Friday, December 30, 2005
You Say 'Apple', I Say 'Orange'
I saw that the DoJ is conducting an investigation into leaks that brought Bush's illegal warrantless wiretaps to light. I'm wicked busy today, but thought I'd briefly point out the silliness of all this--turns out I don't have to:
Bush circumvented the law with warrantless searches, but it's the whistleblower who's facing a criminal investigation.
Inevitably, the right's talking points will tell us that the administration's critics are hypocrites. We wanted the Justice Department to probe the Plame leak, they'll say, but not the "snoopgate" leak. But if Bush's political allies can't see the difference between exposing official wrongdoing and exposing a CIA agent to help cover up bogus pre-war claims, there's just no hope for them.
Thanks, Steve. You said pretty much what I was going to say.
I'll just make an additional observation: Judy Miller was an alleged hero for going to prison on contempt charges as she refused to tell us who her sources were in the Plame leak. A "First Amendment Martyr", that Judy, taking a "principled" stand and making sure that there would be no "chilling effect" that would prevent sources from talking to reporters. We who decried that position argued that this was a case of protecting people who had broken the law and endangered national security--the protections and justifications that she relied on should be reserved for whistleblowers, not criminals.
This domestic spying thing is a case in point: the Bush administration violated the law (again) and somebody blew the whistle. In other words, we have been consistent on the issue of leaks from the start, while wingers like Michelle Malkin and her ilk are equivocating.
December 30, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference You Say 'Apple', I Say 'Orange':
» NSA Requests Investigation into Leaks from DoD Daily News
There have been several investigations on the Hill in the past couple of decades. Some have the appearance of political vendetas, but this one is justified. Someone somewhere is giving away or selling classified information to people they should not. [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 31, 2005 11:06:32 PM
. . . the Bush administration violated the law (again)
In YOUR opinion - regardless, unlike Valerie Plame, this information was definitely classified.
Posted by: Charlie | Dec 30, 2005 1:05:02 PM
Oh, come on, Charlie, your secret's out: only 2.1 on the Authoritarian scale. It's hard to tell from the sample graph, but that looks less authoritarian than Jacques Chirac. You know you hate illegal warrantless wiretaps. And we know you know. Etc.
(P.S. Carter/Clinton/Cass Sunstein/Richard Posner have all been dealt with ad nauseum elsewhere. Though I hear the Wilsons' five-year-old independently authorized bypassing the FISA court...)
Posted by: mds | Dec 30, 2005 1:55:42 PM
regardless, unlike Valerie Plame, this information was definitely classified.
A. The CIA told you Valerie Plame's identity wasn't classified, did they?
B. You think hiding illegal acts is a good enough reason to classify something?
NTodd -- you need a better class of trolls.
Posted by: flory | Dec 30, 2005 1:59:21 PM
A. The CIA did not tell me Valerie Plame's identity wasn't classified - there are legitimate questions about that, however, unlike the NSA program - get it?
B. Neither I nor the Attorney General think it was illegal, but even if it turns out to be, the illegality was not the reason it was classified - the spying sources and methods and were.
P.S. - I'll take "less authoritarian than Jacques Chirac" any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Posted by: Charlie | Dec 30, 2005 2:06:17 PM
...but even if it turns out to be, the illegality was not the reason it was classified - the spying sources and methods and were.
Holy circular reasoning, Batman!
Posted by: Auguste | Dec 30, 2005 2:53:47 PM
the illegality was not the reason it was classified - the spying sources and methods and were.
Oh, MY GOD! You mean our government really does have the technology to "wiretap" telephonic devices? And terrorists could no longer be forewarned of this by their moles on the secret FISA court, since the administration has been bypassing them? Well, the jig is up, then, now that al Qaeda realizes that we can secretly listen in on their communications without a secret warrant. Glad I kept all that duct tape.
Regardless, Charlie, I think we'd rather have you than Jacques Chirac posting here any day of the week.
Posted by: mds | Dec 30, 2005 2:57:06 PM
Sorry, Auguste and mds - I left out the word "results" of said spying needed to remain classified - hope that helps you understand why protecting our national security is not circular reasoning.
I rather be Jacques Chirac personally ; )
Posted by: Charlie | Dec 30, 2005 3:04:30 PM
Why are all these self-described patriotic Americans so ready to throw away their liberties (and, by the way, MY liberties, too, and, yes, I DO mind, f*ck you very much) as a FIRST step toward protecting ourselves from terrorism, rather than a last resort?
Digby called 'em "panic artists," and I think that 'bout nails it except that the only artistry I've seen in any of their arguments is the art of self-delusion.
