November 17, 2007

On Coming Home

What you need to know, first and last, is that so-called PTSD is not an illness. It is a normal condition for people who have been through what you have been through. The instinct to kill and war is native to humanity. It is very deeply rooted in me, as it is in you. We have rules and customs to restrain it, so that sometimes we may have peace. What you are experiencing is not an illness, but the awareness of what human nature is like deep down. It is the awareness of what life is like without the walls that protect civilization.

You might need this, or know someone who might need this. PTS and PTSD affect not only those in the military and civilian first responders, but your friends, neighbors, and family members, for a multitude of reasons.

Read it all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:09 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 16, 2007

Back to Church

U.S. Army photo by Cpl. Ben Washburn

Shortly over a week ago, Michael Yon shot an iconic photo of a group of Muslim and Christian Iraqis placing a cross back atop St. John's Chruch in Baghdad's Doura neighborhood, in Thanks and Praise.

Yesterday, American soldiers and Iraqi citizens attended the first service in St. John's since May 5. The church had been bombed and burned in 2004.

Update: I should have known he'd be there, too.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:07 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Getting it Wrong... Again

You've got to love our intrepid media covering the war in Iraq. Even eye-to-eye with their subjects they can still drastically misunderstand the situation.

Such was the case last Saturday, Nov. 11, when Ghaith Abdul-Ahad wrote about a commander of former Sunni insurgents (now "concerned citizens" Abu Abed in the Guardian.

Lt. Col. Dale Kuehl, the U.S. Battalion Commander that works with Abu Abed and the citizens of Ameriyah felt that the Guardian article was inaccurate enough to warrant a written response, duplicated below.

Ghaith Abdul-Ahad's recent article on Abu Abed of Ameriyah does not paint an accurate picture of him nor of Ameriyah. Mr. Abdul-Ahad spent several days as a guest of Abu Abed in his home, but failed to see the totality of the security framework established within Ameriyah. While the events he describes occurred, I believe he embellished on the facts and selectively ignored the contribution of the Iraqi Army and of my Soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment. His characterizations of Abu Abed as a "Sunni warlord" and the Forsan al-Rafidain as the "only authority inside" Ameriyah are completely off base.

The statement of a senior Sunni sheikh in Beirut, that this was just a way to prevent the army and police from entering the area, is absurd and reflects ignorance on the part of this Sheikh on the objectives of Abu Abed and other leaders within the Ameriyah community.

Abu Abed has demonstrated to me time and again that he is non-sectarian.
Some of his closest advisors and much of his Personal Security Detachment are Shia. He has been instrumental in encouraging approximately seventy Shia families to return to Ameriyah. His men regularly check on these families to ensure their safety.

Abdul-Ahad's assertion that the Forsan are the only authority within Ameriyah is completely false. On the contrary they are part of a security network that also includes the 2nd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division and the 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment.

The Iraqi Army commander and I have established control measures to provide oversight over the Forsan's activities. We developed a memorandum of agreement signed by myself, the Iraqi Army commander and Abu Abed that lays out how they will conduct operations to include provisions for detainees and authorized weapons. We have established a system to conduct investigations for any violations of the law. We investigate complaints, and at times I have disciplined members of the Forsan to include detaining one member for criminal activity. Abu Abed published a code of conduct for his men and on occasion has fired those that would not adhere to the published standards.

Abdul-Ahad also fails to mention the importance of local civil oversight on Abu Abed and his men. From the start, local civil leaders have been an important part of the Concerned Local Citizen movement in Ameriyah. If it was not for the endorsement of two local imams, I probably would have never agreed to work with Abu Abed.

The results of our efforts speak for themselves. We have not had a mortar or rocket attack within Ameriyah since July. Dead bodies used to litter the streets, but we have not had a murder reported since August. The last IED attack was on August 7th. Since that time, my battalion has suffered no casualties within Ameriyah, while 2/1/6 IA has had only one wounded Soldier.

With the increased security situation we have finally been able to provide essential services to the community. For the first time since 1-5 CAV deployed to Iraq last November, the beladiyah is routinely providing trash clean up. We have fixed numerous water pipes, pulled out destroyed car hulks and are working to clean out the sewer system. Likewise the local economy is gaining steam with over one hundred stores opening up the last two months.

Over time I have come to trust Abu Abed as a brother. Our men have fought together and in some cases died while fighting a common enemy that has no regard for the innocent civilians of Ameriyah. Abu Abed invited me into his home and showed me not only hospitality, but friendship and camaraderie. He has demonstrated to me that his goal is for the safety and security of the people of Ameriyah and has resisted attempts by outsiders to take credit and control of what he has been able to accomplish. He is an inspiring leader who demonstrates personal and moral courage on a daily basis. I am proud to call him my friend.

