Skip to main content

View Diary: Liberal libertarians and the Associated Press (52 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So (7+ / 0-)
    Our conduct of covert wars abroad isn't a public policy issue of great importance?  I don't agree.  And journalism doen't cease to be journalism simply because you declare it.
    If someone from the FBI sends names of police informers in the Mafia or the Aryan Nation to the press and they publish them - discussion of public policy issue of great importance?

    And if the names are of police informers in anti-war groups- exactly the same principle?

    Because to me, the first is illegal and dangerous interference with legit police work and the second is exposure of government misbehavior.

    To me, equating the mafia and AQ and the Aryan Nation with e.g. Quaker Grannies for Peace is willful blindness masquerading as principle.

    self-appointed intellectual cop

    by citizen k on Sat May 18, 2013 at 08:45:39 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  What, exactly, did the AP article reveal (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Onomastic, Lady Libertine

      that is even remotely analogous to those hypothetical examples?  They didn't even reveal the existence of an inside man.  John Brennan did that.  And the administration rewarded that behavior by nominating him to head the CIA.

      “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

      by jrooth on Sat May 18, 2013 at 08:51:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  actually they did reveal it (4+ / 0-)

        because there was no other plausible source.

        self-appointed intellectual cop

        by citizen k on Sat May 18, 2013 at 08:56:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nonsense. (4+ / 0-)

          No plot has ever been foiled without an inside man?  Simply not true.

          And nothing revealed in the AP article implied the existence of an inside man.  In fact, all indications are that they didn't know that detail.  That bit came out the next day when John Brennan had a phone conference with reporters and told them that the plot had never been a threat to the American people because we had "inside control."

          “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

          by jrooth on Sat May 18, 2013 at 09:00:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  here (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Onomastic, virginislandsguy

            self-appointed intellectual cop

            by citizen k on Sat May 18, 2013 at 09:11:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What am I supposed to glean from that? (0+ / 0-)

              that's an analysis that conflates all the reporting for the whole month - not just what AP revealed.  Here is the original AP article.  I defy you to find any indication of an inside man based on what is written there.  Again, the information about the inside man came from John Brennan on the day after AP published.

              Furthermore, much of that analysis is nonsense.  How was this agent supposed to continue operating inside AQAP when he was being sent on a suicide mission?  Are we to believe that AQAP wouldn't notice that he didn't go blow up a plane and would just keep feeding him new information to pass on to the Saudis?  Really?

              “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

              by jrooth on Sat May 18, 2013 at 09:20:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  fyi (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                virginislandsguy
                The problem with the leak was multifold. In addition to compromising the Saudi investigation from which the U.S. had received valuable intelligence leading to its obtaining the device and carrying out a drone strike that killed a person on its most wanted list, the message the leak sent to the Saudis and UK was that the U.S. can’t keep a secret.

                self-appointed intellectual cop

                by citizen k on Sat May 18, 2013 at 09:26:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's it? That's the whole beef? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  inclusiveheart

                  The Brits and Saudis might not trust us to keep a secret?  Sorry, but that's not an adequate reason to trash the first and fourth amendments.

                  And why do you keep ignoring the point about John Brennan?  To me that's just a giant bright-red-flashing incongruity.  Why is the guy head of the CIA today if this whole thing was so damaging?  And wouldn't the fact that we put such a loose-lipped schmuck in charge of our second-biggest intelligence agency be a bigger concern to the Brits and Saudis if they're so worried about our ability to keep a secret?

                  “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                  by jrooth on Sat May 18, 2013 at 09:35:14 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  How do we know that the source (0+ / 0-)

                  wasn't a Brit or a Saudi?

                  I saw that talkleft post and that was my first question.

                  That conclusion assumed that the source was American and since the whole reason that this issue has come to be a big story is that the DOJ is still looking for the source, it is ridiculous to draw any conclusions like that one.

    •  How is that remotely comparable? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jrooth, inclusiveheart, Onomastic

      Al Qaida was bound to notice that the bomb didn't go off, don't you think?

      We'll never know how much information the administration had planned to disclose in the press conference the next day, but the idea that the informant would be able to go back to work the next day is laughable.

      What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

      by happymisanthropy on Sat May 18, 2013 at 09:08:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well that's the claim of UK intelligence (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Onomastic

        you may have more detailed information.

        self-appointed intellectual cop

        by citizen k on Sat May 18, 2013 at 09:20:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  #1 Bomber never caught his flight (0+ / 0-)

          #2 Brennan had already disclosed that CIA had an inside man with control of the device.

          Even with only this information, it's not a stretch for Al-Q to figure out what happened.

          What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

          by happymisanthropy on Sat May 18, 2013 at 09:29:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The most damning evidence against (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happymisanthropy, jrooth

        the White House is that they knew what was in the article.  These national security stories don't go to print without notification to the government.  The AP told them what they were going to print and the Administration asked them to hold the story for a week - AP complied.

        If there was anything that the AP had in the story that really posed a significant threat to security, they would have been asked to omit it and they would have complied.  News organizations are much more responsive to government requests on this front than most people realize.  And the Administration doesn't make the claim that the AP put out damaging information - they claim that the AP had damaging information which is different.  The Administration says that they are looking for the AP's source who would have given the AP the information that the Administration did not want revealed - not that the AP revealed information that was dangerous to reveal.  That's a big reason why diaries like this claiming that AP was acting irresponsibly do not hold water.

        The important aspect of the story is not that AP or any other news agency reported the Administration's successful mission to stop a terrorist - the important aspect of this story that wants for examination is why the Administration would cast such a wide net to find the source.

        Maybe ultimately after all of the facts come out people will say, "Good job, Obama.  Good decision."  But maybe not.  We simply don't know enough yet to make that call.

        If I had to guess about why the AP decided to tell the world and all of their sources that the DOJ is watching them, I'd say that it could easily be that this kind of thing is more widespread than we know right now.  But that is a guess to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

        Anyway, I've always said that the thing that made me most nervous about the Bush Administration was the lack of leaks.  It was the most secretive and lockstep bunch of people that I'd ever seen come through town.  And they were doing A LOT of bad shit - torture anyone?  Remember that?  

        People should not be so eagerly dismissive about this story just because you happen to like the guy who currently sits in the Oval Office.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site