Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I'm surprised that no one has been talking about Newsweek's report that the Department of Homeland Security is planning how to suspend elections in the event of a terrorist attack.

I can't say that it's a bad idea to have someone thinking about this, but this again shows why our current officeholders don't know how to lead this country. If you're going to talk about postponing elections -- hell, if you're going to talk about talking about postponing elections -- the way to do it is to work from the start with Republicans and Democrats together, to come up with a plan that everybody can back. Bend over backwards to ensure that no one will see an effort to gain partisan advantage. Announce it with the top leaders of both party standing side-by-side.

This crowd is completely incapable of doing it the right way. Even if you assume that their motives are pure, they've fucked up the execution by proceeding in this way. They just starting making plans and leaking them.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
SO much for the whole "restoring integrity to the White House" business. Who knew we were getting such a cynical crowd? I still think they'd put the President and the country above their own self-interest.

I would hope they would, but this is Washington and not many do.

It's not pressure. He's not a prosecutor.

Look, when Clarke's book came out, the White House released transcripts of background briefings that Clarke gave to the press when he was in the White House, putatively to embarrass him with contradictions, although there weren't any. I don't recall you saying that the White House was threatening the First Amendment then.* All they have to do is the same thing -- tell Clarke that the "on the background" protection is revoked.

* You said the White House was "stupid" to fan the story, but you didn't say anything about the First Amendment.

I think you need to use a different standard when dealing with the press.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think you need to use a different standard when dealing with the press.

Meaning what? If they can retroactively decide that Clarke's briefing is no longer on the record, they can do the same to whomever talked to Novak. You didn't seem to have a problem with this when they did it to Clarke, and the principle is the same.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm surprised that no one has been talking about Newsweek's report that the Department of Homeland Security is planning how to suspend elections in the event of a terrorist attack.

I can't say that it's a bad idea to have someone thinking about this, but this again shows why our current officeholders don't know how to lead this country. If you're going to talk about postponing elections -- hell, if you're going to talk about talking about postponing elections -- the way to do it is to work from the start with Republicans and Democrats together, to come up with a plan that everybody can back. Bend over backwards to ensure that no one will see an effort to gain partisan advantage. Announce it with the top leaders of both party standing side-by-side.

This crowd is completely incapable of doing it the right way. Even if you assume that their motives are pure, they've fucked up the execution by proceeding in this way. They just starting making plans and leaking them.

This response was on craigslist:

It reeks of the Star Wars prequels to me. They will have to grant Bush special war powers indefinitely, Cheney will have much of his body replaced with mechanical parts, the International Space Station will be fitted with a planet-atomizing laser... and the only ones that can save us are 'the Johns' with their bleeding heart 'liberal sabers'.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm surprised that no one has been talking about Newsweek's report that the Department of Homeland Security is planning how to suspend elections in the event of a terrorist attack.

I can't say that it's a bad idea to have someone thinking about this, but this again shows why our current officeholders don't know how to lead this country. If you're going to talk about postponing elections -- hell, if you're going to talk about talking about postponing elections -- the way to do it is to work from the start with Republicans and Democrats together, to come up with a plan that everybody can back. Bend over backwards to ensure that no one will see an effort to gain partisan advantage. Announce it with the top leaders of both party standing side-by-side.

This crowd is completely incapable of doing it the right way. Even if you assume that their motives are pure, they've fucked up the execution by proceeding in this way. They just starting making plans and leaking them.

Do you read what you post - For those of you too lazy to read links, here are the operative portions:

The department was asked to review a letter to Ridge from DeForest Soaries, who is the chairman of the new U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the magazine said.

The commission was created in 2002 to provide funds to the states to the replace punch card voting systems and provide other assistance in conducting federal elections.

In his letter, Soaries pointed out that while New York's Board of Elections suspended primary elections in New York on the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."

Soaries wants Ridge to ask Congress to pass legislation giving the government such power, Newsweek reported in its latest issue that hits the newsstands on Monday.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Do you read what you post - For those of you too lazy to read links, here are the operative portions:

There's a huge difference between devising a plan, leaking it, and telling the press that you're going to ask Congress for legislation, and going to Congressional leaders on both sides first and having them on board before anything gets public. I wasn't accusing the administration of planning a coup d'etat. I was accusing them of fucking up the execution of an idea of debateable merit.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Newsweek has documents showing that many of the people abused at Abu Ghraib were petty criminals, not insurgents:

• What if the FBI had tortured Zacarias Moussaoui, the would-be 20th hijacker, into revealing the plot to destroy the World Trade Center in time to stop it? Who could blame it? These were not people playing by any rules of civilized warfare, and nor are terrorists in Iraq. At Abu Ghraib, military-intelligence officers were concerned about the poor "product" they were getting from prisoner interrogations, and they pressured the military-police guards there to "soften up" their charges between sessions. That, at least, is the defense of the six MPs now facing charges in the scandal. So why did Cpl. Charles Graner Jr. order a young woman to pull her shirt up to her neck? She was an accused prostitute. MPs allegedly ordered Hussein Mohsen Matar to masturbate, and rode on his naked back as he crawled on all fours. He was an accused thief. Haqi Ismail Abdul-Hamid, famously menaced by a snarling dog, had at least kicked an Iraqi policemen and threatened to kill Coalition soldiers. But he was ordered released as a mental case. Not only did military police torture prisoners at Abu Ghraib, they often tortured the wrong prisoners.
  
