Shooting The Messenger
When I looked in on David Horowitz' regular gathering of movement conservatives last week there was a lot of loose talk about hoping the New York Times will get prosecuted. Y'know, for publishing the leaked info about the NSA surveillance program.
I just shrugged all that off as cheap, partisan wanking. The same way I shrug off the way some liberals are now talking about impeachment. Ain't gonna happen.
Turns out -- at least on the first issue-- I could be wrong. Yesterday's Washington Post carried a disturbing story outlining how the Bush administration, trying to stop the leaks of classified information, has already launched multiple investigations targeting journalists and their possible sources. The report says that in recent weeks, dozens of CIA, NSA and other government workers have been interviewed by FBI field agents trying to find out who leaked the info that led to the revelations about the NSA in the Times and about the CIA's secret prisons in the Washington Post. We would rather hope that federal agents were trying to find those responsible for both illegal programs. But dream on.
These multiple probes go beyond those who might be the leakers and are also pressuring the media itself. Says the Post:
In a little-noticed case in California, FBI agents from Los Angeles have already contacted reporters at the Sacramento Bee about stories published in July that were based on sealed court documents related to a terrorism case in Lodi, according to the newspaper.
Some media watchers, lawyers and editors say that, taken together, the incidents represent perhaps the most extensive and overt campaign against leaks in a generation, and that they have worsened the already-tense relationship between mainstream news organizations and the White House.
"There's a tone of gleeful relish in the way they talk about dragging reporters before grand juries, their appetite for withholding information, and the hints that reporters who look too hard into the public's business risk being branded traitors," said New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller, in a statement responding to questions from The Washington Post. "I don't know how far action will follow rhetoric, but some days it sounds like the administration is declaring war at home on the values it professes to be promoting abroad."
I know it's become great sport for conservatives to knock the "Liberal Media" (the same way the left whines about the "Corporate Media") but it's quite another thing when you go out and actually try to muzzle your critics by threat of prison. The Justice Department, according to the Post story, has already filed a brief in one case arguing that journalists receiving leaked information should be punishable under the 1917 Espionage Act.
Printing stories about government abuse, about warrantless searches, secret gulags, torture in U.S. facilties etc. isn't much fun and should never be a cause for glee even for the fiercest critics of this administration. But the ability of the media to make such uncomfortable stories public is precisely what separates us from repressive societies; it is one of the most postive attributes of our culture. You trifle with it only at the peril of converting us into a carbon copy of our enemies.
March 6th, 2006 at 1:14 am
Well, here we go….maybe the “wacko’s” were on to something after all. The thing I find interesting is the disappearance of previously released FOIA documents - they are being “re-classified.” What position does that put journalists and historians in that have these documents?
Many find what you are talking about (Marc) a surprising development, for some reason it does not surprise me. Take’s me back to your interview of Gore Vidal - I have a copy of it on my desk. What was it he said when you asked “what’s next (after he voiced a lot of pessimism regarding this country)?”
March 6th, 2006 at 6:08 am
In the interests of uneven-handedness, conservative bashing of the “liberal media” is far more widespread and better co-ordinated than liberal bashing of the “corporate media”. That both phenomena exist doesn’t mean they’re equivalent.
March 6th, 2006 at 7:43 am
What’s at stake here is the people’s right to know. This is, as you correctly point out, essential in a democracy. Protection of the press is clearly subservient to this goal. My hope is that this story doesn’t get conflated with the abuse of power in the Valerie Plame matter, where the government used the press to undermine the efforts of one person to expose the misconduct of the government. In the latter case the right of the people to know the truth was undercut by some members of the media. These latter reporters, therefore, don’t deserve the same protection afforded the press when it is serving the needs of the people.
March 6th, 2006 at 9:15 am
Over on the right, in the forums I consider rational, this doesn’t even come close to being considered unseemly. FYI. In fact this automatic assumption that it’s evil even to investigate would be considered one more eye-roller.
My understanding of their view, which at this point I lean toward: like it or not, this was secret, and it was leaked, and that may be illegal.
ASs for morality:
If the administration had been working to keep it secret from their political opponents, I would share your outrage automatically. However, they weren’t; if there was something wrong with the technique, it was up to the Democrats in the know to do something about it: because this was secret.
If the press is morally justified in this, they’re morally justified in a way that indicts congressional Democrats along with the administration.
March 6th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Unintentional ASs there.
March 6th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Incidentally, marc: a few days/weeks ago, you posted a commetn somewhere here in whcih you said your MO was to opine in extreme ways, from either end, to prod a response. Interesting.
March 6th, 2006 at 9:41 am
“If the administration had been working to keep it secret from their political opponents, I would share your outrage automatically.”
The way some members of Congress were informed of the program was to effectively stifle any kind of dissent among them. They were barred from discussing the matter with anyone else including their staff and other members of Congress. This is hardly allowing the kind of congressional oversight that you are suggesting should have been going on. Had Jay Rockefeller, for instance, gone to the press or discussed the matter in pretty much any congressional forum, he would no longer be serving and would probably be facing some serious jail time.
That’s why we need the press. Any any case don’t confuse the need for congressional oversight with that of a free press.
March 6th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Yeah they couldn’t legally say anything so that’s like political blackmail. Not a good tactic by any reckoning. None of this is either all evil, or all much ado about nothing which would make it a fallacy. It isn’t.
March 6th, 2006 at 10:55 am
David Gergen says it’s “unprecedented.”
March 6th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
“…it sounds like the administration is declaring war at home on the values it professes to be promoting abroad.â€
This struck me from the quote above. To wit, the Iraqi constitution expressly forbids torture and expressly provides a right to privacy. Interesting.
March 6th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
I don’t believe the administration has convinced anyone that the reveal of this program has undermine national security. There’s no real evidence that this program should have been classified in the first place.
When the administration unilaterally classifies information and programs that it fails to subject to any real government oversight, it falls upon the press to act as that final check. Only the press can reveal the classified information to the public and must first decide whether it can responsibly do so without undermining national security. It’s an important decision for an unelected organ of our system and I understand why right wingers are uncomfortable with that power. In this case, however, we are undoubtedly watching the administration assert its right to remove programs from public oversight, not dealing with a press that has overstepped its bounds.
