiented and scared, in hopes of making him more likely to talk.

You seem to be implying that any information gathered from a coercive interrogation is per se faulty, and thus worthless.  If that were true, why would the intelligence community still be interested in using coercive interrogation techniques?  Because our CIA agents are sadists who enjoy inflicting pain?

I'm presuming that, because this discussion is still going on, more than four years after 9/11, there must be some value in these techniques.  If not, then why would there still be such intense interest in them?

that journalists as a special class of human beings. They owe no allegiance to the country that makes their d*mn work possible.

They are 'reporters', not 'participants.' One wonders how they'll see that relationship when some Jihadist SOB blows up the local shopping mall taking their spouse and kids with him/herself

I know Clayton's overworked, but I think it would be hilarious if RedState could add in a feature to display a little whale icon next to the usernames of this type of commenter -- possibly adapting one from this blue (heh) whales minigallery.

"wilco" is short for "will comply."

Getting people to make statements against America isn't relevant here.  I couldn't care less if we get some terrorist to make statements against Osama.  

What we want is to get a high percentage of correct information that will prevent future terrorist attacks or effectively guide foreign policy.  I don't see any reason to think that torture will get us any information with that sort of content or quality.  

may choose begin with the premise

If we begin with the philosophy that WE have no morality in this war

On the otherhand I prefer to begin with the premise that we are morally superior in every conceivable way to people who make it their religious duty to slaughter innocent men women and children.

Unlike liberals, I am not a moral relativist.

is torture and there is torture. Pulling someone's fingernails out is most likely counterproductive.

... and was mostly referring to these techniques in talking about "torture." Because, in a sense, it is... one need not be brutalized to be coerced.

they have no obligation to obey an unlawful order does not give them the right to actively work to undermine those giving the orders. Resignation still works.

If the people leaking to the media were so outraged, there are appropriate channels to go through to lament the policyand seek its exposure.

They could go to the CIA inspector General.

They could go to the DoD Inspector General.

They could go to the Attorney General.

They could go to the House or Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans.

Or, finally if all else fails, they could go to the House or Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats.  (I'm relatively confident that they would give fair hearing to anyone alleging illegal or unethical behavior by the Administration and would do their utmost to put a stop to it.)

All of those people are authorized to review classified government information and actions.  All of those people are in a position to directly impact the continuation or cessation of government policy.  All of those people are authorized under law to protect the identity of any 'whistle blower' that comes forward with financial malfeasance, illegal action, or un-Constitutional behavior by the Executive Branch.

But no, Anonymous decided to go to Dana Priest or whoever else to leak damaging information about Administration policy that they disagree with in clear contravention of the law as it regards the handling of classified information.

They do not deserve our praise or adulation for breaking the law and putting us at risk of further danger unless they are willing to put their name out there as well and take a stand.  Otherwise they might as well just be a disgruntled peon who's upset that their wife didn't get to send them on a junket to drink tea with other diplomats.

He is not to be blamed for the failings of his pupils - most especially me.

that 'relationship' immediately following the attacks on 9-11 and were quick to condem al-qaeda.

Problem is, that relationship was quickly forgotten, or intentionally ignored, when MSM purposely inserted itself as a willing participant, or primary source, in a whole host of far-reaching leftist conspiracy theories.

The 'fifth column' is alive and well in America, and unfortunately, extremely detrimental to our national security.

 It is worth pointing out, that most of the "harm" that is being done to the United States is not because the media has leaked info helpful to the enemy in military matters, which is why they didnt leak the name of the nation.

 Rather the "harm" is because the US is doing something that many people are upset with. The media should not be in the business of covering for the Government if it does something that is controversial.

 In essence, if this is hurting the US, is it because people dont think we should be doing it, which means you should blame those implementing the policy.

 Now, if you are afraid this will aid the enemy in some kind of military way, that is different.

The mainstream media will never settle for being a tool for democracy, even if they become a tool for terrorism, communism, or some other sort of evil in the process. It is America -- not propaganda -- that the MSM have abandoned.

We used to have a ratings system where we gave ugly, stupid comments a 1 and excellent comments a 5 (and average comments a 2,3 or 4).  It caused more consternation and disagreement than  it was worth, so it was discontinued.

Occasionally when we really agree with a comment, we will still "give it a 5".

First, the media did nothing to promote the Swift Boat vets, but if they had, there is no possible implication to our national security or to the confidence of our allies by disclosures of bad actions of an infantryman that occurred 30 years ago.

The idea that you can be so cavalier about the fact that our CIA cannot be trusted to keep the secrets that it has sworn to protect is amazing.  Do you realize that people from other countries put their very lives at risk by cooperating with us?

We have lived in relative security for so long, we have developed a certain fatalism about it.  It is as if it will always be thus and cannot be lost.

You apparently missed the point of the entire diary.  It is not your right to know every dot and tiddle that our intelligence services do.  It is your right to elect the people who hire them, fund them, monitor them, and control them.  

It is our right to expect the people we have hired to protect us to refrain from deliberately sabatoging our safety and the safety of our allies.

The idea that the Democrats can't understand this never ceases to amaze and chagrin me.

Excellent post.  There is a chain of command in all our gov't agencies.  The WaPo is not anywhere in any of them.  

Press leaks are an avenue for cowards and traitors who know that their superior officers have the right and duty to make a decision, but the coward disagrees with the decision.

They have sworn an oath to maintain confidentiality.  A man who will disregard his oath is lower than whale poop.

one is able to bootstrap the UCMJ in to this argument as civilians, who constitute the overwhelming majority of the intelligence community, are not covered by the UCMJ (and military persons in the US are only covered if it is a distinctly military offense or there is a military connection, like the offense took place on an military installation) and the UCMJ did not exist at the time of the Nuremburg trials.

It is worth pointing out, that most of the "harm" that is being done to the United States is not because the media has leaked info helpful to the enemy in military matters, which is why they didnt leak the name of the nation.

Let's see, Eastern European-it doesn't take too much difficulty for our enemies to wittle things down and figure out which country that might be.  The list just isn't that long.

Also, as said up thread, there are avenues for somebody troubled by things that happen to take within their chain of command-and the press isn't part of the chain of command.

Also, I admit I am not too bothered by the concept of keeping some of these prisoners secret.  If the enemy doesn't know exactly who we have and where we have them, it makes it harder to hide the trails, and it makes reprisal a bit more difficult.

Does anyone think that the leaks would be occuring, or the MSM would we reporting them if there were a Democrat administration in power?

Just keep working as hard as they can to see that we lose this war.

Their fury at not having done so yet shows in everything they write, every show on the legacy networks, and in every comment they make.

...there are plenty of military in intelligence activities.  Each service branch has its own intelligence agency and corresponding production center, plus the overall Defense Intelligence Agency.  DoD is very heavily vested in intel.

preceeding the UCMJ (1951) contained this philosophy.  

"In January 1944, the newly formed United Nations War Crimes Commission took up the issue of obedience to orders. Unlike its stance after World War I, the United States now was squarely behind a recommendation that the defense be rejected: "[t]he plea of superior orders shall not constitute a defense . . . if the order was so manifestly contrary to the laws of war that a person of ordinary sense and understanding would know or should know . . . that an order was illegal." - OBEDIENCE OF ORDERS AND THE LAW OF WAR: JUDICIAL APPLICATION IN AMERICAN FORUMS, Gary D. Solis (West Point law professor)

At Nuremberg, this concept was applied to civilians.

Anonymous decided that he/she was smarter than everyone else. Anonymous appointed themselves the arbiter of what is right and wrong in the conduct of the country's business. Anonymous decided that their foreign policy is decidedly smarter and/or superior to that of the elected government.

I'm not asserting specifically that if someone leaked knowledge of these prisons, they leaked the information out of some patriotic zeal.  Who knows what's in "their" head if "they" even exist; I've been reading articles in the open press about people around the world tracking the flights ferrying detainees to and from these supposed places for at least a year now.  I'm not sure how much leaking you'd need to fill this bucket, anyhow.

