Gray Lady Wants A Shield, But For What?
Today's New York Times editorial argues for the passage of a federal shield
law that would allow reporters to keep their sources confidential,
proscribing law-enforcement agencies from subpoenaing journalists to reveal
sources unless they can prove imminent danger as a result. They use the
current Plame investigation as proof of the necessity for such protection:

Witnesses spoke of the dozens of subpoenas that have been issued to
journalists in recent times and the half-dozen or more reporters who have
been found to be in contempt of court for doing their jobs - some
journalists, like Judith Miller of The Times, have actually been jailed. As
Mr. Dodd pointed out, the idea that jailing reporters will inhibit
journalism is not a theoretical worry. Norman Pearlstine, editor in chief of
Time Inc., testified yesterday that since his decision to turn over notes in
the Valerie Wilson case to the federal prosecutor, Time reporters had shown
him mail "from valuable sources who insisted that they no longer trusted the
magazine." The Cleveland Plain Dealer has announced it will not publish two
investigative reports because they are based on leaked documents and the
paper fears the possibility of subpoenas. Its editor said, "Jail is too high
a price to pay." We regret that decision, but it should at least ring alarm
bells for Congress.
The amendments added this week to bills before the Senate and the House
would provide for the forced disclosure of confidential sources "to prevent
imminent and actual harm to the national security." It is a narrow exception
that journalists should support, because as William Safire, the retired
Times columnist, testified yesterday, "We are not seeking an absolute
privilege." We second Mr. Safire's caution that an imminent threat means an
actual and urgent threat, not a potential threat.


This argument has two major flaws, perhaps three. First, as we saw after
9/11, putting the burden of proof on the government to prove "an actual and
urgent threat" means creating a threshold that will for all practical
purposes never be met. What constitutes a "threat", let alone an "actual and
urgent" kind? If the Times defines that as potential loss of life, that
would be very difficult to do unless the original report indicated that the
source wanted to kill Joe Doe at 11 pm at the Nite Owl Cafe tomorrow. One
would hope that a journalist would have already called the cops and informed
them of that. Waiting for a subpoena makes attempts at prevention somewhat
pointless.

The second major flaw is the idea that the media exists as a
quasi-governmental association that can blithely hand out free passes from
investigators to both itself and its sources. Journalists do not exist as a
higher class of citizenry as the rest of us. If someone were to tell me of a
conspiracy to ship weapons to reactionary anti-tax zealots in Minnesota,
complete with times, dates, people, and places, and I didn't bother to tell
the FBI or local police about the information, I could be held as a material
witness or even accomplice. If I refused to testify, I could be charged with
obstruction of justice. Why would that change simply because I can get a
by-line at the Times?

Third, and I believe most telling, the entire argument hinges on the use of
anonymous sourcing, which experience tells us that the media treat very
inconsistently, especially in this case. As I wrote in the Daily Standard
yesterday, the Times itself -- especially the editorial board -- has no
problem attacking sources when it their information doesn't fit their
predetermined narrative and demanding their prosecution for leaking:

In July 2003, a rogue CIA operative, hired by his analyst wife at the
agency, was leaking false information about war intelligence to national
newspapers. When that didn't raise enough eyebrows, he went public,
misrepresenting his findings and the nature of his selection for the
assignment. Having a CIA operative suddenly take political potshots at the
administration called into question whether the White House had lied about
intelligence or the ambassador was telling the entire truth himself. Cooper
went to his best sources to find the answer to the question, and he got the
right answer. Sounds just like Watergate, except in this case, the White
House told the truth while low-level elements at the CIA appear to have
twisted intelligence reports into lies to undermine the government--a clear
abuse of their power and position. An anonymous source had once again proven
its value . . . right?
Not exactly.


Their demand for a shield law to protect journalists while spending most of
the past ten days attacking Karl Rove for trying to point out that Wilson
repeatedly lied and spread misinformation about his CIA assignment stretches
hypocrisy to new limits, even for the Paper of Record.