March 6th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
I find the common liberal (as opposed to left) statement that America, by torture/spying/occupation/imperialism etc. is sullying its values and the values that it is trying to project.
What values? This is like saying that the already decrepit Soviet Union was sullying its socialist values by invading Hungary and Czechoslovakia. In other words, barring the very democratic tradition within municipalities and town halls, America is far from democratic or liberal or enlightened or any of the other values liberals think it embodies. More than half of all Americans disbelieve in evolution, 80 percent believe in alien abductions, major league intellectuals condone war crimes and are resurrecting Carl Schmitt.
What values? And don’t go talking about the founders, deists or not. They were slaveholders who specifically designed a bourgeois republic to stave off more radical sentiment.
March 6th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Be interested in some more detail on that thing about the Dems told of the program being legally barred from talking about it to anyone. May be common knowledge.
There must be some Constitutional protection for a member of Congress looking to block what he/she considers to be a breaking of the Constitution.
I’m not suggesting it wouldn’t have been challenging to try to do something. But I can’t easily beleive there is no way for a notified member of congress to do something beyond expressing disagreement.
March 6th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
“it was up to the Democrats in the know to do something about it: ”
Warrantless wire tapping is the Dems fault? Jesus, this is getting predictable. Clinton must have set some type of ‘precedent’. Oh, and don’t forget about Carter. Did I leave anyone out?
March 6th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
JohnDoe -
Oddly, you leave off “if there was something wrong with the technique.”
Which probably could have been written “if they believed there was anything wrong with the technique. ”
But it gets tiring, always writing with an eye toward not giving openings to people looking for them as their only purpose in reading.
March 6th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
“There must be some Constitutional protection for a member of Congress looking to block what he/she considers to be a breaking of the Constitution.”
Members of the intelligence committees are barred from discussing classified information that they are privy to by virtue of being on the committee. And it is only the executive branch that can classify information. If they learn about the information other than from the administration, then that is something else I suppose.
March 7th, 2006 at 12:01 am
“Printing stories about government abuse, about warrantless searches, secret gulags, torture in U.S. facilities etc. isn’t much fun and should never be a cause for glee even for the fiercest critics of this administration. But the ability of the media to make such uncomfortable stories public is precisely what separates us from repressive societies; it is one of the most positive attributes of our culture. You trifle with it only at the peril of converting us into a carbon copy of our enemiesâ€
If the government through intimidation suppresses the news media—then we no longer have news we just have propaganda—press releases from the white House and the Pentagon citing their version of events.
At that point, we would be living in a dictatorship and no longer live in a republic. Without intellectual freedom choice no longer exists—the news has already compromised themselves far too much. They should have aggressively challenged the initial story about Iraq’s WMDS—MSM was castrated by 911—which was the exact intent of the Bush administration.
If the public is denied access to alternative information then they are also denied the ability to analyze data; so in effect, they would become incapable of making critical analyses and coming to their OWN conclusions–not the conclusions of those that have a biased agenda.
The Bush administration talks about prosecuting leaks—so the false information given to Judith Miller was from a White House leak used to rally the public into accepting the invasion of Iraq—the outing of Valerie Plame was a leak by Cheney as political revenge. So why are they not arresting these violators?
Shall we begin to burn all books; close all libraries; confiscate all printing presses; have Google censor the internet and have the executives at YAHOO hand over our computer files to the government so that all cyber-dissenters are eventually imprisoned.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice think that the Constitution is just another piece of paper. And as far as I’m concerned they are traitors to this country and should be arrested!
March 7th, 2006 at 12:14 am
Republican Congresswoman Heather Wilson about a month ago called for a fuller group of Intelligence Committee members to be briefed. In her statement she said this:
“The FISA statute does allow the President and the Congressional leadership to agree on procedures that would limit information on some programs to a handful of members – the so-called Gang of Eight. These procedures are not written down and are really a matter of practice and negotiation between successive Presidents and Congresses. There are reasons to limit some information to an even smaller set of people than the intelligence committees. ”
Is that true? (I’m just trying to pin down teh specifics of the law governing member behavior.)
March 7th, 2006 at 12:22 am
One question would be: did the Democratic members of the Group of Eight ever request a larger group be ibreifed? (I know some of them conveyed somewhat vague ntoes of discomfort.)
That seems like a thing they could have done.
March 7th, 2006 at 12:51 am
Paul,
They were quickly given the information and not allowed to consult with advisers.
The following occurs when the government controls the MSM.
I wonder if Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., who is Chairman and Publisher of The New York Times, is especially proud of the misinformation that his newspaper spread over a period of several years:
December 20, 2001: Iraqi Tells of Renovations at Sites for Chemical and Nuclear Arms
According to Knight Ridder News, this scientist was taken back to Iraq earlier this year for a tour of sites where he worked. None of the sites showed evidence of illegal weapons activity.
• Follow-up: January 24, 2003: Defectors Bolster U.S. Case Against Iraq
The aluminum tubes:
• September 8, 2002: U.S. Says Hussein Intensified Quest For A-Bomb Parts
• September 13, 2002: White House Lists Iraq Steps To Build Banned Weapons
• January 10, 2003: Agency Challenges Evidence Against Iraq Cited By Bush
•• April 21, 2003:Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert
Follow-ups:
• April 23, 2003: Focus Shifts From Weapons To the People Behind Them
• April 24, 2003: U.S.-Led Forces Occupy Baghdad Complex Filled with Chemical Agents
The “biological weapons labs”:
This is one example of a claim that was quickly and prominently challenged by additional reporting
• May 21, 2003: U.S. Analysts Link Iraq Labs to Germ Arms
During the last election a newspaper reporter asked Bush if he read newspapers such as the NYT. Bush said “no.†Why should Bush read the NYT if Cheney and Rumsfeld are writing the news for the NYT. It would be redundant and a waste of Bush’s time
Miller forgot to mention one small detail—that she was working for the White House and was protecting Cheney and his senior advisor “Scooter†Libby†who OUTED Valerie Plame, Ambassador Wilson’s wife, a CIA agent. “Scooter†had another partner—Bush’s Brain—Carl Rove. Wilson’s crime was telling the TRUTH.