Lt. Col. Dale Kuehl
Commander
1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:19 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 15, 2007

No Leading Questions Here

From the 07/11/07 NBC-WSJ Poll:

Recently the United States Senate passed a resolution that declared that the Iranian government's most elite military unit is a terrorist organization. Which of the following statements comes closer to your point of view about this?

Statement A: Passing this resolution was a GOOD thing, because it sends a strong message to the Iranian government that the U.S. has put it on notice and will see that it pays an economic and diplomatic price for its actions.
Statement B: Passing this resolution was a BAD thing, because it moves the United States closer to a potential conflict with Iran, which the United States is not prepared to carry out militarily.

Notice that? ...which the United States is not prepared to carry out militarily.

This is their opinion, stated as fact, to guide those polled to a prescribed response.

I'd consider such poll tampering unethical.

What do you think?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:43 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Leading question... It wouldn't be allowed in court. It certainly makes choosing an answer difficult.

Yes, I would agree that it is unethical.

And I would agree with that even if it were true. Why is it necessary to add to the question?

Posted by: Suzi at November 15, 2007 10:21 AM (yCz8V)

2 Statement A: This is a fair poll because I am a complete idiot.

Statement B: This is not a fair poll because NBC-WSJ are lying sacks of poop which want their ideas validated by bogus polls.

Posted by: David at November 15, 2007 11:14 AM (cPLO6)

3 At least the question was made public. I wonder how many polls with dishonest questions are published and the questions are never released. Another thing to consider is that even though the questions may be included in the fine print of polls most readers probably do not read them. This probably makes it easy for the MSM to skew their polling.

Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at November 15, 2007 11:41 AM (gkobM)

4 At least incompetent. I mean shamefully incompetent. So incompetent that the director of the poll should probably be put on notice for his or her job, unless this is a second incident or, upon further investigation, it proves to reflect a pattern. Continuing to present these polls, once having been made aware of their flawed construction, might possibly be considered unethical, but could probably also be ascribed more easily to poor training or education, or even to mental incapacity, rather than to ethical failings.

On some days I tend to think that Vincent Bugliosi (the L.A. District Attorney who prosecuted the Manson conspirators) was right when he said that, in analyzing public and private behavior, you have to keep in mind that 90% of people (I think that was his estimate) are incompetent.

Forgive them, CY, for they know not what they do.

Posted by: CK MacLeod at November 15, 2007 11:52 AM (dvksz)

5 I twice received from the Democratic National Committee (Copperheads Uber Alles) a list of survey questions on political matters. The question on Iraq was definitely a loaded one. All the choices had to do with withdrawal: 3 months from now,6 months from now, 1 year from now, etc.

The survey also included a request for donations.

I don't know why they sent it to me, because the last time I voted for a Democratic Party nominee for President was 1976.

Posted by: XDem at November 15, 2007 11:53 AM (La333)

6 TO be clear: I meant that the director should be put on notice if this is a first incident and not reflective of a pattern - otherwise fired.

Unfortunately, they'd probably find someone just as bad.

Luckily for me, competency standards for blog (commenters are still relatively low...)

Posted by: CK MacLeod at November 15, 2007 11:54 AM (dvksz)

7 So XDem, the Carter years were all YOUR fault. ;<

Posted by: David at November 15, 2007 12:12 PM (cPLO6)

8 Tonight on Smartline, sanctions against Iran's military, Arglebargle or Fufferall?

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at November 15, 2007 12:51 PM (oC8nQ)

9 Almost any polling questions that give some sort of explanation (use the word "because") are worthless for (at least) three reasons:

1. Any encapsulated explanation is of necessity simplistic and incomplete, even when unbiased, and

2. If a justification needs to be provided by the poller for the respondent's opinion, then, clearly, the respondent is assumed to be so uninformed as to not have a useful opinion, and

3. If a forced response question is being asked, the alternatives should, in addition to being mutually exclusive, also be composed of a single clause. What's a respondent supposed to say who thinks, "it was a good (bad) idea, but your reason why is full of crap"?

In other words, it is never good polling practice to say: "Let me explain something to you.....Now, what do you think?" (even assuming that the explanation is fair.)

Push-polls, on the other hand, use this technique routinely....

Posted by: notropis at November 15, 2007 03:04 PM (cP1DU)

10 I've stated repeatedly that I do not trust polls.

The question above is good evidence for why.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 15, 2007 08:00 PM (/fQMn)

11 Hillary:

I don't distrust polls... I distrust statistics.

Wait. NO, polls are good...statistics are good. Would you mind sending me a few bucks so I can kick the white, good old boy club out of Washington (not to mention beat that wannabe black guy and good hair guy for the D nom)?

Thanks ever so much, Mr. G. S.