I'm asking the broader rhetorical question: are there really no circumstances under which one would feel compelled to speak out in some way? Do you really trust that the change of command as outlined above is infallible?  That the respective IG's are fully impartial, or that congressional staffers will have access, say, to a black program in which you're involved?

C'mon, I don't have to stretch my imagination too much to blue-sky a few scenarios.  How about these:

1. You've obtained information from a source you feel is highly reliable that a terrorist attack of significant magnitude is imminent on the NYC subway.  Your superiors dismiss the credibility of the source and order you to cease work on the matter.  Do you leak the info in some way, or do you remain quiet despite knowing that in a few months you'll probably be chapter 5 in a post-event tell-all book on intelligence failures?

What do you do?

2. You're working in a black program at an isolated, undisclosed location doing parts fabrication.  Your superiors order you and your team to machine components from toxic berillium without the necessary safety precautions.  Inspectors who could corroborate your claims of danger to the workers can't get to the site, let alone into the facility.  What do you do?
   
3. You're managing a source in a foreign design bureau who's passing on computer software through drops that he's taking home from the facility.  He has limited access and the material is junk, but your superior loves it and thinks it'll get him promoted.  Through your surveillance work, you discover that he's a serial child molester, and his work at a local charity hospital gives him access to dozens of children.  Revealing his crime will destroy him as a source.  What do you do?

Sure...straw men, and maybe not likely, but then again...  My point is that in this gray world, can we really be so sure there are never, ever any situations where one couldn't trust the system or based on profound personal conviction thought that circumstances warranted disclosure?

don't think we should be doing this.

Not everyone agrees with you. Some of the rest of us don't think that locking these S*Bs up incommunicado is neceddarily immoral, illegal or even fattening.

CIA dissenters are no more entitled to an independent foreign policy than are you.

for why the press "enjoys" the lowest approval and credibility standings in history and their business is evaporating before their eyes. They even rank below Congress and thats an accomplishment.

they stopped us in Vietnam so they see no reason why they should not have the same kind of power today.

Yes there are plenty of military intelligence activities and even within most of them the majority of staff are DoD civilians. When one addresses the intelligence community in general, the overwhelming majority are civilians. Hence the rather dubious nature of the UCMJ reference.

the Constitution contains the philosophy of the Articles of Confederation but to say that the Constitution had applicablity to the Treaty of Ghent based on this is wrong. Ditto with your point on the UCMJ.

The Articles of War did not apply at Nuremburg. Details here and here.

Didn't Orwell write that.  Related to leaks; a federal appeals court rejected a request from four journalists that they not be required to identify their sources in the Wen Ho Lee "espionage" case.  As we are talking about atomic related information in a case that occurred during Clinton's watch a sane person would think that their would be some interest amongst the Plame for Sainthood crowd.  But  that's your problem, you're sane.

regardless of your politics thanks for your service!!   May I suggest two possibilities.  One, at the run up to the war and shortly afterwards is it not possible that a time certain for withdrawal was unknown, and may still be.  This however doesn't preclude reduction in force over time.  Two, and related to the first, is it not possible that the permanent facilities you reference will be used ,in part or in whole, by and expanding Iraqui Army.  A rule of warfare is to be adaptable to the contingent although that adaptation may not be as perfect or as rapid as one would like.  Apropos of which, I just finished reading John Eisenhower's Bitter Woods,the best available book on the Battle of the Bulge.  You may wish,particularly as a military man, to read it. It has much to say about the unpredictable and contigency.

On the off-chance that I might ever write a diary entry or story that deserves the front page, perhaps you could explain what the Fold is?

It is quite common for the press to hold off reporting on military movements before they happen, or as they are happening, or on troop positions, etc.   We have seen examples of this time and time again with the fine reporting done by reporters traveling with the troops in Iraq.

Name one group that has broken the WindTalker Code.  It's been 60 years...

future of our country. The vast majority of journalists do not share or support the ideals on which this country was founded and which has made the country the light of the world. They seek to destroy every institution that provides stability to our society from the concept of the nuclear family to the maintenance and support of our armed forces. This is the agenda of the liberal left and the MSM is its champion. Its slogan should be Vive le France.

'Anonymous' has no convictions.  An individual with a name does.

Anonymous has no morals.  An individual with a name does.

Anonymous has no ethics.  An individual with a name does.

All of your strawmen are fine and dandy and your scenarios quite cute, but the reality of any situation is dependent on the facts.  More importantly, however, is the concept of personal responsibility.

If 'Anonymous' feels so dang strongly about his source or the situation that no one else believes (dare I say that 'Anonymous' thinks it to be a slam dunk) then 'Anonymous' should go through the appropriate channels.  If the channels don't feel that it is valid or that Anonymous is wrong, but 'Anonymous' feels so dang strongly that he's right and every other expert is wrong, well he should go public with both the information and his name.  

Yes his career as an analyst would be impacted, but if everybody else disagrees with Anonymous and Anonymous feels he's right, it's not acceptable to slither off quietly to the WaPo or NYtimes and lay out some nightmare scenario that everyone else has discounted.  Accountability means taking a stand, and you can only take a stand in the disinfecting rays of sunshine.

To hide behind the cloak of anonymity while leaking classified information that you, as an individual analyst, are not necessarily in the best position to see the whole picture is the height of arrogance.  That's why the system of checks and balances are in place.  That's why we have IGs, laws, regulations, and Congressional oversight.

When you take the oath of office to serve the government, you agree to certain restrictions, certain prohibitions on your own personal conduct.

If the situation is so eggregious, so blatantly unethical or immoral or illegal, I will concede that you have the right and the responsibility to come forward.  But you have the obligation to do it publicly so that we can evaluate your motives at the same time as we evaluate the information appropriately.

What if Anonymous is wrong, as the channels realized as soon as Anonymous presented the information?  He has now exposed methods of intelligence, sources of information, operations, locations, names, etc.  None of that can be put back in the bottle.  If it's so vital that the MSM needs to have it above all else, then it is only fair and reasonable to ask 'Anonymous' to stand in the sunshine and explain why.

If, in any way, shape or form, at any time or location, a soldier is given an illegal or immoral order, he has an obligation to refuse to obey said order.  period.

However, this does not apply to the CIA or any other Civilian.  Civilians have no legal obligation to follow any orders not expressly mentioned in a contract which they sign.

Hitler was too stupid to learn to manipulate the MSM of his day, or we would speaking German.

... are there really no circumstances under which one would feel compelled to speak out in some way?  Yes, there are no such circumstances.

Do you really trust that the change (sic) of command as outlined above is infallible?  Yes, I do.

That the respective IG's are fully impartial, or that congressional staffers will have access, say, to a black program in which you're involved? Yep, and all oversight committees either have the same clearance as said "patriot" or can be granted them on a case-by-case.

As a cleared employee of the federal government you have the responsibility to safeguard classified information.  You swear an oath to that effect, by the way.  If you violate that responsibility, that oath - and selective leaking of information to the press is a direct violation - then you should be terminated and prosecuted, immediately and harshly.

Lastly, it is not your job as a civil servant to make policy - people are elected to do that.  As an individual civil servant you do not have access to all the pieces of the puzzle - you are but a small cog in the mighty machinery of government.  You are in no position to make policy, but by leaking selective information to the press you are doing just that - putting your judgment ahead of those whom have been elected to make such calls.

If you cannot handle that arrangement you have two choices: 1) leave the civil service and run for office, 2) learn to salute smartly and shut your d*mned pie-hole.

Yes, it really is that simple.

The fact that the press can report something does not mean that they should. I suppose you'd think it just peachy for them to print the security plan for the nuclear plant down the road? Or the guard schedule for the Pantex nuclear weapons plant.