In fact, he wrote a 2003 op-ed piece for the New York Times, entitled “What I Did Not Find in Africa,” contradicting Bush’s claims that Iraq tried to buy nuclear material in Niger. The Bush administration wanted as much propaganda as possible to add credibility to their WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION STORY, and justify their illegal actions against Iraq. Wilson refused to comply, because he found no evidence of nuclear materials being sold. What was his punishment for not complying? Outing his wife who is a CIA agent, jeopardizing her career and endangering her associates—DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!
I was under the impression, that journalists investigate a story, gather data and disseminate information that they truly believe is accurate and true. It’s hard to believe that a NYT reporter. Could be little more than a stenographer who quickly jots down a story essentially written by Cheney and Rumsfeld.
The NEW YORK TIMES abrogated their responsibility as a legitimate news source, when they allowed Judith Miller to print her inaccuracies. The NYT became nothing more than a propaganda RAG, demonstrating that when it comes to Iraq and Judith Miller they are UNFIT TO PRINT.
March 7th, 2006 at 1:13 am
According to Jay Rockefeller. I don’t know maybe you need more sources?
March 7th, 2006 at 2:12 am
I thought the below description of various MSM was pretty good–do we need our sources of info further compromised?????
The New York Times (don’t let the firing of Judith Miller be their only consequence for lethal news subversion)
Washington Post They claim to be embarrassed by Bob Woodward’s confession of collusion in the Plame case - but I suspect the real emotion is chagrin - that they have finally been caught red-handed in the act of collaborating with the White House and acting as its “private press.” An investigation of the Post would yield ugly secrets that would shock the nation beyond any recall of the paper’s contribution to journalism in the Watergate era.
NBC: The parent company GE has a huge interest in the furthering of the “war on terrorism” and a long stay in Iraq as it stands to make billions. Their two top “poster kids” for conflict of interest: Tim Russert, Andrea Mitchell, Lisa Myers, Katie Couric, Matt Lauer. All have routinely used their forums to promote GE’s agenda - ie, supporting Bush and the war no matter what and suppressing, ridiculing or intentionally undermining any contrary opinions.
FOX: Rupert Murdoch is so corrupt, so in bed with the Bush administration that it is astounding he has not been indicted already. FOX news is, overall, a comic lampoon of its own “fair and balanced” slogan. Words fail me.
PUBLIC BROADCASTING: Newt Gingirch and Co. knew what they were doing when they pushed in the 1990s to do away with NPR’s federal funding and force it to accept corporate donations. It is now the sponsored by some of the biggest Bush donors around, like Archer Daniels Midland and its content has shifted from challenging to dominated by material that appears to have been generated by the Heritage Foundation. But apparently, the corporate-GOP machine hasn’t quite sewn up enough of NPT/NPR’s content, because the GOP Congress is now pushing to pull ALL of the network’s funding - in essence, handing the whole infrastructure - which was PAID FOR BY US TAX DOLLARS over to corporate interests. It’s the same deal when the NIH builds a multi-million-dollar lab with tax dollars, then hands it over to a pharmaceutical corporation for “research.”
BBC: Public Broadcasing with a British accent.
AP: Or, as activistis like to call it: American Propaganda. AP is the primary disseminator of “canned news” to a majority of US news outlets. Reporters who have worked for AP report being told what type of stories they can cover, and which are to be ignored. For example, in 2001 I was told by one young AP reporter that they had all been told not to do any stories on Bush protests because it “only encourages them [the protestors]“. Encourages who? - The public? To do what? - Think?
AOL: If you want to find out what the White House spin on any news subject is, just go onto the main news page at AOl. I swear they mainline GOP propaganda!
March 7th, 2006 at 2:25 am
The fact that a lot of us are feeling more and more solidarity with those twitchy guys in Montana who are hoarding weapons and keeping a watchful eye out for black helicopters, is not……how to put it? …..cheering.
On a related and similarly creepy subject, look at this PEN First Amendment Alert that just was posted today:
************************************
http://penusa.org/go/news/comments/649/
March 06, 2006
Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 6, 2006:
V.A. Nurse Investigated for Sedition After Writing Letter to Editor Criticizing Bush Administration Policies.
Last year, after witnessing the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, Veterans Administration Nurse Laura Berg wrote a letter to the editor of her local weekly paper The Alibi to express her frustration with the Bush Administration’s handling of the disaster. In the letter, which was published September 15, 2005, she wrote:
“As a VA nurse working with returning . . . vets, I know the public has no sense of the additional devastating human and financial costs of post-traumatic stress disorder; now we will have hundreds of thousands of our civilian citizens with PTSD as well as far too many young soldiers, maimed physically or psychologically—or both—spreading their pain, anger and isolation through family and communities for generations. And most of this natural disaster and war tragedy has been preventable … how very, very sad!
* * *
“We need to wake up and get real here, and act forcefully to remove a government administration playing games of smoke and mirrors and vicious deceit.â€
(http://www.alibi.com/index.php?story=14092)
Within days, Berg’s office computer was seized and she became the subject of a V.A. investigation for sedition. Her union representative confirmed that Ms. Berg’s letter had been sent to the FBI for investigation as well. When Ms. Berg pressed the V.A. for more information about the investigation, she received a memo from the V.A.’s Chief of Human Resources, Mel R. Hooker, dated November 9, 2005, which affirmed that the V.A. had no evidence that Ms. Berg had written the letter on an office computer but claimed the agency was “bound by law to investigate and pursue any act which potentially represents sedition. ..
(http://www.alibi.com/index.php?story=14092)
******************
Are we feeling safer yet?
March 7th, 2006 at 3:42 am
I am somewhat torn betwixt two views of this growing problem. On the one hand, I know that major corporate media has always been used as the ass wipe (sorry for the terminology) for the powers that be. So none of the history or expose of corrupt collusion between the two is a surprise. The left’s critique of corporate media goes to the heart of the problem. The rights critique is merely untenable (the media is liberal), and it just has it’s ill-informed supporters.
On the other hand, I believe the government is cuing up for a further crack down on individual civil rights. First, there will be a scarifical lamb slain in the media, perhaps a few minor players. Than the government will proceed to persecute and prosecute any whistleblower in it’s own agencies - people privy to inside information who have become desperate because of the direction and the acts (within their realm) of the powers that be. It will last pick up speed and begin to go after citizens who publicly defy it’s direction, those who become any focal point of gathering resistance which poses a real threat.