/sarc

Posted by: Mark at November 16, 2007 01:40 AM (P8ylB)

12 No one has any right to be surprised by liberal narrow-mindedness, arrogance or mendacity. Vladimir Bukovsky's description of the Soviet leadership comes to mind: utter scum.

Posted by: Bleepless at November 17, 2007 01:00 PM (Pg+6t)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 14, 2007

Kos Joins Newsweek

From the man himself, a copy of the press release that announces:

New York -- Markos Moulitsas, the founder and publisher of dailykos.com, will become a Newsweek contributor for the 2008 presidential campaign, offering occasional opinion pieces to the pages of the magazine and to Newsweek.com.

"We have always sought to represent a diversity of views in Newsweek, and we think Markos will be a great part of that tradition," said Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham. "He will give our readers in print and online a unique perspective. As always, our job is to create the most energetic and illuminating magazine possible, and Markos will help us do that as the campaign unfolds."

I'd like to offer Markos my sincere congratulations on landing this gig, which will presumably bring at least a little more attention to the blogosphere as a whole and political bloggers in particular.

I just hope he can stand the reduction in traffic.

Update: In counterpoint, Gateway Pundit points out that the "diversity of views" Kos brings to the show.

As more pointed evidence keeps coming in that the War in Iraq is indeed going favorably, it will be interesting to see if this "screw them" mentality will be more of an asset, or a hindrance.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:02 AM | Comments (38) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 13, 2007

On Will

The media had some rather interesting takes on Fred Thompson's speech at The Citadel this morning in Charleston, SC, or at least takes different than my own.

Jim Davenport of AP keyed in on the size of the military that a President Thompson would champion. Jeremy Pelofsky of Reuters parroted the same sentiments.

I saw the first half of the speech, and then Roger L. Simon and I were fortunate enough to have Senator Thompson alone for an interview that will run on Pajamas Media Thursday.

I was impressed with the military numbers that Thompson favors, but found his call to engage the will of the American people in winning the "long war" to be a far more compelling story.

Twice in Thompson's speech, he referred to the synergy needed between civilian will and military might needed to win wars.

I spent some time recently with a book called A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900, by the historian Andrew Roberts. He describes the strengths that have seen America and England through danger and adversity. But there's one quality in particular that no nation can do without in such a time. As Roberts observes, "The will of a people is at least as important as their military might in overcoming an enemy."

And later:

This radical threat we face today is committed to a hundred year war, and has been waging one against us for decades ... in Beirut, Somalia, embassies in Africa, Saudi Arabia, on the USS Cole. Each time Americans were killed. Yet each time our response sent the wrong signals. This is an enemy that understands only the language of power. Today, the focus of this war is Afghanistan and Iraq, but it is clear that this struggle and our enemies extend far beyond those borders. To defend ourselves, we in the democratic world must assert our intentions in the clearest possible terms.

Diplomacy, economic influence, and other means of persuasion are always to be preferred in our dealings with dangerous regimes and rival states. But the words of our leaders command much closer attention from adversaries when it is understood that we are prepared to use force when force is necessary. And for that deterrent to exist, the will of our people and the strength of our military must be unquestionable.

We had a chance to establish that synergy as lower Manhattan, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field still smoldered. Our leadership failed to unite us then, and has since.

Senator Thompson seems to have some ideas about what it takes to unite our country to win "the long war."

It's too bad that such ideas are so easily overlooked by the fourth estate.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:30 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 12, 2007

Name that Party: "Little Rascals" Edition

Read the lede and guess the candidate's political party. Just don't count on finding it in the first six paragraphs:

A state representative in a runoff election infuriated civil rights leaders after she ended a conversation with the mother of the NAACP's local president by saying, "Talk to you later, Buckwheat."

State Rep. Carla Blanchard Dartez, of Morgan City, acknowledged she made the remark during a Thursday night telephone conversation with Hazel Boykin to thank her for driving voters to the polls.

Buckwheat, a black child character in the "Little Rascals" comedies of the 1930s and '40s, is viewed as a racial stereotype demeaning to black people.

Yes, that's only three paragraphs, but when the entire article is just nine paragraphs long, you can only cite so much before violating the spirit of fair use.

On the bright side, the candidate's husband does support minorities, as has been shown by his indictment for hiring illegal aliens.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:53 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Calvan Didn't Fall Far From The Tree

I've got to head out for a blogging-related trip to South Carolina in a few hours, so I'm going to point you to this delightful article by Armando Acuna, public editor of the Sacramento Bee.

I didn't cover the Bobby Caina Calvan fiasco when it occurred, but the displayed response shows quite a bit of arrogance by Acuna and Mark Seibel, the managing editor in charge of foreign coverage for McClatchy's Washington Bureau.

It seems they've learned nothing.

Update: More from Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive:

Your "reporting" on the war in Iraq is about as real as your "support" for the troops.