If it's newsworthy they should report on those topics you mentioned.  This is the point of security, if the press can get ahold of this information, then less savory people can also get ahold of it.  Should they use discression in what they print, absolutely, but they should definitely report enough to call attention to the problem.  This is of course, after they have consulted with those in charge of such security.




Security through obscurity is NOT security.  And yes I also agree that if any leak to the press is a criminal offense, then the press should be hauled down for testimony, no exceptions.    

 The point isn't whether we should or should not be doing this, (personally, the fact that there are secret prisons isn't too troubling for me) the issue is what is the point of having a media if all it is going to do is cover-up for government.

 Whether you agree with the prisons or not, we as members of a democracy get to have that debate, we have a right to know what our government is doing.

 Otherwise, why even have an independent media at all? We can just have the President/Congress/Court send out press releases.

 The POINT of the press is to let us know what our Gov is doing, whether they want us to know or not.

Where do I go to view THOSE ratings?

 The point isn't whether we should or should not be doing this, (personally, the fact that there are secret prisons isn't too troubling for me) the issue is what is the point of having a media if all it is going to do is cover-up for government.

 Whether you agree with the prisons or not, we as members of a democracy get to have that debate, we have a right to know what our government is doing.

 Otherwise, why even have an independent media at all? We can just have the President/Congress/Court send out press releases.

 The POINT of the press is to let us know what our Gov is doing, whether they want us to know or not.

But then Orwell was talking about a higher life form,pigs, not American journalists speaking truth to power as they so quaintly put it.  The devil made me do this.

for the explanation.

It would be trivially easy for the NSA to break the windtalker code.  It was effective during WWII because there were no computers.  

I'm curious as to what you would propose:  Should the media not report on the information that it acquires regarding matters that bear on the conduct of the "Global War on Terror[ism against militant Islamic extremists]"?

resign?

As I understand, many posters here advocate the Federal Government actively censor the MSM.

I may have posted there, but am not a democrat, just because someone posted on an obviously left wing website, does not mean they are a democrat.

the press neither bothers to discuss these things with the responsible parties, or when they do they go ahead and report it anyway with a footnote that they asked for comments from XYZ.

And there is a big difference between reporting that they were able to obtain access to certain sensitive information and printing the information. The former calls attention to the problem, the latter spills the beans.

I'm not asking for silence, I'm asking for a little responsible journalism; journalism that recognizes that the reporters have as big a stake in the outcome as all of the rest of us; journalism that recognizes that a failure to protect the country and it's system of liberties is a threat to the very things that make a free press possible. But I suspect that I'm asking for something we can't have.

In general I suspect we are in agreement. And in fact there is a measure of security in obscurity.

As I understand, many posters here advocate the Federal Government actively censor the MSM.

I don't think that's necessarily accurate.  Moreover, I'm a "poster[] here," and I don't think that the Federal Government should actively censor the MSM (assuming that the term "MSM" can be defined to each of our satisfactions).

The idea of the Windtalkers (and by the way the WW II Marine Windtalkers were not the first, the US Army employed American Indians in this role in WW I) didn't work because the "code" was so difficult.

It worked in large part because the people listening, the Japanese, had no frame of reference for the transmissions. Aside from the Navajo people there probably weren't more than a few hundered or so people in this country who would recognize the sounds as Navajo. Think how few there would have been in Japan. It was so obscure that the enemy had no point from which to begin.

The other aspect of it is that it was exclusively tactical, battlefield communications in real time. Even had the Japanese recognized what it was, near real time translation is the only thing that would have done them any good --- and the number of Japanese who spoke Navajo approached zero :-)

as streiff notes, we started  with a mixed metaphor here. The UCMJ does not apply the majority of people in intelligence, and certainly doesn't apply to the leakers at CIA. For them resignation is a perfectly honorable solution when faced with something you cannot countenance. Leaking however ought to be punished to the full extent of the law, regardless of the motives. Civilian employees of the intelligence services are not imbued with special powers to undermine the elected government, no matter how flawed the may feel it is or how egregious their foreign policy.

Clearly an enlisted soldier can't 'resign.' They have to be prepared to accept the consequences of refusing an order. If the order is unlawful then they are in good shape. If the order is found to be lawful then they might expect to spend several summer vacations at the Disciplinary Barracks, Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas converting big rocks into small rocks.

Hitler did know about the successful use of codetalkers during World War I, and sent a team of some thirty anthropologists to learn Native American languages before the outbreak of World War II. However it proved too difficult to learn all the many languages and dialects that existed. Because of the German attempts to learn the languages, codetalkers were not assigned in large numbers to the European Theater. - Source: Wikipedia

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the press shut up and mouth the government line. But the Iraq War and the Vietnam War are alike in one, and only one, characteristic; a "free" press that has decided that their judgment is superior to that of the elected leaders of the country.

They have decided that holding these people incomunicado is wrong. They have nothing on which to base their stories except the leaks from some disgruntled CIA (presumabley) type who feels that his/her understanding of the situation and the needs and goals of the country are superior to the people elected by the citizenry.

An irresponsible press combined with irresponsible individuals in government is not a recipe for success. The press and the people doing the leaking insist on the power to force those in government into the light. Yet they do so while hiding behind a cloak of anonymity.

but a dash of Google should turn them up. For example over on Drudge today there are highlights of newspaper circulation numbers in free fall:

1. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/07/D8DNNTVG1.html
   
   
2. http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1l.htm
   

the papers were being manipulated by Jos. Stalin & Company.

The press has NOT decided anything.  

Their job is to report what they learn.  If they learn of secret camps it is their professional OBLIGATION to report that information.

If our government chooses to act covertly they either need to accept the reality that someone will find out or do a better job at hiding the information.

A "responsible" press is Pravda.  A "responsible" press choses protecting the government over informing the people.

You don't like what they are reporting because it goes against what you believe in. But there are a lot of Americans who OPPOSE this and WANT to know when the government does this sort of thing.  Why does your desire to suppress news trump the desires of those who want to know of it?

If the American people opposed this kind of reporting they would stop paying for it which would then make the media change what they report.

All we can ask is that the press reports everything they can WITHOUT editorial selection.  

the views of folks here; I don't discern active censorship. What I take from all this is a desire for a responsible self-regulating press. One that does not meet in dark alleys with leakers afraid to come out into the light and then simply runs the story no matter how damaging it is.

An unconstrained government is a dangerous thing. But an irresponsible press is as much, if not more, dangerous. They are guaranteed the right to publish what they will; with that right goes the responsibility to be certain what they say is true and does not harm the greater good.

The "secret prisons" story is a good example. This came from someone inside the government who decided, for whatever reason, that their views were more valid than those of the elected government. The press then takes those unsubstantiated claims and compounds that by running the story with no regard to whether it is true or not. And if true, the short term and long term harm of divulging the information.

It isn't a desire for censorship; it is a desire for responsibility.

do you propose that the media "self-regulate"?

While this place loves to talk about the MSM, it is a myth.  The American press is not a monolithic entity.  It is a heterogenous group of people all with different views and biases.  

Were you guys calling for a reformation of the media during the Clinton Administration?  The knife cuts both ways.  You can't use the media to attack your political opponents and then chide them when they do the same to your guys.

that we will have to continue to disagree.

The press has most certainly decided for us. By revealing the "secret prisons" they have rendered them unusable and raise the bar for the protection of the nation. They, in conjunction with "Anonymous" at the CIA, have decided that their judgment is superior to that of the elected government. They have assumed to themselves the absolute right to decide what is proper and approriate in the conduct of the war.

Why does your desire to bring this into the light override anyone else's desire to protect the country? Anonymous over at the CIA decided he or she is smarter than everyone else, if more moral than everyone else, has judgment was superior to everyone else. So they ring up the NYT and the meet in a dark alley somewhere in DC to exchange the "goodies" and they they slink off to revel in their "gotcha" on the president, the military, the rest of the CIA.