Posted by Captain Ed at 07:17 AM | Comments (21) | TrackBack (0)
Putin Tries New Method To Retain Power -- Acquisition
Who says the new Russia doesn't believe in capitalism? Just when Vladimir
Putin faces mandatory retirement due to term limits on the Russian
presidency, he comes up with a plan right out of the corporate playbook to
change the rules. He and Belarus President Lukashenko have devised a plan to
reunify the Belarussians to the Russian Federation, and Putin will use that
to subvert term limits:

PRESIDENT LUKASHENKO of Belarus arrived in Russia yesterday to promote a
reunification plan for the two countries to offset growing Western influence
in the former Soviet Union.
Some analysts say that the new union would allow Vladimir Putin to stay on
as President after 2008, when, having served two terms, he is obliged to
step down under the present Russian Constitution.

The two countries formed a loose union in 1996, but it has been hampered
by economic disputes and personal animosity between Mr Lukashenko and Mr
Putin.

Both leaders, however, appear to have put aside their differences after
revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan and now seem to be forging
ahead with plans to form a new union.


Lukashenko may not like Vladimir Putin, but he wants some guarantees of
power and control. Taking a look around his borders, he can easily see that
the wave of democratization has crested at the edges of Belarus, with
Ukraine to his south, the Baltic states to his north, and Poland on the
west -- all democracies, and all an undue influence on the last former
Soviet republic in the West to still suffer under strongman rule. Activists
have already met with Condoleezza Rice in April, and Lukashenko can read the
writing on the wall.

Putin now has a built-in excuse to stay on in the presidency, for two
reasons. First, the re-integration of the Belarussians will not go
pleasantly for either Lukashenko or the Belarussians, who probably prefer
their independence. That will require the use of security forces, and
possibly emergency powers, to counter. Second, the new entity could
"require" a new constitution, which Putin could influence to remove the term
limiting on the presidency. The Belarussians won't be the only group ending
up less free under a reunification plan.

Without a doubt, Putin wants a buffer between Russia and the forces of
democratization in order to hold onto power in the Kremlin. Using Belarus as
a shield would serve his purposes and allow him to claim credit for
reversing the decline of Russia since the collapse of the Confederation of
Independent States in the early 1990s. Gobbling up and oppressing a few
million Belarussians in doing so does not bother Putin in the least.

Gray Lady Wants A Shield, But For What?
Today's New York Times editorial argues for the passage of a federal
shield law that would allow reporters to keep their sources confidential,
proscribing law-enforcement agencies from subpoenaing journalists to
reveal sources unless they can prove imminent danger as a result. They use
the current Plame investigation as proof of the necessity for such
protection:

Witnesses spoke of the dozens of subpoenas that have been issued to
journalists in recent times and the half-dozen or more reporters who have
been found to be in contempt of court for doing their jobs - some
journalists, like Judith Miller of The Times, have actually been jailed.
As Mr. Dodd pointed out, the idea that jailing reporters will inhibit
journalism is not a theoretical worry. Norman Pearlstine, editor in chief
of Time Inc., testified yesterday that since his decision to turn over
notes in the Valerie Wilson case to the federal prosecutor, Time reporters
had shown him mail "from valuable sources who insisted that they no longer
trusted the magazine." The Cleveland Plain Dealer has announced it will
not publish two investigative reports because they are based on leaked
documents and the paper fears the possibility of subpoenas. Its editor
said, "Jail is too high a price to pay." We regret that decision, but it
should at least ring alarm bells for Congress.
The amendments added this week to bills before the Senate and the House
would provide for the forced disclosure of confidential sources "to
prevent imminent and actual harm to the national security." It is a narrow
exception that journalists should support, because as William Safire, the
retired Times columnist, testified yesterday, "We are not seeking an
absolute privilege." We second Mr. Safire's caution that an imminent
threat means an actual and urgent threat, not a potential threat.


This argument has two major flaws, perhaps three. First, as we saw after
9/11, putting the burden of proof on the government to prove "an actual
and urgent threat" means creating a threshold that will for all practical
purposes never be met. What constitutes a "threat", let alone an "actual
and urgent" kind? If the Times defines that as potential loss of life,
that would be very difficult to do unless the original report indicated
that the source wanted to kill Joe Doe at 11 pm at the Nite Owl Cafe
tomorrow. One would hope that a journalist would have already called the
cops and informed them of that. Waiting for a subpoena makes attempts at
prevention somewhat pointless.