Ouch.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:04 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 11, 2007

Veterans Day Repost: Thirteen Folds

Originally posted on Nov 11, 2005

Our church was honored this past weekend when three American soldiers presented our congregation with a flag in recognition of the small acts we have performed for our military at home and aboard. As they presented the flag, the sergeant leading the detail explained the significance of each fold.

Via US History.org:

1. The first fold of our flag is a symbol of life.
2. The second fold is a symbol of our belief in the eternal life.
3. The third fold is made in honor and remembrance of the veteran departing our ranks who gave a portion of life for the defense of our country to attain a peace throughout the world.
   
4. The fourth fold represents our weaker nature, for as American citizens trusting in God, it is to Him we turn in times of peace as well as in times of war for His divine guidance.
5. The fifth fold is a tribute to our country, for in the words of Stephen Decatur, "Our country, in dealing with other countries,
   may she always be right; but it is still our country, right or wrong."
6. The sixth fold is for where our hearts lie. It is with our heart that we pledge llegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it tands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
7. The seventh fold is a tribute to our Armed Forces, for it is through the Armed Forces that we protect our country and our flag against all her enemies, whether they be found within or without the boundaries of our republic.
8. The eighth fold is a tribute to the one who entered in to the valley of the shadow of death, that we might see the light of day, and to honor mother, for whom it flies on Mother's Day.
9. The ninth fold is a tribute to womanhood; for it has been through their faith, love, loyalty and devotion that the character of the men and women who have made this country great have been molded.
10. The tenth fold is a tribute to father, for he, too, has given his sons and daughters for the defense of our country since they were first born.
11. The eleventh fold, in the eyes of a Hebrew citizen, represents the lower portion of the seal of King David and King Solomon, and glorifies, in their eyes, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
12. The twelfth fold, in the eyes of a Christian citizen,
    represents an emblem of eternity and glorifies, in their eyes, God the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost.
13. When the flag is completely folded, the stars are uppermost, reminding us of our national motto, "In God we Trust."

A sincere thanks to all of you who have served our nation's military.

Your sacrifices are not forgotten.

Update: Jonn Lilyea (Sergeant First Class, US Army-Retired) has a post from Arlington National Cemetery, including video of the wreath-laying at the Tomb of the Unknowns over at This Ain't Hell.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:22 PM | Comments (33) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 08, 2007

A Matter of Honor: Advertisers Respond II

From Tony Jewell, media contact for Astrazeneca, via email:

Good afternoon and thank you for giving us a chance to respond to your concerns.

We last bought an advertisement in The New Republic in late May, though they ran a free ad as part of a promotion last month. We currently have no plans to advertise in The New Republic for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:35 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

"It is the Greatest Scam in History"

So says John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, as he discusses global warming. He is not kind to global warming advocates, some of which preached the horrors of the impending ice ages of global cooling just several decades ago with the same cocksure fanaticism.

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

"Friends in government?"

Gee, I wonder which former vice president and political party he could be referring to...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:40 AM | Comments (35) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 07, 2007

Thanks and Praise

Mike Yon:

I photographed men and women, both Christians and Muslims, placing a cross atop the St. John's Church in Baghdad. They had taken the cross from storage and a man washed it before carrying it up to the dome. A Muslim man had invited the American soldiers from "Chosen" Company 2-12 Cavalry to the church, where I videotaped as Muslims and Christians worked and rejoiced at the reopening of St John's, an occasion all viewed as a sign of hope.

The Iraqis asked me to convey a message of thanks to the American people. "Thank you, thank you," the people were saying. One man said, "Thank you for peace." Another man, a Muslim, said "All the people, all the people in Iraq, Muslim and Christian, is brother." The men and women were holding bells, and for the first time in memory freedom rang over the ravaged land between two rivers.

Comparisons to Rosenthal's iconic Iwo Jima photo are both obvious and immediate. Rand Simberg thinks Yon should win a Pulitzer for this photo. Frankly, that honor should have come two years ago. Instead, they gave it to a gaggle of Associated Press photographers, one of which, Bilal Hussein, was later arrested with a known al Qaeda terrorist and remains in jail.

No, this photo is not as iconic as the Rosenthal photo, nor Yon's 2005 photo of Major Mark Bieger carrying a mortally wounded Iraqi child after an al Qaeda car bomb attack.

The symbolism of an ending sectarian conflict, and possibly the dawning of an Iraq that is appearing more and more like it is verging upon moving into a post-war period, however, is every bit as great.

Update: Chris Muir captures the moment at Day-by-Day.

11/08 Update: Major Kirk Leudeke, Public Affairs Officer for
4th IBCT, 1st ID, states that 2-12 IN is one of the units attached to his brigade, and that they've been in combat for about a year.