The press does not report anything without editorial selection. They have an agenda and that is to render the US impotent.

They have decided that holding these people incomunicado is wrong.

I disagree.  A whole bunch more Americans than the US media establishment have decided that torture and holding people incommunicado is very wrong.  And historically, judging by the acceptance of the Geneva conventions, I think Americans have felt similarly.

I think Americans recognize that fighting for freedom involves having the freedom to sacrifice your own life in defense of liberty, not forcibly depriving others of their freedom without proof of guilt in open trial.

These secret prisons and questionable interrogation tactics wouldn't be worthy of news if it weren't for the widespread disagreement with the practice among Americans.

This is a classic "blame the messenger" approach, and I for one am appalled by all the so-called "patriots" calling for censorship.  Blaming the media for Americans' questions about the war does not make those questions any less valid.  The public is souring on Iraq precisely because the President is not providing satisfactory answers about what this war is about.  "Spreading Freedom" makes for great sound-bites, but when American lives and resources are on the line the public demands more concrete plans and openness from its leaders.

Were you guys calling for a reformation of the media during the Clinton Administration?

Well since the MSM was and remains on that side of the aisle what reformation would have been applicable?

Self-regulation comes from a recognition that they have as big a stake in the outcome as the rest of of; that they are not, and never can be, outside observers. They owe the ability to function to the existence of this nation.

But at the end of the day, they know they are participants. The problem that some of us have is that they are participating in a concerted effort to render this country impotent and unable to act in our own interests; subject to a "world test" of our views and actions. They, and most liberals, come from a school that believes that nation-states are passe and need to subjugate their actions to some collective 'internationale' interest.

First there is an enormous difference between holding someone incomunicado and pulling out their fingernails. I know of no one here campaigning for torture.

Second these secret prisons are worthy of news because someone at the CIA decided that they are smarter, more moral, better informed, or whatever than everyone else; that they are imbued with some higher right to decide. Combine that with a press that believes they have the right and responsibility to rein in a nation that is, in their view, simply out of control and you have "news."

Third, I can't say I see anyone calling for censorship. I see people calling for the press to recognize that this country is at war today every bit as much as we were at war in 1943. The public is souring on Iraq because the press is telling them to. Twenty Four hours a day the dismal failure, quagmire, that is Iraq. The 'grim milestone' of casualties. The press is doing the same thing they did in Vietnam, the only difference is that in Vietnam the Johnson (D-TX) adminstration screwed things up so badly it was hard for anyone to know the truth.

The press has most certainly decided for us. By revealing the "secret prisons" they have rendered them unusable and raise the bar for the protection of the nation.

How did the Press render them unusuable by revealing them?  Please explain how by merely exposing their existence the Press made the prisons unusuable.  Seems to me that the public's AWARENESS of these prisons is what made them unusable.  Are you suggesting that the Press should eschew its responsibility of informing the public because it hurts the administration's policies?

Why does your desire to bring this into the light override anyone else's desire to protect the country?

Well first you would need to explain how these secret prisons helped protect this country.  

The press does not report anything without editorial selection. They have an agenda and that is to render the US impotent.

Do you really believe this?  

I can't argue against strawmen.  If you think that Liberals and/or the "MSM"(sans Fox I assume) are out to destroy America there is no need to discuss this further.

far down this road of a duty to disobey unlawful orders, just remember, thinking an order was unlawful is not a defense if the order was, in fact, a lawful order. So before you disobey an order you have a duty to ask clarification of the order to make sure you haven't misunderstood the order (CPT Ernest Medina to LT William Calley: "Take care of teh prisoners") and upon receiving clarification and still being dissatisfied you have an obligation to express your reservations about the illegality of the order. Even then , if you guess wrong, you may still have carried out an illegal order or you may find yourself doing hard time at Leavenworth for disobeying a lawful order or even for mutiny.

So let's not make this clear cut when it isn't by any stretch of the imagination.

Denying that torture is really the subject here is ignoring the 800 lbs. gorilla in the corner.

The whole context for these recent secret prison stories is torture.  Specifically, the Vice President is lobbying hard against the Senate's passage of anti-torture legislation.  The press, in my opinion, is actually holding itself back by not jumping to the obvious inference of secret prisons in other countries, which is that prisoners are taken to other countries in order to use hardcore tactics that would be considered torture by the average American.

Lastly, I would recommend you reread your post on why somehow the press is, yet isn't, to blame for Vietnam.  So who was really to blame for Vietnam then?  The press did it, or no, wait, it really was that the Johnson administration screwed it all up?

And then with that in mind, how is it so unbelievable that if Johnson's administration screwed up Vietnam (without even getting started on the original rationales there for getting the country into that war), then isn't it is possible that perhaps Bush's administration screwed up this time?

Or no, the media's obviously so left-leaning, and since the President is right-leaning, it must be the media's fault.  QED I guess.  Or perhaps both the left and right are human, and therefore adminstrations on the left and right can both make mistakes?

The application of highly coercive interrogation methods on high-value detainees might be defensible if a substantial degree of certainty exists that the detainee has critical information.  And by 'coercive interrogation methods' I don't mean torture.

It would be naive to think that the US does not have experts in the intelligence community who are very adept at retrieving information from such targets using coercive psychological and (perhaps) chemical interrogation methods.

But is the US reserving such methods for use on only high-value detainees?  That is the problem -- what if we find that these types of methods aren't the exception -- what if they represent the rule?  What if 50% of the detainees have no information about or involvement in terrorism?  70%?  90%?  Is the US justified in using such methods in cases where there is little or no certainty that the detainee has any information at all?  

My view - I think that indiscriminant use of such methods as a part of a 'fishing' exercise, without regard to whether the target is legitimately perceived to potentially have high intelligence value (i.e. we have more than suspicion -- we have some evidence to corroborate) is clearly not defensible.  If that is what's happening, that policy should end IMO.

First I didn't say destroy, I "said" render us impotent to act in our own self-interest when our interests conflict with the "world view."

I believe that liberals and the MSM (and no, not sans Fox) view this as as laudable goal and I think the public pronouncements of many on the left, including the chairman of the Demcratic Party, support this interpretation.

The left sees America as the core of the problem, I and others on the right see America as the solution.

Just because the MSM is able to get classified or secret information doesn't necessarily mean that anyone else can do it.

The fact that a disgruntled security guard leaked evacuation plans of a nuclear power plant to the MSM doens't necessarily mean that he'd leak the same to a random individual.  People talk with the media for glory (direct or reflected) or as an opportunity to get back at their boss.  But if they were approached by a potential terrorist or private citizen without the cover of NBC news, ABC News, NYTimes, or whatever, they probably wouldn't leak it in the first place.

So who's to say the evidence of a leak in and of itself is necessarily a problem?  That's why I tend to discount or stay skeptical of 'anonymous' sources.  I don't know who they are and I can't evaluate if they are trustworthy.

The Right views that to be the Left's position.

The Left thinks that we live in a big world and that we can't always simply dictate to everyone else what it is going to happen.  Sometimes we need to work WITH other nations and not just flip them the bird whenever they get in our way.

The Left does NOT believe that the US should relinquish its sovereignty.  It does NOT believe that every action the US takes must be approved by the UN.  

Let's also remember that the Press is not allowed to  publicly disclose any and all classified material.  

Anonymous sources have been part of this country for 200+ years. Sometimes they are good and sometimes they are bad.

Keep in mind, most folks who keep questioning the UCMJ don't have any basis upon which to build an understanding.  Getting into the complexities of the regs is enough to overload a well-prepared mind...

What made the Navajo code so difficult to break was the fact that it is the only living language with absolutley no roots or even relationships to any other language in the world.

There Is no point of reference for a non-Navajo speaker to start from.  This is why that particular language was chosen aas opposed to Cherokee, or Sioux, or Inuit...

There were any number of reasons why we chose Navajo.  