Posted by: Lex | Dec 30, 2005 4:40:33 PM
Since I don't have contact with any terror suspects, I'm not throwing anything away - sorry if you have.
Posted by: Charlie | Dec 30, 2005 5:25:09 PM
The CIA did not tell me Valerie Plame's identity wasn't classified - there are legitimate questions about that, however, unlike the NSA program - get it?
A. You did not state it as a question, you stated it as a fact: "regardless, unlike Valerie Plame, this information was definitely classified."
B. Show me these "legitimate" questions - legitimate meaning from a more respectable source than LGF or Freeperville. A government source that states that Valerie Plame may not have had a classified status.
Posted by: flory | Dec 30, 2005 9:05:48 PM
[[Since I don't have contact with any terror suspects, I'm not throwing anything away - sorry if you have.]]
Oh, the old "If you're not doing anything wrong, then you don't have anything to worry about" argument. Sorry, Charlie. Not as in, "I'm sorry," as in, "That's a sorry argument."
NTodd: Smarter trolls, please.
Posted by: Lex | Jan 2, 2006 4:47:04 PM
Sorry, Lex - you blog with the trolls you have, not the trolls you wish you had.
Posted by: NTodd | Jan 2, 2006 11:17:45 PM
Wow - is it really "trolling" now in response to a thread that criticizes the DOJ investigation into leaks about what is claimed to be "illegal warrantless wiretaps" to point out they may not have been illegal, and, regardless, it was classified and therefore an investigation is appropriate?
Posted by: Charlie | Jan 3, 2006 11:50:30 AM
If it was fucking classified, you troll, then why did your preznit go on national television and tell al Qaeda exactly how to avoid getting tapped? That talking point no longer works, go find another one--which we'll shoot down just as easily.
Posted by: Michael | Jan 3, 2006 12:14:59 PM
I think it would have been better for GWB to not comment about it, but oh well - what are you going to do, charge him? Damned if he denies it, damned if he admits it. Using your logic, when Reagan revealed classified info about Lebanon (sp?) that wasn't technically "classified" either - and here I thought you guys lived in the realty-based world?
Posted by: Charlie | Jan 3, 2006 12:40:50 PM
Well, yeah, if we're going to investigate who the leaker was and prosecute him/her, then we should also go after the doofus-in-chief for blabbing about it on telly. I realize this will come as a surprise to you (and to most of the folks working in Bush's Justice Department), but in this country the laws apply to everyone. Including the preznit.
Posted by: Michael | Jan 3, 2006 1:55:33 PM
Of course the laws apply to the President of the United States - funny how Reagan never got charged though - have a nice year, Michael.
Posted by: Charlie | Jan 3, 2006 2:05:33 PM
Yeah, funny that. 'Cuz they should have impeached his ass--though it's questionable whether or not he'd have been found competent to stand trial. Which may have had something to do with why he wasn't charged...
Posted by: Michael | Jan 3, 2006 3:42:01 PM
Believe whatever you'd like - as I think I told you, my New Year's resolution includes not responding to trolls.
Posted by: Charlie | Jan 3, 2006 3:53:03 PM
An interesting instance of self-referential incoherence there, Chuckles, considering you're about the only troll on this here blog... Do us a favor and consider amending that resolution to "not posting on liberal blogs."
Posted by: Michael | Jan 3, 2006 4:34:17 PM
I move we get Jacques Chirac to come post here, instead of Charlie. Do I hear a second?
Posted by: Michael | Jan 3, 2006 4:35:36 PM
Posted by: Scooter | Jan 3, 2006 5:52:51 PM
Let me know when Jacques shows up - I guess that must be relevant to the thread in some way I must be missing - I will let NTodd be the judge on that. In the meantime, I will continue slogging (not trolling) since I am the one posting ON-TOPIC and without AD HOMINEM attacks.
Posted by: Charlie | Jan 3, 2006 6:42:05 PM
Oh, shut up and quit waving your alleged rectitude in our faces, Chuckles. Nobody's buying your "innocent" routine. You're the only one the on-topic rule applies to, anyway, to the best of my knowledge. The rest of us, being good citizens of the blogosphere, are entitled to say what we want.
Posted by: Michael | Jan 3, 2006 10:39:17 PM
As I was saying, back on topic, keep an eye on a DOJ official named Alice Fisher. She is a GOP loyalist, and is the boss of the attorney who is handling you know, the DOJ leak investigation. Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake is all over this....
Posted by: Charlie | Jan 3, 2006 10:55:30 PM