He said that St. John's Church had been bombed and burned back in 2004, but that since that time, the church's inner sanctuary has been restored, and putting the cross back on the building was the "crowning touch."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:24 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

A Matter of Honor: Advertisers Respond

At least two of the leading advertisers for The New Republic are reconsidering their advertising relationships with the magazine in the wake of the magazines handling of the Scott Beauchamp "Shock Troop" scandal.

Kathy Leech, Director of Brand Communications for BP, stated via email that "We are very aware of the allegations against the New Republic and are reviewing the situation prior to making a decision about our advertising."

In a follow-up email, Leech stated that BP did not "need any further information."

When asked on when they might make a decision, she stated, "We are reviewing the situation as we speak, so we're likely to make a decision shortly."

BP's decision will be an internal decision, and will not be made public. The only way the results of the decision will be known is by whether or not BP is still advertising in The New Republic in the months ahead.

According to reliable sources, at least one other key TNR advertiser is re-evaluating their relationship with The New Republic in the wake of the magazine's handing of the Scott Beauchamp "Shock Troops" scandal. The scandal developed when the author, an Army private in Iraq, made allegations of brutality against his fellow soldiers that were found to be false in a formal U.S. Army investigation.

Though apparently unable to produce any evidence to support the claims for almost four months, The New Republic continues to stand by the story.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:30 AM | Comments (51) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 06, 2007

A "Who's Who" of Ignorance in the Intelligence Community

Larry Johnson has done us a wonderful favor by compiling a list of intelligence operatives that don't understand how the legislative and judicial systems in this country work:

Brent Cavan
Intelligence Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA

Ray Close
Directorate of Operations, CIA for 26 years—22 of them overseas; former Chief of Station, Saudi Arabia

Ed Costello
Counter-espionage, FBI

Michael Dennehy
Supervisory Special Agent for 32 years, FBI; U.S. Marine Corps for three years

Rosemary Dew
Supervisory Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI

Philip Giraldi
Operations officer and counter-terrorist specialist, Directorate of Operations, CIA

Michael Grimaldi
Intelligence Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA; Federal law enforcement officer

Mel Goodman
Division Chief, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA; Professor, National Defense University; Senior Fellow, Center for International Policy

Larry Johnson
Intelligence analysis and operations officer, CIA; Deputy Director, Office of Counter Terrorism, Department of State

Richard Kovar
Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director for Intelligence, CIA: Editor, Studies In Intelligence

Charlotte Lang
Supervisory Special Agent, FBI

W. Patrick Lang
U.S. Army Colonel, Special Forces, Vietnam; Professor, U.S. Military Academy, West Point; Defense Intelligence Officer for Middle East, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); founding director, Defense HUMINT Service

Lynne Larkin
Operations Officer, Directorate of Operations, CIA; counterintelligence; coordination among intelligence and crime prevention agencies; CIA policy coordination staff ensuring adherence to law in operations

Steve Lee
Intelligence Analyst for terrorism, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA

Jon S. Lipsky
Supervisory Special Agent, FBI

David MacMichael
Senior Estimates Officer, National Intelligence Council, CIA; History professor; Veteran, U.S. Marines (Korea)

Tom Maertens
Foreign Service Officer and Intelligence Analyst, Department of State; Deputy Coordinator for Counter-terrorism, Department of State; National Security Council (NSC) Director for Non-Proliferation

James Marcinkowski
Operations Officer, Directorate of Operations, CIA by way of U.S. Navy

Mary McCarthy
National Intelligence Officer for Warning; Senior Director for Intelligence Programs, National Security Council

Ray McGovern
Intelligence Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA; morning briefer, The President’s Daily Brief; chair of National Intelligence Estimates; Co-founder, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

Sam Provance
U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst, Germany and Iraq (Abu Ghraib); Whistleblower

Coleen Rowley
Special Agent and attorney, FBI; Whistleblower on the negligence that facilitated the attacks of 9/11.

Joseph Wilson
Foreign Service Officer, U.S. Ambassador and Director of Africa, National Security Council.

Valerie Plame Wilson
Operations Officer, Directorate of Operations

Some of the names you know well, such as Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. Some are minor luminaries such as Johnson and Rowley, a famed FBI whistleblower who later sat ditchside with Cindy Sheehan and ran for Congress as a Democrat. The rest my be outstanding in their field, but are not household names.

They signed on to a letter confronting Senators Specter and Leahy over the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey to be the next Attorney General, because these intelligence operatives did not like Mukasey's refusal to comment on the legality of waterboarding.

They do not seem to grasp the basic fact that the Attorney General has no dictatorial powers, and does not make laws.

I have a further newsflash for Mr. Johnson and the rest of his ill-informed posse: waterboarding is not illegal.

The United States Congress (both houses Democrat-led) has not passed a law outlawing the waterboarding of terror suspects. Despite any personal feelings Mukasey may have that waterboarding is torture (and indeed, I think most of us agree it is), it would be irresponsible for a candidate for Attorney General to declare this or any other action illegal that Congress has not made illegal.