However those reasons aren't relevant today.  Prior to the 50s code-breaking was more art form than science, although math certainly was used.

Today, much to the chagrin of Hollywood movies, human beings are incapable of breaking codes without the use of computers.  And, by comparison, encryption methods today would make breaking Navajo child's play.

First lets be honest about the WMD.  Who didn't believe there was WMD in Iraq?  You bought into the fear, yet now you don't fear WMD?  There was 500 tons of yellow cake sitting right there.  We knew about it, and it was sealed by U.N. inspectors, does that make it less dangerous?  It sounds like you bought into the media after we didn't find any hidden WMD.  Hidden weapons that everyone expected to be there.

Do you think our Korean deployment is wrong?  Just wondering, not trying to provoke.  I don't remember anyone saying that we were going to win the war on terror in a year or so.  I do remember the President mentioning many times that it is going to take a long time to change things.  I do remember that the objective of a free Iraq was strategic and worth supporting.  Did you expect that we would be able to do that in a very short period of time?  

Maybe you would be fine with this today, if you had been told from the beginning?  You feel betrayed because you believe they lied to you?  So now you are not fine with it?  There is a lot of conflict in your statements.  Very hard to establish what your position is regarding your foreign policy comments.

Now you will wait for one or two us to call you a liar or doubt your service?  Why would you say this?  Do you expect to be thrashed about for some reason?  I could completely disagree with your position on the war (if I had a clear idea of what it was) and not need to resort to accusations as you suggest.  

Do you have hidden resentment tied to some specifics?  I would encourage continued discussion.  At least you can present a more solidified position.  

Yes - Support Our Troops

Treats for Troops

it is likely that a tiny, tiny fraction of these leaks have anything to do with principle. As you note they are largely personal (payback) or political (payback). And "anonymous" has the advantage that once he tosses his little stinkbomb into the room he gets to run away and hid and watch the chaos. "My my wasn't that fun; that'll teach them to ignore me."

because you or the NYT or the ACLU tosses the word 'torture' into the conversation does not make it a fact. The ACLU started firestorm over torture at Gitmo and that turned out to be just so much politically motivated cr*p. One of the reasons I beleive the VP is lobbying against passage of the legislation is that it presents some of the sort of problems that created the pre-9/11 mess to begin with.

The Senate waded in with "reaonable" limitations, at the behest of Frank Church (D-ID), that limited the kinds of people the CIA could deal with and excluded anyone with "dirty hands." But if you want to know what's happening in the sewer you're going to have to deal with people who live down there; exactly the kind of people that Church thought we should't be involved with.

With respect to Vietnam, the Johnson adminstration mismanaged that to a fair-thee-well; the President of the United States picking target lists and talking to field commanders is not what was intended by "Commander in Chief." That being said US and ARVN forces were highly successful despite the micromanaging from the Oval Office.

But once Walter Cronkite decided we couldn't win, and the press decided that Tet was a breathtaking victory for the enemy, it was all down hill from there. Don't take my word, read Giap {sp}. The most effective forces he had were western reporters.

his comments from 30 years ago?

I think he means Kerry's now-infamous "Global Test" remark, deconstructed here.

I HATE sound bites.  They are a fact of political life but I would hope that the people here are above buying into them.

While I agree that the devolution of our politics into a sound bite culture is troubling and disturbing, I have to admit I think this one actually hits pretty close to the mark.

Among the knocks on Kerry was that he would be very slow to pull the trigger if he thought we were threatened.  Fair or not, that was the knock.  The "global test" crack seemed to fit that profile and certainly left him open to the charge that "(He) believe(s) that the US should relinquish its sovereignty.  (He) believe(s) that every action the US takes must be approved by the UN." (paraphrasing you from upthread)

Again, fair or not that charge stuck - "Global Test" was merely a nice catch-phrase upon which to hang it.

I can see that point.  FTR, I was completely apathetic about Kerry, and Gore for that matter.  

That particular quote, however, was fair too deconstructed considering that it was a debate comment.   He was trying to say that we need to listen to the International community and he, suprise!, botched it.

 Look this breaks down rather simply:

 1.) Given action by U.S. is not wrong, nor gives the appearence of being wrong. At which point, there is no negative reaction, at least none we care about.

 2.) An action taken by U.S. is wrong or gives the appearence of being wrong. In which case, whose fault is that? It is an odd morality that forgives the wrongdoer but not the reporter of the wrongdoing.

 Now, this is not to say that these prisons are wrong per se, but if they aren't, why are we afraid to let it out. If we don't think they are wrong, but others do, that is a debate that we should be willing to have. If you are unwilling to defend a position that others question, one has to wonder why...

February 13, 2002

Ken Adelman: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."

July 11, 2002

Richard Pearle: "Now, it isn't going to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."

February 7, 2003

Donald Rumsfeld: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

March 4, 2003

Gen. Richard Myers: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict"

March 16, 2003

Vice-President Dick Cheney: :My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

"I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."

May 1, 2003 (Below a sign reading "Mission Accomplished")

President George Bush: "major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

I could find more, but I have work to do.

why are we afraid to let it out.

Because no one who is not now in Al Qa'eda's gunsights wants to be. Would you house Al Qa'eda prisoners in your country if you knew the WaPo would blab it all over the world that you were holding them?

establish what exactly?

it was Kerry and the Democratic Party and their friends in the press who wanted people to buy into them, not me. I recognized it as just so much political cr*p the instant he uttered it. If it didn't represent his true views then why did he say it. He could as easily have spent the same time and effort telling us something meaningful --- not to mention truthful.

 I understand the argument that Post shouldnt have reported because it might give enemy a military advantage, I buy that argument.

 What I was reacting to is the argument that has (I thought) been made that they shouldn't have reported because it was controversal...

if people on RedState would argue that things shouldn't be reported because they are controversial and I don't take that from whatr has been said. It appears to me that the argument has centered around a belief that these kind of revelations are dangerous to our security. That and a distinct lack of belief in the moral and intellectual superiority of "Anonymous."

...assume a drop in circulation is due to how the people feel about the press. I would "assume" that circulation is down due to the internet and the blogs. I would look at how much traffic this site has gotten in the past 3-6 months. This site and others have a job to get out information, thus lessening the need for newspaper circulation.

Of coarse that is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

On the form page where you type in your diary, there are two comment sections in addition to the subject line.  The first section goes "above the fold", and is usually a summary or attention-grabbing paragraph.  The second section goes "below the fold" and usually contains extended text with the details / article excerpts / supporting material for whatever subject you're writing about.  

For the front page stories (and promoted diary entries), the "above the fold" text is what actually takes up room on the front page -- which is why I think Leon was asking for smagar to include the split himself.  You usually only see the "below the fold" text when you click the Read Story & Discuss... link. It's analagous to the "jump" in newspaper stories, where the eyeball-grabbing blurb is on the front page and the meat of the story is all back on page A23 after all the furniture store ads and whatnot.

If you click on the diary links off the front page, you usually see the above/below text all at the same time, with just the date/time stamp in between them (if the author split the entry up at all).  If you click on the More Diaries... link, though, you'll see all the diary entries listed in more or less the front page format with just the "above the fold" text displayed and a Read Story and Discuss... link provided for each.

that all of this drop is due to dissatifaction.

But I beleive that the vast majority of Joe and  Jane Sixpack gets their news from either their local newspaper or the network/broadcast news; even cable news is tiny in comparison. As explosive as the growth of the Internet as a news source has been it is still a tiny fraction of the total news sources. The drop in circulation is significant and attributing it to dissatifaction, at least to some extent, is supported by anecdotal 'evidence.'

Yes, the tactical military objective actually went very well in retrospect.  But the War on Terror was not the focus of the above statements was it?  In fact the formation of a new government, and the provision for its security was not a part of those statements either.  Be more contextually acurate.

Cheers!