Of course, in the end those ill informed masses on the right will cheer the administrations “crack downs” on those left wing liberals - they will be called traitors, because of course “we are at war” with terrorism. I hope I am wrong.
March 7th, 2006 at 4:29 am
“Are we feeling safer yet? ”
1798, 1917 it happens every time, but I won’t ally myself with Al Trochman and the militia of Montana for anyone. Examples of control gone awry are fun for those in the peanut gallery, the effect and the average citizen is nil. They’re not even aware of it.
I can safely say no government agent has infringed my freedoms. In fact they hired me. I pass muster as a liberal Democrat apparently.
March 7th, 2006 at 5:36 am
God bless America….lol.
March 7th, 2006 at 6:32 am
I know this is somewhat of a radical concept, but when people fail to follow federal whistleblower laws and instead go to the press with classified information, then they may be committing a crime.
Those news outlets that knowingly run stories based upon these illegal leaks may be guilty of breaking the law themselves.
If journalists are within their legal boundaries, they should have nothing to fear. If they have committed crimes, owever, they should bear the same responsibility as any other citizen who commits a crime.
Hiding behind the title of “journalist” does not entitle you to special rights superceding those of the rest of us in America.
March 7th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Stop that damned common sense Confederate. It’s very irritating to idealists.
If reporters feel strongly enough about the public’s need to know classified information they have obtained, then let them civilly disobey the law by publishing it, then do the time.
What they seem to want to do is make the decision to declassify gov’t information all by themselves while avoiding the jail time(responsibility) for it.
Classic liberal attitude of all ‘free’dom all the time, no responsibility no time.
March 7th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
I defend any journalist who operates in legal fashion and does not Dowdify facts.
As for the NY Times….since when has Stalin’s Useful Idiots ever reported anything that does not fit their ideal news to print? For example, it is difficult to support a newspaper which insisted between 1998-2000 Saddam’s removal was the most important issue facing the west then changed their minds when the Other political party was in power. Also, it is difficult to support a newspaper which published Joe Wilson’s
set-up Bush Lied. If I were a journalist the first question I would have ask regarding Wilson’s claims would have been ‘why is a retired state diplomat doing to CIA’s work? Does not the world-controlling CIA have an operative in Niger (or in all of African for that matter) to send on such an important mission?’ I could go on but I live in NYC and only have a minute.
We are living in a Dan ‘fake but accurate’ Rather
world in which journalists believe that news reporting is about ‘changing the world’ not necesssary the news.
March 7th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
If The Government controls Corporations and Corporations control the news why there so many reports of Government failure doom and gloom?
Further to the point, according to Government-controlled News the Government is Hilter.
I have to ask, why would The Government humilate itself by allowing the NY Times to publish Abu pics ad nauseum several months after The Government gave a press release declaring The Government was investigating reports of soldiers abusing prisoners?
Everybody now let’s all sing:
‘And it’s one, two , three what are we fighting for don’t ask me I don’t give a damn next stop is Vietnam’
March 7th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
According to rules of war — spies can be shot when caught.
Spies look for our secrets (like nuke tech), and tell our enemies (like the Rosenbergs told USSR — since Amerika was so terrrrrible, and uncle Joe so cudly).
When the NYT acts like a spy, and tells our secrets to Islamofascist enemies, I kinda support “shooting” the spy — or at least as much jail time as Libby is looking at.
Yes, it’s the Democratic Party problem for not advocating a better system of whistleblower protection, and review of secret gov’t programs.
March 7th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
There is a logic breakdown here. The truth that there is a right for Americans to challenge and investigate the actions of its government is not the same as a newspaper saying “We can do whatever the hell we want.”
The larger news sources regard themselves as the institution responsible for challenging government and being the arbiter of what should be public and what should be secret. They do not have that authority. They defend the idea, not on its merits, but by summoning up the bogeymen of the opposite menace: “Well, well, what if NOBODY ever looked into these things, huh? Huh?”
All citizens — not just TV news anchors — have the right to investigate the actions of government. By division of labor and respect for talent, we attend to some investigators and reporters who specialize in this kind of work. It is an honorable profession, but it is only imbued with an aura of sanctity by those on the left who start by assuming that the “other party” is out to screw us and leap to every possible negative conclusion.
As to the situation with the VA nurse, let’s wait and see. People where I work use government time and resources to criticise the Bush Administration all the time, but no one’s been bothering them.
March 7th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Need I say any more. I don’t think so.
March 7th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Eleanor, you’re just repeating the assertion, that none of them were allowed to talk to anyone.
Mark - And “according to Jay Rockefeller” - okay, but yes, I may need a more authoritative source, because he has reason to make it seem as tightly-controlled as possible. Two reasons, in fact: to hurt Bush, and to make himself seem helpless and blameless.
And even if he is basically telling the truth - what the hell is it based on? What exactly does the guideline say, where? Does it relate more broadly to the guidelines imposed on any member of an intelligence committee, any formal recipient of any secret info?
My continuing starting point is that if they really, really thought there was some kidn of fundamental threat to teh democracy here - which is how it’s being played - it was incumbent opon them as opposing senators to find a way to let it be known, first within the structures of government, since this was secret. And if they really really thought that, there has to be a way for them to have done it. It might have been hard. granted.
To me, that fact of them throwing up their hands and not doing too much about it is circumstantial evidence that if they were troubled, it was in a pretty minor way. Sorry, that’s just what i think.
I also have never found a source fo rwhat exactly they were told was going on, and what exactly was the rationale fo rnot bringing in a wider group. They must have been told something.
I guess maybe that’s all secret, but man, it stills eeems like we’d have some idea. Maybe that’s why hearings are improtant. But maybe I’m just suspecting the hearings may cut some strange ways.
March 7th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
“Hiding behind the title of “journalist†does not entitle you to special rights superceding those of the rest of us in America.”
I’m afraid it does and comes with the job. The gig is to find and report the truth as best as it can be determined.
“because he has reason to make it seem as tightly-controlled as possible.”
Either it’s tightly controlled or it isn’t. Others said the same thing including Jane Harmon. Democrats were told, but the program was classified. You may dispute this but it’s your burden to prove it wasn’t classified not mine.
March 7th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Harmon laid it all out in an interview. I forget where now. May even have been Meet the Press.
March 7th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
I’m not dusputing it was classified. I’m wondering what specifically that means in a case where some of the informed people have a major disagreement on the prcedure.