If Johnson, et al do not think the practice of waterboarding is justifiable even in extreme circumstances to save thousands of American lives, then that is their issue to take to their fellow Democrats in Congress, but it is not an issue on which Mukasey should comment, at least not until he has clear legal authority to act upon it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:11 AM | Comments (65) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 CY:

Excellent Job on this one, as usual! What a sad, sad statement on the status of affairs at the CIA. They claim to be protecting our way of life and they don't even grasp the simplest of observations as it pertains to the legislative branch of said life.

Seeing Valerie Plame's name on there is just an added bonus. Bugs always said it best, "What a Maroon!"

-Marc

Posted by: Marc the Infidel at November 06, 2007 11:10 AM (qVSUR)

2 I'm not sure I agree with the idea that waterboarding is torture. I've always been of the opinion that torture involves some form of physiological damage or infliction: thumb-screws, branding, flaying, scourging, the pulling out of nails or breaking of fingers, racking etc.

Sleep deprivation after long enough periods leads to physiological harm, food deprivation, water deprivation, even light deprivation. Even pain in large amounts leads to actual physiological changes within the body. It is the element of systematic and deliberate infliction of damage that makes it torture, rather than an unpleasant experience. Whether or not there is such a thing as mental torture without some physiological element or result, I cannot say, but none spring readily to mind. Most mental traumas of sufficient degree also cause or are accompanied by physiological effects. As such I would argue that all torture results in some from of physiological harm.

Wearing panties on your head, being sniffed at by dogs etc etc is not torture. Being exposed to a ham sandwich is not torture. Likewise, from what I understand of waterboarding, it lasts minutes, involves the stimulation of an autonomic reaction from the body; the fear of drowning, but no harm, lasting or otherwise, is dealt. I would class the infliction of blows, which is another of the six sanctioned methods, as closer to torture than waterboarding.

All of the above is open to debate, of course. But debate involves rational refutation of specific points through evidence.

Posted by: Elydo at November 06, 2007 11:45 AM (0avqB)

3 Well, if Mukasey doesn't have the authority to declare waterboarding illegal or legal -- then why didn't he just come right out and tell the senators that he didn't? (Maybe he actually did but I sure didn't hear about it from our MSM).

Instead we were treated to day after day of Democrat whineing.

I've got my own 9-11 'troofer' conspiracy theory: it's now obvious why 9-11 was allowed to happen and Bin Laden has been allowed to go free. People of the calibre of Larry Johnson and those that signed the letter are in charge at high levels of the CIA and FBI.

Posted by: Fritz Katz at November 06, 2007 11:50 AM (EGm8u)

4 Larry Johnson has always been many sandwiches short of a picnic and his blog attracts similar readers judging from the commenters. After all, how much talent does is take to be a train spotter at the Department of State after you've been bounced from the CIA?

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 06, 2007 12:02 PM (0pZel)

5 Why do you suppose the liberals wanted so badly for Mukasey to declare waterboarding illegal? Could it be that once he does, impeachment proceeding against the President wouldn't be out of the question? Just think, the Attorney General declaring waterboarding illegal. The president is accused of allowing waterboarding. That, my friend, is all the left needs to scream impeachment.

Posted by: Andy B at November 06, 2007 12:10 PM (q1S2A)

6 Wait I know of some locations where skateboarding is illegal. Isnt that the same thing? Maybe all those bozos on that list are confused! How in the world can some practice be illegal if there is no law on the books stating as much? Anti-interrogation technique rants on a blog called "no-quarter" how ironic is that?

Posted by: Dave J at November 06, 2007 12:48 PM (YLGud)

7 Wow. Eight times as many people are listed here than we have waterboarded.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at November 06, 2007 01:15 PM (oC8nQ)

8 Isn't waterboarding still part of the curriculum at SERE school?

Training can't be torture, can it?

For that matter, I understand some twerps decided to demonstrate waterboarding outside of congress yesterday or today. Can something you volunteer to do (outside of S&M stuff I suppose) be torture?

Posted by: SGT Jeff (USAR) at November 06, 2007 01:26 PM (yiMNP)

9 First this was all political pandering for votes down the line.

Second.

Since there is no law against the practice, if the AG were to imitate and activist judge and agree to a non law prohibition then it should properly be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Also the promise by the AG would only survive as long as his term in office and would have to be improperly redone again.

The AG enforces laws not creates them out of whole cloth.

Even if a law were passed, it is then still incumbent on the AG and the President to determine if it is a constitutional law and if deemed not to appeal it to the Supreme Court.

What the Judiciary Committee was doing was in effect a violation of the separation of powers and should not stand.

They have been allowed to frame the debate without much of a challenge and it will rely on the voters to effect a change if possible.