I'm not sure how my knowing that my government is operating a secret prison damages my security.  It just makes me more informed

I will sleep soundly tonight.  Call me when tanks are massed on the Canadian or Mexican borders ... then I will worry.

is always more clever with the media.

I find that very odd.

They clamp down and control it much more than right wing despot regimes, in general.

But then, lefties seem to flock to supporting anything on the left far more than people on the right.

between trolling and dishonesty. I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt here, once.

As the old saying goes, text without context is a pretext.

The first five quotes are in the context of the invasion of Iraq. Adelman, in particular, proved prescient. So it is really difficult what you are attempting to do here other than apply them out of their context.

Bush's statement of the end of major combat operations was required by the Geneva Conventions. At that point we declared Saddam's government was gone and we were responsible for the administration of Iraq.

Here's a summary of some of the Gallup / Harris / Fox / Bloomberg poll results on institutional trust.  I don't know any of the internals for these polls - they're not hotlinked from the page - but I'm assuming the organization / date / sample / MoE information given is accurate if you want to look up the individual polls.

Gallup Poll. May 23-26, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3

"I am going to read you a list of institutions in American society. Please tell me how much confidence you, yourself, have in each one: a great deal, quite a lot, some, or very little. . . ."

(% for GD / QAL / S / VL / None / Unsure)

The military    42    32    18    7    1    -

The church or organized religion   31    22    28    16    2    2

The presidency    21    23    27    25    3    1

The U.S. Supreme Court    16    25    38    18    1    2   

Television news    12    16    45    24    2    1   

Newspapers    11    17    46    24    1    1

Congress    8    14    51    25    1    1

The Harris Poll. Feb. 8-13, 2005. N=1,012 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"As far as people in charge of running [see below] are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them?"

("Great Deal %" results from  2/05    2/04    12/02    1/02    1/01)

The military    47    62    62    71    44

The White House    31    31    40    50    21   

The U.S. Supreme Court    29    29    34    41    35

Organized religion    27    27    19    23    25

The courts and the justice system    22    n/a    n/a    n/a    n/a

Congress    16    13    20    22    18   

Television news    16    17    21    24    24

The press    12    15    15    16    13

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. May 20-21, 2003. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"I'm going to read you a list of people and institutions. Please tell me how much confidence you have in each. How much confidence do you have in [see below]: a great deal, some, not much, or none at all?"

(% for GD / S / NM / None / Not Sure)

The military    77    19    2    1    1   

The President    49    27    13    10    1

The Catholic Church    17    25    18    21    19

The Congress    11    60    19    6    4   

The news media    9    43    31    15    2

Bloomberg News Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. June 11-16, 2002. N=1,201 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"As far as people in charge of running [see below] are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them?"

(% for GD / OS / HA / Don't Know)

The White House    29    51    16    4

Congress    12    64    19    5

The results are pretty consistent in placing the MSM (both print and TV - although radio usually fares much better) at or near the botton of the trust/confidence rankings, and placing the President above both them and Congress.

The threats are slightly different since the Cold War ended, if you hadn't noticed.  

We're facing a slightly different enemy that's not putting tanks on the field of battle or formally declaring war or using regular troops or such stuff.

So secret prisons are un unfortunate but necessary element of keeping them away from the borders or our cities.

trolling and dishonesty. If ANY these quotes were either I would expect to be banned from your site.

I was responding to this quote for Carlos (#135), "I don't remember anyone saying that we were going to win the war on terror in a year or so."  He was respond to IraqWarVeteran (#40).  So was I.  In fact, I was returning the discussion to the Iraq War, which was the topic of #40.

Nobody I know, liberal or conservative, objects to the war agains Al Qaeda.  I applauded the liberation of Afganistan and was outraged when Bin Laden escaped.  Those of us who object to the Iraq Entanglement do so because we believe it was the wrong war and only distracted us from defeating our true enemy.

We all, be honest you too, were led to believe that the Iraq War would be quick and easy.  When people complain about being mislead about the war, it is the Iraq War they are talking about.

I joined this site because I thought it would be a thoughtful, intelligent site with a conservative focus but open to debate.  It appears I was wrong.

if they feel they can get away with it.

I'll admit I'm not up on all the ins and outs of Federal law as it relates to journalists knowingly publishing classified information.  But that law must not have much if any teeth in it vis a vis the journalist.  (The leaker, on the other hand, could easily be in big trouble).

Washington leaks classified information all the time.  And, I don't recall any parade of journalists going to trial or jail.

Seems that the biggest check on the press is what the public--and more immediately, their colleagues--would think of their reporting classified info.

And, as we saw (a) a film clip of the murder of three Iraqi election workers win a Pulitzer Prize this year and (b) Mary Mapes get a Peabody Award,  I don't get the impression the MSM is really too concerned about what Joe Sixpack thinks about it. Instead, they care mostly about what the "right sort" of crowd in Georgetown, Manhattan and Paris think.

Should they use discression in what they print, absolutely, but they should definitely report enough to call attention to the problem.

what do we do then?  Where do we go for covert places to keep sensitive prisoners?  Whose help do we call on in the GWOT?  Who'd trust us to keep THEIR most sensitive secrets safe?

Security through obscurity is NOT security.

Security without reliable partners isn't security, either.

Now to get on the front page...

I think what is controversial is the notion that we should pursue Karl Rove and Scooter Libby to the ends of the Earth, and let whoever did this leak slide. I want whoever that was indicted. Soon. And if Dana Milbank goes to jail in the interim, so much the better. I'm sick of this "inner government" at Langley deciding what secrets shall be kept and which ones shall be leaked.

and think about the implications of their reporting either later, or never.

Actually, I think the MSM HAS thought about the impact of their reporting.  And come to the conclusion that a certain number of CIA agents, or US troops, or citizens, are expendable.

BOY, that sounds harsh.  However, I mean it when I say it.  Let me explain.

Cold-eyed pragmatists can make the argument that, in order to have a free and unfettered press, we must let the press report with few if any restrictions.  Yes, some reports will be aired that cause others to be harmed.  But, the greater harm would be to muzzle the press, for that would severely restrict the liberties and free expressions of thought that make this society great.  An occasional threat to covert operations or the occasional loss of some spies, the pragmatists might say, is a tough but necessary price to pay for having the free and unfettered press essential to an open democracy.

That's a serious argument.  Machiavellian, IMO, but still serious. It takes guts to make it in public and stand by it.

But, the press doesn't come out and go on record like that.  They don't stand up and take the heat.  Mostly, when their reporting of a classified source sparks an outcry, they act puzzled at why anyone would be mad at THEM.

Did Dana Priest step up and take her share of responsibility when the Gwangju questioner challenged her?  Or, did she duck?

It's kind of hard to respect someone whose actions cause problems and pain, and then act as if they had nothing to do with it.

If you believed the politicians...well, that's on you, my friend.

All the military professionals felt this would be a long haul.  They told everyone who was willing to listen.

As for you comment on the "Mission Accomplished" banner, "major combat operations" are generally defined--by those who understand them--as pitched, full-up battles between large-size organized forces.

what happened between the US and the UK when it was revealed that large numbers of Russian spies had set up housekeeping in British intelligence agencies. The relationship was frosty for years.

We all, be honest you too, were led to believe that the Iraq War would be quick and easy.

Not those of us who were paying attention, and thought through the matter and the implications of invasion.

Oh, BTW, this diary is about the MSM.  Just thought I'd remind you.

They've decided that it's OK to print this information, and that we'll all be able to deal with its consequences.

Of course, seeing as the press is not out actually trying to keep Americans safe from terrorists, or fly those one-time-covert CIA aircraft in Iraq, or make and maintain information-sharing relationships with wary foreign intelligence and law enforcement services--it's a little presumptuous of them to decide what risks are safe to take and which ones aren't.

Because, when it comes right down to it, it's not the press cleaning up the mess the reporting makes.  Is it?

I thought that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers was a "general."  My bad.