I’m offering as a hypothesis that this is a potentially thorny question for the Democrats, and as a second hypothesis that people on their political wavelength may be willing to accept “there was nothing we could do” without wondering a bit about it.
Thsi my be wrong, but I haven’t been convinced yet. I am exploring, trying to figure it out.
March 7th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Thsi may be the transcript you’re talking about.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11272634/
Very interesting, it has two Republicans, two Democrats, and Roberts the Republican early on lays out some things that could have been done to convey concerns that weren’t. I haven’t finished though.
March 7th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
By teh way, everyone int eh session says they’re pissed off by teh ealk, regardless of their attitudes on thsi
March 7th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Sorry, hit “submit” by mistake.
They all say they’re pissed off by the leaks, which gets back to the original question of why it should be considered the peak of darkness to investigate them.
March 7th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
They all say the program is essential; they all allow that it may have been perfectly legal the way it was done; and the Democrats as far as i can see do not have a good answer for why they didn’t bring it up insistently even within the Gang of 8 if they had big problems.
From my reading, Roberts is pretty consistent and convincing in the discussion.
Harman at one point says, ‘we had no ability to investigate the details of FISA…” as a way of excusing her failure to invesitage the potential FISA-related issues. Bullshit! Okay, so she couldn’t talk to a lawyer about this specific program’s specifics; but of course she could have availed herself of expertise and analyzed on her own if there were FISA issues worth considering. She’s nu dummy. It would have been easy.
Roberts lays out things that could have been done within the small committee.
Roberts also claims - and is not refuted - that within the Gang of 8, the possibility of revising FISA was considered and rejected, for a few reasons.
Tentative conclusions:
1. They all thought and still think it was probably a good program;
2. the worst problems they may have had with it precedure-wise were relatively minor, and not at all to the level of major scandal it’s now being called, especially since they did have the ability to squawk louder on procedure if they’d felt the need;
3. I also don’t see a good response from them on the elementary point Roberts brings up that one reason they - teh whole Gang of 8 - decided not to do a wider briefing, either for its own reasons or in the context of possibly amending FISA, is because “36 members would leak like a sieve.”
Of course I suppose that consideration is the reason this 8-person system is in place, and yes, Harman brings up the point that this more-secret-and-limited briefing process should only be for “covert actions,” and this doesn’t qualify, but as a common-sense judgment I’m not real energized by the differentiation.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
What I see these specific Democrats doing is trying not to undercut the very valuable notion that this is a major scandal related to the admisnitration’s ongoing destruction of rights, when they basically don’t believe that.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
As long as I’m rushing the net here, one last postscript: if that characterization of what these Demoracts are doing is accurate, as well as others, then that’s (to put it mildly) counterproductive political behavior.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
This all raises the larger issue of government secrecy, which lurks behind the bleating calls of Liberty Dad, Jim Russell, and Confederate to lock ‘em all up, those damned liberals, for breaking the law.
But I again don’t understand conservatives who take the word of governemnt for everything. You act as if merely because the government says something should be secret then it ought to be. This is a rather broad mandate you give away.
One of the few things that can keep government honest and it’s people free is openness. It’s in the dark where all the corruption and cronyism and torture and spying and rendition and on and on and on happen.
We keep vastly too many things secret in this country, and the number of things kept secret has spread all over this administration.
I’m not sure why you guys can’t see this practice as at worst, a tool of tyrrany, and at best cover for plain old corruption.
And let me get this straight. You’re suggesting that anyone who spoke out about an illegal activity should be the subject of punishment and not those who broke the law in the first place? Can you possibly be serious?
Let’s not even get started on the nauseating spectacle of the administration leaking when it suits them politically, but going after leakers when they don’t like it. I might very well make the claim that those who leaked about the NSA are the real patriots and those who think the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress under it’s authority, are only so many cobwebs to be brushed off are the real culprits here. I might not be alone on that one either.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
How about the part where Roberts takes out his “Memory” pills? I’m afraid he’s the one who needs them. Or maybe that was another program? I remember the What the… look on Harmon’s face when he did it though. If you want to just blame Democrats for complicitygo ahead the facts havn’t stopped anyone before.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Dan -
I think you’re not paying sufficient attention to the nuances of the debate. The Democrats in the Gang of 8, for example, seem to be not in agreemrnt wiht you that this was an obvious and egregious violation of the law.
I’d read the Russert transcript; it’s the best thing I’ve yet seen laying out some background on what was going on inside this Gang of 8.
The underlying attitude on investigating the leak seems to be: if it promoted an a genda I agree with, it’s evil to even investigate a leak. That seems weird.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
It’s too long to get into a back and forth on the transcript, espceialyl in teh context of what i’m suppsoed to be working on
But I’d be genuinely curious as to if you see a convincing response here to Roberts’ basic point that there was plenty of unused opportunity within the Gang of 8 to raise serious questions; and that in fact those kinds of questions were requested by the briefers.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Harmon, “However, the briefings were not about the legal underpinnings of the program, nor were they about the appropriateness of the Gang of Eight process. I talked to absolutely no one, because I would have violated three different federal criminal statutes had I talked to anybody.”
I’m afraid in your haste to side with the much ado about nothing crowd you’re dismissing the foundation of confidentiality.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
Here’s apoint Dan -
If you accept that the program was useful - and while you may not, the two Democrats in this interview do, and stoutly - then the concern about the wisdom of telling 36 people rather 8 is not trivial.
It may not be enough to choose that path; but it’s not clearly dictatorial to choose it. It’s a dilemma. And Roberts seems to be saying here that the Gang of 8 talked about the dilemma - and other reasons for either seekign or not seeking a change in the law - and decided not to.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
The fact that she couldn’t talk to anybody about the specifics of the program doesn’t mean she couldn’t have investigated the FISA and other legal issues, even with staff help as long she didn;t describe the program, on the way to deciding to make more noise within the gang of 8 as a starting point.
To me, she’s using that statement as a cover. It doesn’t seem to affect things she could have done and didn’t do.
I’m not saying she should have done those things. I’m saying she should have IF she was as concerned about it as she kinda-sorta now claims to be - although even that is vague, here, whether she really considers it a big deal.