Posted by: Lurker of sorts at November 06, 2007 01:49 PM (1aM/I)

10 A quick look through a very small sampling on Google demonstrates that more than a few of these characters who signed this letter are rather notorious "nutjobs." For example, the Larry Johnson paper trail starts in July 2001--two months before September 11--when he wrote in the New York Times that the terrorist threat was "declining," and that Americans, despite being "bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism," have "little to fear" from such attacks. An interesting window into the mindset of the CIA, or at least a portion thereof, pre-September 11, but hardly a qualification to be considered an "expert" on the subject.

McGovern's past is filled with anti-Semitic rants and conspiracy theories. While testifying before a Congressional Committee in June, 2005, the session took an awkward turn, according to a Washington Post story, when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration "neocons" so "the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world." He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Posted by: Andy at November 06, 2007 02:01 PM (d/RyS)

11 On NPR's "To the Point," Columbia Law School Professor Scott Horton just said that there is no question that waterboarding is illegal and that we have given the death penalty to enemies in the past who were found guilty of waterboarding.

And if we, as reasonable people, agree that waterboarding is torture (simple test: Would we consider it torture if the enemy were doing it to our guys?) then Bush is guilty of lying, if not worse, when he says that we don't torture.

Posted by: David Crisp at November 06, 2007 03:58 PM (yyYDC)

12 David, you might want to find someone else to quote rather than Scott Horton. Right, wrong, or indifferent, this terrorist lawyer and left-wing Harper's blogger (gee, how did you miss thse details in his bio?) is hardly apolitical, and has some rather "Beauchampian" qualities that will re-engage my attention once The New Republic saga is finally over.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 06, 2007 04:22 PM (HcgFD)

13 I also find it difficult to call waterboarding torture when we have used it to train our own people in how to deal with being captured and what not.

Why is that - in an instructive question...

Because...in a nation like ours, if we were using waterboarding as something approaching a representation of what it can be like to be captured somewhere, then it was clearly not considered "torture". You'd stand a better chance of getting away with torturing a terrorist suspect than you would your own people. It just wouldn't happen ---- unless they felt the technique was safe enough.....

Posted by: usinkorea at November 06, 2007 05:10 PM (m7vPp)

14 Isn't waterboarding still part of the curriculum at SERE school?

Torture in my mind is something we'd be unwilling to do to our own people in training.

We gas them, waterboard them, subject them to extreme temperatures, cold water dousing, loud noise, sleep deprivation etc.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 06, 2007 05:24 PM (QYPa7)

15 [Posted by David Crisp at November 6, 2007 03:58 PM]

What terrible logic and argument, David, especially your first part. And who's the first "we" in the second paragraph? Please explain?

Oh and while you are at it, could you might want to add some insight into this very odd fact, i.e., that considering no one has ever pointed to a law that specifically outlaws waterboarding in addition to considering how long this discussion of whether it is or is not torture has lasted, the points Scott Horton is purported to have said on NPR appears on shakey ground.

Posted by: Dusty at November 06, 2007 05:32 PM (GJLeQ)

16 Don't like Horton? But if we agree that waterboarding is torture, then we have to agree that it is illegal -- no matter what Horton's politics or "Beauchampian" qualities may be.

If torture is illegal, then it is unnecessary to pass laws specifically outlawing every torture technique. We just have to define torture -- and waterboarding fits usual definitions.

Dusty, the "we" refers to Confederate Yankee and I. We seem to agree that waterboarding looks like, smells like and sounds like torture. It probably feels like torture, too, but I hope I never have to find out.

Posted by: David Crisp at November 06, 2007 06:05 PM (yyYDC)

17 In the alternative, if you don't like Horton, here are a hundred other law professors for you: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/06/usdom13130.htm

Posted by: David Crisp at November 06, 2007 06:15 PM (yyYDC)

18 We gas them, waterboard them, subject them to extreme temperatures, cold water dousing, loud noise, sleep deprivation etc.

I've been gassed by Uncle Sam for the purpose of educating me. Given the option, I'd rather be waterboarded. I was pretty suer that I was going to barf up a lung or two and that my eyeballs were going to melt right out of my head.

Should I be suing somebody?

Posted by: Pablo at November 06, 2007 06:36 PM (yTndK)

19 [Posted by David Crisp at November 6, 2007 06:05 PM]

Well, if it just you and CY, then from your earlier comment, the last half of "And if we, as reasonable people, agree that waterboarding is torture (simple test: Would we consider it torture if the enemy were doing it to our guys?) then Bush is guilty of lying, if not worse, when he says that we don't torture", doesn't follow.

Even if you two agree it only means it is your common opinion that it is torture. That doesn't even remotely mean that Bush's or Administration lawyers' opinion, if different, is the same thing as a lie. It works for the community based reality the lefties inhabit but it's not factually true and it's nothing more than sloppy thinking.