Dude, not smart.  I've never met him in person but I'm pretty sure he was trained how to maim you with his pinkie.

The War in Iraq is part of the war on terror, but not the sum of it.  It is one theater in a new methodology of war where we don't face just nation-states that oppose us, but bands of ideological islamo-fascists bent on world domination to secure the perversion of their religion as the only acceptable form of government and religious expression allowed.

Yes, the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 were based in Afghanistan and we went after them, quite soundly.  It is unfortunate that Osama is still on the run, but the experience of the Soviets shows the folly of trying to go after a small band of fanatics in the mountain region of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.  In about 11 years the Soviets lost about 15,000 troops with tens of thousands more severely wounded and permanently disabled.  And this was when the Soviet military was at it's peak.  We wouldn't be likely to have much greater success.  The vermin hide amongst the civilian population, are hidden by tribal warlords in both countries, and can hide and move with great facility.  Sending in tens of thousands of our troops wouldn't be beneficial to our long term security.  At least that's the decision that's been made by our leaders.  Don't like it?  Vote for some other guy next time.

As for Iraq, the military invasion was relatively quick, relatively less risky, and quite in keeping with what the leading military and political figures predicted in your quotes.  But mistakes were made in the way the Baathists were treated and Hussein's army.  I don't necessarily know what would be better to have done, but I think it's safe to say that mistakes were made.

Did anyone predict the insurgency having the strength it has?  Yes and no.  Some did, others didn't.  But as they say, no battle plan survives impact with the enemy.  

Were the troops greeted as liberators?  Many were, outside of the Sunni triangle reports abound of joyous praise when Coalition forces secured the area.

Bad things are still happening, and the scum are trying to break the will of the Iraqi people and the US people, so they can continue their holy war against us.  But the vast majority of the Iraqi people don't want to live in an islamo-fascist state.

There's been lots of hashing and re-hashing of the different points of view of why we went to Iraq.  You'll find that most people on this site agree that potential stockpiles of WMD and weapons programs were a major factor of the Congressional authorization to go to war.  But you'll also find that but there were many other factors as well, including the liberation of the oppressed Iraqis.  Intelligence was wrong, and that's lamentable, but it doesn't make the decision to onvade Iraq and depose Hussein wrong.  It just means we need to learn why we were wrong and improve the CIA and intelligence services so that we know better next time.

But to complain that your mere listing of a few quotes as proof that you are irrefutably right isn't open-ended debate, it's an attempt at triumphalism of the lowest kind.  

I agree that those quotes are accurate, but the implication you derive from them is vastly different from that which I would conclude.  

The war in Iraq is part and parcel of the war on Terror, but the successful conclusion of the war in Iraq will not conclude the war on terror.  However, we could not conclude the war on terror without eliminating the threat that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed.

(TWE:  To What Extent)

Of course we'd like the press to be free to report anything it wished.  But, the question is, are you willing to imperil the intelligence and law enforcement efforts now being waged to keep this country safe from attack , to protect the absolute exercise of that freedom?

What limits, if any, are you willing to accept.  Should the press simply report, and we all just hope we can deal with it?

Remember:   Some...People..Are..Avidly..Trying..To..KILL..US!!!

in the GWOT.

Is knowing there is a secret prison somewhere in Eastern Europe worth the risk that several countries might clam up the next time we ask them for info?  Worth it to create and foster the impression that nations should only share sensitive info with the US government if you're ready to see that info on the front page of the NYT?

IMO, no.  But, IMO, Priest and the WaPo really didn't care.  It wasn't their worry.  And, there are Pulitzers to be had!

classified and sensitive information.  I'd propose an acknowledgement from the MSM that good intelligence is one of the most valuable tools we have at hand to defend ourselves in the GWOT. And an acknowledgment that the sources of that intelligence are easily compromised or frightened away, and that makes all of us much less safe.

Can I give you a "checklist" of things the MSM should and shouldn't do.  No.  There's too much gray area in this.  

So, let me give you some examples of what a more sensitive MSM would do:

1. It wouldn't identify the location of one of the sensitive prisons as an "Eastern European democracy."  It would leave the location vague.
   
   
2. It wouldn't identify an airline working out of Baghdad Airport as being a front for the CIA.

I concur that the greatest problem here is the intel agents who leak.  They should be jailed.  

I would, however, be interested in exploring legislation that punished reporters for publishing information they knew to be classified.  I'm not calling for such legislation, but I'd entertain the thought and listen to any sound proposal.

Why?  Because, without good intelligence, lots of us might get KILLED! And, with a CIA that leaks and an MSM that broadcasts those leaks with little or no concern for the consequences, lots of valuable intelligence sources might dry up.  That is something we cannot afford.

There is no easy answer to this question, but I'm ready to explore it.

I don't have an easy answer...do you?  Should we risk it?  Stay silent as the MSM prints away, and hope for the best?

If that were the case, would YOU share any sensitive information with the US government?

Thanks, jsteele, for all your excellent comments, and for taking the lead in driving discussion.  I feel like the option quarterback who pitched the ball to the All-American running back.

Thanks also to dpcleary, streiff, docj, Nick Danger and everyone else who added to this diary.

Redstate is a great place, isn't it?

I'm humbled.

It looks like your on the edge of the bannesphere, hopefully I can help.  As for the synopsis, dpclearly picks things apart with clarity so no need to go there.  But I will engage closer to the core.  First you make a bit of a snide comment:

"I joined this site because I thought it would be a thoughtful, intelligent site with a conservative focus but open to debate.  It appears I was wrong."

At what point did you attempt debate in your response to me?  I missed that somehow.  Isn't good debate filled with wisdom backed by facts?  

So 'nobody' you know objects to the war against Al Qaeda.  So do you support the war against Al Qaeda in Iraq?  What defines your ethereal true enemy?  I can clearly state what most conservatives who are concerned with this issue are fighting.  Its a dangerous philosophy.  We have been against Islamo Fascism under one name or another since before Black September.  Now the educated liberal counters quickly with various inanities regarding US support of nasty dictators, implying that only conservatives are implicated in our arguably haphazard foreign policy in the middle east.  I personally would not support the "enemy of my enemy is worthy of support" philosophy as applied in the Cold War, but that is a different topic.  

Liberals can apparently compartmentalize the threats to freedom and pick and choose based on some formula I have not seen.   So your point is that radical Islamic Fascism is only a threat if its the Al Qaeda that we have immobilized in Afghanistan, and not the philosophy itself?  Complicated contortions.  But it does come back to the topic nicely.  The MSM is in the business of legitimizing this fascist philosophy, whether overtly or inadvertently.  They don't see the threat in these terms, and don't acknowledge their complicity.  At least that is my contention.  Is there a true enemy for the liberal journalist?  Besides the Bush Administration, Christianity, and the Military?  Oh wait that was rhetoric, sorry.

By all means, lets have thoughtful intelligent debate!

One aspect of this topic has not been discussed yet and I was hoping it would be.  Probably to late for this so I'll have to write an article later.  But does anyone think see things like this:

The CIA is a big bureaucratic machine granted.  And most of what they do is probably not to hidden.  I mean if you really want to know where a certain piece of intelligence comes from, you could get pretty close.  

Now take really black ops.  Hot potato stuff politically.  Like secret interrogation prisons.  Do you think its a dance where everyone in the know gets a ticket, journalists, statesmen, and middle management, then squabbles over what information gets out?  Or do you take the classic perspective that if its really bad to do, nobody knows its happening?

Or are we in the evolution of the art of intelligence gathering, with operational methods changing to reflect exposure?  Historically the foreign corespondent was a source of intelligence until the emergence of more structured larger scale services in during WWII.  Now they appear to be the pruning shears of operations not tight enough.  What does everyone think?

Myers said that (if you've quoted him correctly) we hoped it would be a short, short conflict.  

Didn't we ALL hope that it would be short? (And, if one is referring to major, pitched battles, it WAS a short conflict.)  