And I don’t think she really does. Like I said - the Democrats here are trying to straddle.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Re: Blanket statements about the horrors of secrecy and need for openness: There will always be secrets. I don’t think anyone disputes that.
And invoking a principle we all agree with doesn’t add much to whether this specific case is an example one way or another.
March 7th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
What’s also possibly going on with the Democrats here, taking the other view on the basic procedure for second, is that they realize they may be vulnerable to accusations of facilitating this invasion of our rights. They may have gone along with the conversations as Roberts described them, somehow not realzing how it might seem if word came out. So they need to plead helplessness for that reason.
At one point, Daschle says “there were many omissions” compared to what news coverage has said; but I don’t think he gets into what those omissions were.
When Harman says the briefings were not about the legal underpinings, she’s saying that in part because she came into the process after it started. But again: I see no legal blockade to her wondering about the legal underpinnings and bringing them up.
For examplle, her point that this was not a “covert operation” and should not have fallen into this gang of 8 process: what’s keeping her from noticing that before?
Roberts says that the legal underpinnings were discussed “a couple of years ago.” I don’t think Harman says no they weren’t. Maybe he’s talking about a time before she was involved.
March 7th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Well Paul I think your questions bolster my main point which is there is far too much secrecy. Icertainly believe it is called for in places, but not nealry as many as we currently have. As I have said before, power tneds to accrete, and I’ll add that secret power is the worst kind of all. That’s why, for example, all budgets must be public, even though many are off the books.
The fact that the 8 Dems agreed that this was not a violation of the law or should be allowed to continue holds no water for me. It just makes them as culpable as the President. Ol Geoge certainly has no monopoly on the breach of trust and law here.
Does it matter if the creeping powers of despotism are advanced by one man or nine? I know that’s a bit of hyprebole, but I firmly believe that democracy and law are fragile things and are only maintained with strong commitment to principle. That hardly means that democracies should commit suicide as the old saw goes, but it does mean that emergency powers can only apply in the direst of emerencies. Everything else is a power grab, and undermines the law. If in squealing the whistleblower breaks a law I would suggest that they are doing so in pursuit of a broader conception of the legal and the right.
March 7th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
it was 4 dems. (just a detail.) or 6, say, if there was a turnover over time.
March 7th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
The claim Bush made about getting carte blanche in the war resolution to do this was proven false by Daschle too. It seems nothign will convince you and if you find Roberts credible it’s not going to happen. There’s such a thing as questioning a legitimate certainty.
March 7th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
I’ll listen to an argument that we’re letting ourselves go too far step by step. (So would most conservatives I read and talk to.)
What doesn’t seem reasonable is describing this action - both the technique itself and the way it was implemented, eg the limited number of people told - as primarily understandable as the W crew fiendishly pushing us down that road. As I read, I can easily see what the use might be. I can see the logic for how they did it. I see plausible descriptions of this stuff having been talked about.
I see the dangers, too. But I can also see the dangers of blowing a potentially valuable technique all over the press sbefore the government actually discussed it and worked it out, in secret, which sadly is a power I grant them. And I don;t buy that W prevented that from happening in any ironclad way.
People bring this up as part of a pattern of secrecy. I still have to judge this case on its merits. Plus I’d have to assume that some of the other instances would leave me only luke-warm with rage, most of the time. Partly because I’d recall similar stories about almost every president who ever served, at least effectively. (semi-joke)
March 7th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
Yeah, the war resolution argument seems thin to me. But the argument goes beyond that in several directions.
Roberts says things that seem plausible and then he’s not usually challenged by the Democrats. In fact the shaky-statement-followed-by-a-challenge flow is usually the other direction.
I’m not sure you’ve presented that much for me to be convinced by yet.
March 7th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Remember, thr starting point: could these 4-6 Democrats have done something? This transcript moves me distinctly towards “yes.”
March 7th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
“I can see the logic for how they did it. I see plausible descriptions of this stuff having been talked about.”
And the decisions made at these points in the logic are precisely the things that seperate worthy leaders from unworthy ones.
The ability to grasp the import of a decision, it’s probable or possilbe effect, it’s fidelity to the law, and it’s adherence to democratic principle, and the ability, then, to make the right choice, are at least a few of the basic things we ought to expect from our president (and his supine Democratic courtiers). Give me Feingold on this matter any day.
March 8th, 2006 at 12:05 am
It’s possible to disagree with what they did. I don’t think it’s reasonable to describe how they decided this - once you get into the nuances, as I understand them - as obviously, egregiously dark.
Especially - this is important- since at no point was debate remotely closed off for all time.
Describing things as very, very dark must be done carefully. Because if it’s wrong, the accusation becoems the new offense.
March 8th, 2006 at 12:14 am
I suspect Feingold, given power and responsibility, would arrive at about the same place. The style points might be better.
March 8th, 2006 at 12:15 am
I’VE GOT A SECRET
Everything in our government seems to be such a big secret—we have secret courts, secret judges, secret detention centers, and even secrets that are too secret to tell the secret FISA Judges. Twice in the past four years, a top Justice Department lawyer warned the presiding judge of a secret surveillance court that information overheard in President Bush’s eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to obtain wiretap warrants in the court.
As it turns out only two of the twelve FISA Judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court were briefed by the administration on Bush’s surveillance program. The president’s secret order, issued sometime after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, allows the National Security Agency to monitor telephone calls and e-mails between people in the United States and contacts overseas.
This surprised and dismayed U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly — who, like her predecessor, Royce C. Lamberth, had expressed serious doubts about whether the warrantless monitoring of phone calls and e-mails ordered by Bush was legal. Both judges had insisted that no information obtained this way be used to gain warrants from their court, supposedly they were assured by the administration that this does not happen.
It was discovered in 2004 that the government failed to share information about its spying program and had rendered useless a “federal screening system†that the judges had insisted upon to shield the court from tainted information. Kollar-Kotelly, who complained, was prompting a temporary suspension of the NSA spying program.
In another problem in 2005 a warrant application prompted Kollar-Kotelly to issue a stern order to government lawyers to create a “better firewall†or face more difficulty obtaining warrants. The FISA court secretly grants warrants for wiretaps, telephone record traces and physical searches to the Justice Department, whose lawyers must show they have probable cause to believe that a person in the United States is the agent of a foreign power or government. Between 1979 and 2004, it approved 18,748 warrants and rejected only five. SO HOW DIFFICULT WOULD IT BE FOR BUSH TO GET A LEGITMATE WARRANT?