  * * * * *
  
  It's difficult to escape the conclusion that the Abu Ghraib torturers were just having a good, if sadistic, time. One military investigator wrote in his notes on Graner: "the biggest S.O.B. on earth," a comment he underlined twice. The price for the party is enormous: damage done to Iraqi support for the American occupation has been incalculable. The details are sickening. Noor, a detainee whose full name is being withheld by NEWSWEEK, was forced to expose her breasts and genitalia and is shown in the MPs' pictures giving a forced smile for Graner, who sources believe was the photographer. Subsequently a letter signed by a woman named Noor circulated widely in Baghdad saying she had been raped and impregnated by American soldiers, and begging the resistance to "please kill all of us." Prisoner Satar Jabar's photograph, showing him hooded and wired up, has become familiar to Iraqis, who derisively call it "the Statue of Liberty." Far from being a dangerous insurgent, however, Jabar, 24, was an accused car thief.

Via Jack O'Toole

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And if he attempted to pressure Novak, there would be an uprising from the 1st Amendment supporters (including me).

The policy behind a reporter's privilege is that coerced disclosure of confidential sources against the reporter's wishes --- i.e., he's been jailed for contempt, and starts thinking that maybe it's not worth taking a bullet to save the source's hide --- has a chilling effect on the ability to gather and report news. If I were a reporter, I couldn't reasonably promise confidentiality if my source knows I can be jailed until I give up the goods.

A decision by Novak to give up this source would probably negatively impact his ability to get scoops from leaks within the Administration. As a separate issue, 43 calling for disclosure in the interest of national security would be a win-win for Bush --- it looks like he's put statecraft ahead of party loyalty, and there's really no chance Novak would throw away his cred with Administration leaks.

Do you think it's a derogation of the First Amendment when prosecutors subpoena news agencies for footage of riots to identify perps and instigators? How about when defendants do it for exculpatory evidence? In most states, the reporter's shield always gives way to the defendant's 6th Amendment rights --- if it's the defendant asking for the tapes. So if an indictment is handed down (cough, Scooter Libby, cough cough), look for whether the defense subpoenas Novak. If em doesn't and gives speeches about Novak's First Amendment rights, start thinking "guilty."

[Not Me]

FYI - I gave the money I was going to give to the Reps to Nadar's campaign instead. I figured GWB has enough cash and that it would do more good by giving it to Nadar.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Meaning what? If they can retroactively decide that Clarke's briefing is no longer on the record, they can do the same to whomever talked to Novak. You didn't seem to have a problem with this when they did it to Clarke, and the principle is the same.

There is a clear difference in competing speech with speech than in forcing a reporter to disclose sources.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The policy behind a reporter's privilege is that coerced disclosure of confidential sources against the reporter's wishes --- i.e., he's been jailed for contempt, and starts thinking that maybe it's not worth taking a bullet to save the source's hide --- has a chilling effect on the ability to gather and report news. If I were a reporter, I couldn't reasonably promise confidentiality if my source knows I can be jailed until I give up the goods.

A decision by Novak to give up this source would probably negatively impact his ability to get scoops from leaks within the Administration. As a separate issue, 43 calling for disclosure in the interest of national security would be a win-win for Bush --- it looks like he's put statecraft ahead of party loyalty, and there's really no chance Novak would throw away his cred with Administration leaks.

Do you think it's a derogation of the First Amendment when prosecutors subpoena news agencies for footage of riots to identify perps and instigators? How about when defendants do it for exculpatory evidence? In most states, the reporter's shield always gives way to the defendant's 6th Amendment rights --- if it's the defendant asking for the tapes. So if an indictment is handed down (cough, Scooter Libby, cough cough), look for whether the defense subpoenas Novak. If em doesn't and gives speeches about Novak's First Amendment rights, start thinking "guilty."

You don't see the "decision by Novak" as being governmentally cohersed?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
There is a clear difference in competing speech with speech than in forcing a reporter to disclose sources.

Right. Who said anything about forcing a reporter to disclose sources? It's not coercion if W tells Novak that he is now free to tell people who he talked to, and W tells him that he hopes he'll do so for the good of the country and the White House, since it appears that his sources violated federal law by exposing a covert operative.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You don't see the "decision by Novak" as being governmentally cohersed?

Is it coercion for the government to advertise the Army on TV? To urge people to buy war bonds or pay taxes? What about when Cheney goes on CNBC to complain about the NYT? Or when McClellan urges the media to report on positive developments in Iraq?

I guess the bully pulpit really sucks, as pulpits go. It only goes one way.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Right. Who said anything about forcing a reporter to disclose sources? It's not coercion if W tells Novak that he is now free to tell people who he talked to, and W tells him that he hopes he'll do so for the good of the country and the White House, since it appears that his sources violated federal law by exposing a covert operative.

Huh? Is Novak claiming he can't disclose because of security reasons? I thought he was claiming priviledge (or whatever the technical term is). You don't see Bush leaning on Novak to disclose as cohersion?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Is it coercion for the government to advertise the Army on TV? To urge people to buy war bonds or pay taxes? What about when Cheney goes on CNBC to complain about the NYT? Or when McClellan urges the media to report on positive developments in Iraq?

I guess the bully pulpit really sucks, as pulpits go. It only goes one way.

As usual, I don't understand the point you are making.