Can you give us a quote where he, or some other general/admiral in the CENTCOM or JCS leadership, proclaimed that an Iraqi invasion would be easy and wrapped up quickly?

Ball's in your court.

I joined this site because I thought it would be a thoughtful, intelligent site with a conservative focus but open to debate.  It appears I was wrong.

Unfortunately, the cross I, Thomas, Leon, Nick, and several others bear is keeping it that way. Your post and subsequent commentary calls into doubt your ability to participate in a site that requires honesty as the price of admission. Honesty about political leanings, which is why we ban mobys out of hand, and honesty about the facts we present and their context.

After reviewing your defense, the statements you culled are even more out of context than I had originally thought. To wit: None of the statements apply even tangentially to the GWOT yet you claim you were responding to #135 which is clearly talking about the GWOT.

It is up to you, at this juncture, to decide whether or not you are comfortable with our rules and norms. I am, as they say, down with whatever decision you come to.

I would, however, be interested in exploring legislation that punished reporters for publishing information they knew to be classified.  I'm not calling for such legislation, but I'd entertain the thought and listen to any sound proposal.

I'm hesitant about this approach, if only because the UK's experience with the Official Secrets Act has not been all that great (IIRC).  I agree that the media -- and, here, I include not only the MSM but also less "mainstream" sources, including blogs* -- needs to be more aware of how their actions can impact the GWOT.  Unfortunately, voluntary restraint is not a very popular position (and folks will find all sorts of reasons why restraint shouldn't apply to their particular case).

von

*I don't think it's useful to distinguish the MSM from blogs in this regard; a well-read blog can blow an agent's cover or reveal important secrets almost as easily the MSM.  So, as we think about this issue -- and I absolutely agree that we should and must -- we need to keep in mind that any rules that we'd propose for the MSM we must be willing to live with ourselves.

Explain to me why the prison need be secret?   Does a secret prison do a better job of detaining prisoners than a non-secret prison?   Are the wall taller?   Thicker?  

It allows us to torture the scum until they talk and give up their suicide killers comrads and their cowardly plans for blowing up civilians and attacking our way of life. Now I know most people, and all liberals, don't have the stomach for this process, but they also don't have the stomach to work in the slaughter house that provides their free-range chicken. However, the terrorists have no rules, consequently, they should expect no quarter.

Al Queda knows that they haven't heard from Bozo bin Sultan for quite some time now. Is Bozo dead, captured, on the run? Has Bozo turned? Where the h*ll is Bozo and what is he up to?

Oh wait, the WaPo reports that the US has 'secret prisons' in East Overshoe Europe. The ACLU is suing on behalf of Bozo bin Sultan for access to a US court where he will get off because he has not violated a law in the US.

that people in America today actually are EXTOLLING torture.  It's not even a necessary evil to these people.  It's straight up wonderful.

As a nececssary evil. Torturing an Atta to prevent a WTC type attack? Strap him up. Barbaric? Yes. It's unfortunate that we have barbarians to deal with, but it is a reality.

Regardless immoral acts are immoral acts.  You seem to be ok with that because you consider secret prisons, and by implication, torture to be "great".  

If torture were acceptable the government wouldn't need to hide the fact that they are doing it.

But you are only a Republican/Conservative if you get banned within 1-2 posts. : )

I would expect that most people would eat a lot less meat if they had to kill the animal with their own hands, then butcher it and dispose/deal with the remains not eaten.

That's why people prefer to pick out their meat in nicely wrapped clean packages.

I propose the same thing applies with torture and military action. People pretty much know they need it... they just don't want to see it.

Exactly about would be hijackers targeting blah blah blah ... that turns out to be hogwash.   But hey its get some folks in some far away city all worked up and it keeps some guy from banging playing the bongos on their skull for an afternoon, and handing them cigarettes instead.

Remember Sec. Don Rumsfeld pointing to the pictures and maps telling us that we knew exactly where Saddams WMDs were?   Intell like that comes from such secret sources.

that the location of slaughterhouses is not kept secret.

I also find it sickening that you would compare the treatment of human beings to the treatment of livestock.  

Military expert after military expert has said that torture yields the worse, most unrealiable, intel.

The judge can rule that it is in the interest of national security to hold a prisoner and to keep that prisoner's identity a secret.

Now excuse me I have to pick my jaw up off the floor now.

and that's why it's been used for several thousand years, because it is so unreliable.

Missing from the plethora of experts, notably, is anyone who says they have used it and it didn't work.

Undoubtedly, this is why the military runs SERE training.

of your favorite brew ...

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear an appeal against subjecting these "people", some 500 of them, to military tribunals. The objective is to get their cases into civilian courts. (Justice Roberts has apparently recused himself has he wrote the decision under appeal while he was on the Appelate Court.)

I will bet a six pack, nay a case, of your favorite brew that if the lefty bleeding heart crowd is successful in this argument not one of these people will ever be convicted and most of them will never be tried. The basic argument will be along the lines of how can a US court try these fine upstanding folks when they haven't committed a crime in this country.

Watch it happen.

According to Trent Lott, a GOP senator leaked this info. There was a meeting with GOP only senators last week, and most of the details that were in the story were spoken about directly in that meeting.

This was reported on CNN.

good, brave men have had to die to provide whining liberals the freedom to berate those very sacrifices. If you are not willing to do the dirty jobs in life that are required for our "civilized" comfort, at least don't be so hypocritical as to demean those who do.

... if a GOP Senator leaded this then its OK :-)

Seriously, if this is true then he/she needs to do some serious prison time regardless of their party affiliation.

How would that be done other than a protest from the body politic? Impeachment?

begins with being anything other than an Islamic fundalmentalist. Perhaps you would like to have have a debate with them on that point. RIP

are not absolutely immune from prosecution. They are protected against suit for things they say on the floor and they may not be arrested for some kinds of crimes while the Congress is in session. However, I doubt that their protection extends to violations of security --- and even if it did they can't stay in the Capitol forever :-)

How did the idea develop that any leaked information about CIA activities must have come from Agency officials?  Seems you are making the same mistake as the liberal left - convicting without a trial.  Agency personnel are constantly reminded that their job is to collect intelligence and provide it with analysis to the Administration for developing policy and following through with action.  This was even true during the Clinton years, when he was truly misusing the intelligence, much to the consternation of Agency professionals.  To repeat, the Agency  does not make policy, but if it did, you would find in generally in line with conservative values (although not in a monolithic sense).  Generally, the Agency population was highly supportive of the Bush Administration and actions on the GWOT, and heavily involved in carrying out the policies of the USG.

In this modern age of internet, FOIA, and endless databases, it has become much more difficult to keep secrets.  This is particularly true of high visibility activities.  I defy anyone to operate a covert airline, or manage large facilities without someone taking notice.  And, while doing this, you are surrounded by  nosey factions trying to expose your operation, especially the MSM in concert with  the left out to discredit the Administration.  That is not to say that some leaks may come from disaffected Agency employees - after all, what use to be a very exclusive "club" is becoming more of a reflection of a slouching American society.  

Fascinating...so we have managed to develop something unheard of in all of human history: an infallible institution.  Absolutely fascinating.  Truly, I'd no glimmer that our powers of governance were so remarkable.

My fervent desire that our state never fall prey to tyranny is all the stronger now seeing that some would march smartly into the abyss.  If the executive failed and the machine kept running right along without complaint, all would be lost.

My point wasn't that classified shouldn't be safeguarded, as it surely should be in 99.9999% of cases.  My query was to find an exception to the rule with just a modicum of imagination, apparently a bridge too far.

Ironic, too, that this thread began with an assumption that the CIA leaked this information, while Lott is insinuating that it was likely some Republican senator that actually squeeked.

1. activities that run counter top and/or undermine the policies of the president and/or which seek to undermine his credibility

and

2. activities that aid an enemy of the US