And now Both presiding judges agreed to KEEP A REALLY BIG SECRET, not to disclose the real secret program to the 10 other FISA judges, who routinely handled some of the government’s most highly classified secrets.
.
OUR GOVERNMENT’S DIRTY LITTLE SECRET: GUANTANAMO BAY
IS THIS ANOTHER JAPANESE DETERMENT CAMP?
Lawyers for two detainees being held at the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay say that over half of the terror suspects being held there are not alleged to have committed terrorist acts against the U.S. or its allies or even to be members of terrorist organizations. Currently only 10 Guantanamo detainees have been formally charged with crimes and will face military tribunals.
In the first year and a half that the prison existed, 18 captives engaged in 28 suicide attempts. In August of 2003 there was a mass suicide attempt—nearly two dozen prisoners tried to hang themselves in their cells with clothing or other items during an eight-day period. There were an additional 350 incidents where captives tried to harm themselves. The following is a summary of an FBI Interview describing the psychological state of detainees:
“The mental condition of the detainees is to the point where the detainees are all participating in a hunger strike. The detainees are upset with the way they are being held as prisoners without being charged with a crime or released. The detainees think America is intentionally keeping people in custody for no other reason than as an attack on Muslims. The detainees are going to strike by not eating food and not drinking water more than absolutely necessary. If one person starts a strike then all of the men will follow. Some over a six day period have not taken more than three ounces of water per day nor have eaten. They want to be charged with a crime or released.â€
Hunger striking Guantanamo Bay detainees are being strapped to chairs for hours to force-feed them through tubes. Amnesty International renewed its call for international medical experts to be allowed to visit the strikers. Detainees being force-fed are also restrained to stop them vomiting after feeding and placed in solitary confinement for extended periods to stop them from drawing encouragement from each other.
They said that according to the documents only 8% were classed as al-Qaeda fighters and 60 prisoners “are detained merely because they are ‘associated with’ a group or groups the U.S. government asserts are terrorist organizations”.
There was a report which suggests that some of the detainees were caught by people seeking US bounties.
The camp was set up in 2002 to hold foreign terror suspects, many of them captured in Afghanistan. It currently houses around 500. The Administration has used the term “enemy combatant” as a clear attempt to circumvent protections provided to prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention and due to all detainees under international law. These foreign nationals can be charged with crimes and tried before a military commission that is not based on US federal law or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. These commissions, created by executive order, have been criticized by human rights organizations and legal experts around the world as lacking in due process and not meeting minimum international fair trial standards.
THE PATRIOT ACT A SECRET WAY TO WATCH YOU !
A proposed change in the amended Patriot Act would clarify that ONLY libraries that are “electronic service providers†could be required to provide information to government agents as part of a terrorist investigation. So what does that really mean? A form of secret subpoena known as a National Security Letter could no longer be used to obtain records from libraries that function “in their traditional capacity, including providing basic Internet access,” BUT libraries that are “Internet service providers” would remain subject to the letters. Virtually ALL libraries supply Internet access and are part of a consortium, so ALL libraries would still remain subject to section 215 of the Patriot Act. SO DOESN’T THIS SOUND LIKE A CONVULUTED STATEMENT, WHICH BASICALLY SAYS THAT WE’RE STILL SPYING ON YOU?
The Senate proposal would no longer require National Security Letter recipients to tell the FBI the identity of their lawyers—big deal how long would it take the FBI to find out a recipients attorney—aren’t they already listening to their phone conversations and reading their e-mail?
The compromise bill also addresses “Section 215 subpoenas,” which are granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. Recipients of such subpoenas originally were forbidden to tell anyone about the action. The proposed Senate measure allows the “gag order” to be challenged after one year–so now you have to wait one year to challenge the gag order.
The Patriot Act still does not require agents to “show a connection to a suspected terrorist or spy” before obtaining a Section 215 subpoena. A FISA judge would have to agree that there are “reasonable grounds†to believe the items being sought are relevant to an investigation into terrorism. THE FISA COURT HAS ALREADY ISSUED 18,748 warrants and rejected only five.
The White House agreed to only a few minor changes that only benefit them and does not address any of the major issues regarding the lawlessness of warrantless domestic spying.
Total Information Awareness
The TIA uses data mining and other techniques to search all types of databases to determine an individual’s financial transactions, telephone calls, credit and debit card purchases, travel, TV viewing, health history, driving record, etc. The data may constitute a virtual central file that can be used to delve into the life of anyone. These data can be combined with biometric information, video surveillance data, and Radio Frequency Identification Chips to compile a history of a person’s life and movements.
Radio Frequency Identification Chip
The Radio Frequency Identification Chip (RFID) is one of the new technologies. Chips can be imbedded in a variety of products to identify and track physical objects, such as currency, bearer bonds, appliances, food cans, automobiles, etc. RFIDs also can be imbedded in drivers’ licenses and medical information smart cards and bracelets. RFID chips are smaller than a hair and a grain of sand. These chips listen for a query and respond by transmitting a unique code chips can track any movement of an object. Some libraries are placing them into library books.
ONE OF BUSH’S BEST KEPT SECRETS– WE ARE SURENDERING OUR DEMOCRACY TO SECRET GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS!
The natural state of mankind … and I know that this is a controversial idea… is freedom… And the proof is the lengths to which a man, woman, or child will go to regain it once lost. He will break loose his chains. He will decimate his enemies. He will try and try and try again, against all odds, against all prejudices.”
- “John Quincy Adams
March 8th, 2006 at 12:25 am
THE WOLF THAT CRIED TERROR!
Every breath you take, and every move you make, every bond you break, every step you take, I’ll be watching you, every single day, and every word you say, every game you play, every night you stay, I’ll be watching you.
BREAKING NEWS—NSA has been spying on Americans since WWII. The only difference is that the technology is better. NSA was created for code-making and code-breaking. In 1952, President Truman issued a secret directive “Communications Intelligence Activities,†which established the NSA
There is TERROR everywhere, there are no borders to contain it, there is no time when we can predicts its end; it’s just a continuous amorphous enemy that we must be vigilant against. If this anxiety was professed by any individual, you would probably conclude he was paranoid. Unfortunately, this individual is our President. And how long does he say, we will be in this state of war against terror: “for as long as the nation faces the continuing treat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens.†Well if that’s the case, we better prepare ourselves for one hell-uv-a-ride! BECAUSE THE WAR WILL NEVER EVER END! And because of this so-called war against TERROR, our government can pass with ease oppressive legislation in the guise of YOUR PROTECTION! Do you want someone who is incapable of discerning legitimate intelligence to spy on you ?