The second major flaw is the idea that the media exists as a
quasi-governmental association that can blithely hand out free passes from
investigators to both itself and its sources. Journalists do not exist as
a higher class of citizenry as the rest of us. If someone were to tell me
of a conspiracy to ship weapons to reactionary anti-tax zealots in
Minnesota, complete with times, dates, people, and places, and I didn't
bother to tell the FBI or local police about the information, I could be
held as a material witness or even accomplice. If I refused to testify, I
could be charged with obstruction of justice. Why would that change simply
because I can get a by-line at the Times?

Third, and I believe most telling, the entire argument hinges on the use
of anonymous sourcing, which experience tells us that the media treat very
inconsistently, especially in this case. As I wrote in the Daily Standard
yesterday, the Times itself -- especially the editorial board -- has no
problem attacking sources when it their information doesn't fit their
predetermined narrative and demanding their prosecution for leaking:

In July 2003, a rogue CIA operative, hired by his analyst wife at the
agency, was leaking false information about war intelligence to national
newspapers. When that didn't raise enough eyebrows, he went public,
misrepresenting his findings and the nature of his selection for the
assignment. Having a CIA operative suddenly take political potshots at the
administration called into question whether the White House had lied about
intelligence or the ambassador was telling the entire truth himself.
Cooper went to his best sources to find the answer to the question, and he
got the right answer. Sounds just like Watergate, except in this case, the
White House told the truth while low-level elements at the CIA appear to
have twisted intelligence reports into lies to undermine the government--a
clear abuse of their power and position. An anonymous source had once
again proven its value . . . right?
Not exactly.


Their demand for a shield law to protect journalists while spending most
of the past ten days attacking Karl Rove for trying to point out that
Wilson repeatedly lied and spread misinformation about his CIA assignment
stretches hypocrisy to new limits, even for the Paper of Record.

Posted by Captain Ed at 07:17 AM | Comments (21) | TrackBack (0)
Putin Tries New Method To Retain Power -- Acquisition
Who says the new Russia doesn't believe in capitalism? Just when Vladimir
Putin faces mandatory retirement due to term limits on the Russian
presidency, he comes up with a plan right out of the corporate playbook to
change the rules. He and Belarus President Lukashenko have devised a plan
to reunify the Belarussians to the Russian Federation, and Putin will use
that to subvert term limits:

PRESIDENT LUKASHENKO of Belarus arrived in Russia yesterday to promote a
reunification plan for the two countries to offset growing Western
influence in the former Soviet Union.
Some analysts say that the new union would allow Vladimir Putin to stay
on as President after 2008, when, having served two terms, he is obliged
to step down under the present Russian Constitution.

The two countries formed a loose union in 1996, but it has been hampered
by economic disputes and personal animosity between Mr Lukashenko and Mr
Putin.

Both leaders, however, appear to have put aside their differences after
revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan and now seem to be forging
ahead with plans to form a new union.


Lukashenko may not like Vladimir Putin, but he wants some guarantees of
power and control. Taking a look around his borders, he can easily see
that the wave of democratization has crested at the edges of Belarus, with
Ukraine to his south, the Baltic states to his north, and Poland on the
west -- all democracies, and all an undue influence on the last former
Soviet republic in the West to still suffer under strongman rule.
Activists have already met with Condoleezza Rice in April, and Lukashenko
can read the writing on the wall.

Putin now has a built-in excuse to stay on in the presidency, for two
reasons. First, the re-integration of the Belarussians will not go
pleasantly for either Lukashenko or the Belarussians, who probably prefer
their independence. That will require the use of security forces, and
possibly emergency powers, to counter. Second, the new entity could
"require" a new constitution, which Putin could influence to remove the
term limiting on the presidency. The Belarussians won't be the only group
ending up less free under a reunification plan.

Without a doubt, Putin wants a buffer between Russia and the forces of
democratization in order to hold onto power in the Kremlin. Using Belarus
as a shield would serve his purposes and allow him to claim credit for
reversing the decline of Russia since the collapse of the Confederation of
Independent States in the early 1990s. Gobbling up and oppressing a few
million Belarussians in doing so does not bother Putin in the least.


--
"The Democratic tent has shrunk to the size of a dunce cap. There's no
room for Conservatives like me. We used to have Moderates and
Conservatives in the party. Then they ran us out."


- Sen. Zell Miller