"The real meaning of the Cunningham affair.i disagree that they believe that their activities are 'worthy' - their contempt for law and democracy is a testament to that, and their track record speaks for itself.What was Charlie Wilson about? He was about implementing the policy inside the policy, the secret policy that a faction inside the White House and the intelligence services and the right wanted to be run, even as it officially didn't exist, wasn't approved, evaded oversight until long after the fact.
[]
it's about this club's conviction that the law is an impediment to the national security cause, that the way to run things is through these informal networks. One can imagine over time the kind of arrogance, recklessness and contempt for the law, democratic governance and just simple standards of morality that might breed among those who have operated in this milieu. It's hardly a surprise that people who have done business for years with those who share these convictions would use prostitutes, pay bribes and take bribes; in a deeper way, they have been the go-to guys for policies that were incompatable with the law and democracy all along, from arming the mujahedeen to Iran contra to extraordinary renditions, but which they may have believed were worthy."
* damien points to this article in the nyt about whether journos can go to jail for receiving leaks. things look pretty bad for journos based on their reading of the law. i wonder if i can be jailed by the USG if i happened to receive some classified info... does anyone know why judy went to jail? i still don't have a clue.
5 comments:
sorry Lukery, I didn't make my interest in the article clear:
But the Bush administration is putting pressure on the press as never before, and it is operating in a judicial climate that seems increasingly receptive to constraints on journalists.
In the last year alone, a reporter for The New York Times was jailed for refusing to testify about a confidential source; her source, a White House aide, was prosecuted on charges that he lied about his contacts with reporters; a C.I.A. analyst was dismissed for unauthorized contacts with reporters; and a raft of subpoenas to reporters were largely upheld by the courts.
It looks likely Fitzy's work can now be written up as an attack on the press by the Bush govt (see also AIPAC espionage).
yeah - i kinda got your point - but i dont think your argument stands up very well.
judy did go to jail for refusing to testify - i dont think the article tried to claim much more than that - and they only mentioned her once in passing. they didnt even give any reason or spin for why she went to jail, eg they didnt say 'to protect the first amendment'
just cos fitz is on our side doesnt change much - it would be weird if the nyt (or anyone) wrote an article about journos being threatened with jail time without mentioning judy...
Not to argue with you Luke (i'm a big fan). My take on this is that the jailing of Miller and the indictment of Libby didn't derive from any action of the Bush administration in "putting pressure on the press". As I see it, neither of those outcomes would have occurred if the admin was given a choice. It appeared to be pure Fitzy.
No biggie, it just seemed a bit odd to me that NYT would seek to characterise the Miller-Libby outcomes as somehow deriving from pressure from the WH or some general hostility towards the media. It didn't struck me as a particularly convincing causal connection.
...that's 'strike' not 'struck'...apologies
yeah - you are correct - judy was pure fitz - but i think the article was more about the legal issues about whether the law as it stands protects journos from being forced to testify - ergo a quarter of a sentence about judy seems reasonable
disagreements are always welcome :-)
Post a Comment