Bush has stated that the information gathered on Iraq was false : “It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.”
If ANYONE CAN BE SPIED ON AT ANY TIME; there is a good possibility that errors of mistaken identity will be made!
WHO WILL ULTIMATELY DECIDE WHAT TERROR IS?
Is terror a political activist?
Is terror a natural disaster?
Is terror a pandemic?
Is terror a right wing nut case who needs to peddle his BS propaganda at another website.
How will all these laws designed to protect Americans ultimately be used against Americans? We will soon find out!
March 8th, 2006 at 12:33 am
Wow!
And of course if it’s misused, that’s bad and sets the whole debate off in another direction.
Who were the two FISA judges they told, and why those two? (And is there a link?)
Actually: what procedure were they following in telling two FISA judges that they were going to be doing this process avoiding the FISA process? Odd as it may sound, I’m not sure what the requirements would be in this situation.
Were the Democrats in the Gang of 8 acquiescent at all because they thought the FISA judges had been notified and okayed it? If W implied or told the 8 that FISA was okay with this, and not included the fact (if it is) that only 2 were told, that would be bad.
March 8th, 2006 at 1:41 am
Adams from Amistad. Nothing like a flare for the dramatic. It has been misused in ways that don’t exactly build confidence. Given the record: Quakers in Florida? And virtually no case against anyone even with this silent authority it ain’t workin very well. It’s strikes me as Keystone Cops sort of scenario. No matter how hard they try they’re still incompetent.
March 8th, 2006 at 8:56 am
As a jesture of solidarity, I am going to the beach with a few friends of mine. We are probably going to get really drunk (with one designated driver).
The point of the solidarity is to be resolute in looking for terrorists - they may come by sea….my uncle told me how they used to look for the Russians at the beach….we have about as much of a chance finding them, as the government has tapping your phone or rummaging through your bank records, or whatever….to find them. This is all simply incredible - beyond gullibility (hey, that sounds like a good toast).
March 8th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Marc — Isn’t this a case of massive Dem and Media hypocrisy?
In the Plame Case the NYT argued for months that a special prosecutor must be called to investigate this “serious” breach of national security, so one was. They didn’t like what it got them. Oh well.
If you leak serious secrets that get people killed, you can and should go to jail. Simple as that. Stories detailing who and where we have people incarcerated abroad (who I might remind you want to kill Americans) jeapordize our cooperation with allies where we have interrogation centers. The same goes for disclosure of measures used to eavesdrop on communication to and from bin Laden’s centers and the United States.
The media and Dems have a childish and naive on the bordering on the foolish idea of the world. As if the entire globe was filled with Hyatts and Hiltons and “colorful” people who don’t mean us any harm. Outside the US there is no law. No Supreme Court to appeal to (ask Daniel Pearl or the 9/11 families who they can appeal the deaths handed out to their loved ones by Al Qaeda). Nothing but what sticks at the point of a gun.
OF COURSE journalists will go to jail (if they don’t give up the leakers who gave out national security secrets). They should. Journalism is no more a sacred priesthood (than the priesthood). No matter how much Journalists would like you to believe they are morally superior beings without partisan interests.
Virgil — If we had had data mining ala Able Danger (or the program not shut down by Clinton and leads followed up) 9/11 would never have happened. Bush would have been a one term President, and the Taliban and Saddam would still be happily killing people. Isn’t that what you want?
Data mining works. It’s how Amazon makes money. You may not be interested in Islamic terrorism, but Islamic Terrorism is interested in YOU. Apologies to Trotsky. Or did the jihad in UNC, the protests in NYC (”Islam will DOMINATE”) escape you.
Your choice is fight, or submit and convert to Islam. That’s it.
March 8th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
“The media and Dems have a childish and naive on the bordering on the foolish idea of the world. As if the entire globe was filled with Hyatts and Hiltons and “colorful†people who don’t mean us any harm. Outside the US there is no law. No Supreme Court to appeal to (ask Daniel Pearl or the 9/11 families who they can appeal the deaths handed out to their loved ones by Al Qaeda). Nothing but what sticks at the point of a gun.
OF COURSE journalists will go to jail (if they don’t give up the leakers who gave out national security secrets). They should. Journalism is no more a sacred priesthood (than the priesthood). No matter how much Journalists would like you to believe they are morally superior beings without partisan interests.”
Jim,
Do you really believe this crap or are you just doing an Archie Bunker imitation?
March 8th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
“Your choice is fight, or submit and convert to Islam. That’s it. ”
Please. There’s about as much chance of that as a Richard Simmons junior.
March 8th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Is Virgil in the Taliban?
March 8th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
“Jim(Rockford),
Do you really believe this crap or are you just doing an Archie Bunker imitation?”
Darn Eleanore, you do have a very good humorous side. I just saved this one for future strategic use.
I have an overly developed conscience, so I need to accept any share of potential responsibility. It’s this Jim that originally proposed ‘Jail time for Journalist”, and actual believed it……at the time. Now, after reading Dan O’s comments, I’m thinking about recompiling my software.
March 9th, 2006 at 1:00 am
./configure
make
make install
March 9th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
Still in debug mode Dan. Could be a damned virus.
May 23rd, 2006 at 6:19 pm
bureaus credit…
backscatter Cecil,aeronautical schoolmaster:temperamental puzzlings online credit report http://online-credit-report.bulk-credit-report.com/ …
July 19th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
Eddie800 pokerbjj
July 21st, 2006 at 4:37 pm
翻译公å¸
April 25th, 2007 at 6:45 am
asain lesbians…
Master information for asain lesbians….
June 4th, 2007 at 7:00 am
June 26th, 2007 at 10:56 am
virus removal software…
I found it very useful. Thanks for the knowledge. I am personally trying to follow the advice & try to be independent….
June 29th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
medical claim software…
Hi. Very nice blog. I\’ve been reading your other entries all day long..lol….