Posted by: Dusty at November 06, 2007 06:56 PM (GJLeQ)

20 Mr. Crisp, if waterboarding is indeed illegal, then rather than post the opinions of law professors, please post the exact statute which makes it illegal.

If you cannot provide a specific statute, then it is not illegal. "That which is not forbidden is permitted," in other words.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 06, 2007 07:51 PM (PGjzz)

21 Tellingly, that list of "law professors" for which Mr. Crisp has provided a Link is known as "Legal Scholars in Favor of Civil Rights for Terrorists."

At least we know what their priorities are.

Posted by: Glenn at November 06, 2007 08:06 PM (AiJXe)

22 The United States is a signatory of the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Under the US Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate have the force of law.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/10.html


Here's in the text of the convention regarding those punishments and treatments which are prohibited:

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

US law also expressly makes torture illegal pursuant to 18 USC 2340A (link: http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/contents/fed_cap_off/18_usc_2340A.htm).

For purposes of that law, torture is defined as follows :

“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality



As stated, "any act which causes severe pain or suffering, physical or mental" satisfies the legal definition of torture under the UN convention, and a virtually identical provision of US criminal law.


Based on the "research" by then Bush Department of Justice official Daniel Levin, who had himself waterboarded (link: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/DOJ/story?id=3814076&page=1 ), he was able to determine that based on his experience waterboarding satisfied the definition of torture. Indeed, he documented his experience and his legal conclusion in a memo filed with the Justice Department. For his trouble he was forced out of the DOJ when Alberto Gonzales became the Attorney General.

Now, one can twist and turn all you like as to whether, but it seems clear to me that waterboarding fits the definition of torture under the UN Convention and 18 USC 2340A, and since the US is a party to the UN convention, the prohibitions against torture contained therein have the force of law in the United States. For Mukasey or anyone else to claim that he cannot say whether waterboarding is illegal is simply an exercise in prevarication or rank ignorance of the state of the law.

Indeed, in 1947 Yukio Asano, a Japanese officer, was charged with a war crime for waterboarding a US civilian during the war (links: [one link to war crimes files removed because this website labeled the UC Berkely War Crimes Studies Center website, which includes documentation summarizing the case of Yukio Asano, a "questionable" site] and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html).

So, in 1947 American prosecutors considered waterboarding a war crime. The UN Convention Against Torture prohibits any act that causes suffering, physical or mental (as does a US criminal law), and a former Bush Asst. US Attorney determined that waterboarding caused sufficient mental suffering to constitute torture (indeed, I imagine it may well cause physical injury as well if applied long enough, or if applied to persons who are ill or suffering from pre-existing medical conditions).

Maybe you can justify in your own mind that waterboarding is not illegal under US law, but I'd take my chances before a US court that waterboarding would be held to be illegal, and I'm willing to bet Mukasey knows this would be the likely result of any trial of the issue, also.

Posted by: Steven D at November 06, 2007 08:13 PM (NHupW)

23 Steven, did you know that Congress has at least twice had the opportunity to specifically forbid waterboarding by name? The Detainee Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 were perfect vehicles for such a ban.

And before you point out that those were Republican Congresses, let me also remind you that the Democrats have had control of Congress for eleven months and not even proposed a bill specifically banning waterboarding as far as I know.

One wonders why, if it is such a huge issue with these Senators, why they have not closed a possible legal loophole?

Posted by: C-C-G at November 06, 2007 08:59 PM (PGjzz)

24 Re Steven D's, Scott Horton and other pseudo lawyers...
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1680943,00.html Here's a Link to a story in TIME magazine that makes it very clear that the Democrats in Congress clearly do not accept that current law makes waterboarding illegal. Here's a key excerpt:

"Even though the party failed to block Mukasey over his refusal to state definitively that waterboarding is illegal, some Democrats believe they can win a straight vote to criminalize the harsh interrogation technique. Others fear that a renewed fight over torture would end not just in another defeat, but in an implicit congressional stamp of approval for the very practice they want to outlaw."

Posted by: Glenn at November 06, 2007 09:26 PM (d/RyS)

25 The question of whether waterboarding as usually described fits the definition of torture, since it does not cause physical harm, has generally revolved around whether waterboarding and other extreme coercive techniques fit the definition of "severe mental pain or suffering," in that it is questionable whether they cause "the prolonged mental harm" requisite for any of the subsequent clauses in the definition to apply. In fact, there is no evidence that waterboarding causes prolonged mental harm compared to other techniques which have not traditionally been classed as torture.

As to the supposed cause for the dismissal of Daniel Levin: "For his trouble he was forced out of the DOJ when Alberto Gonzales became the Attorney General," there's no evidence whatsoever that this was the reason. In fact, the fact that apparently NO instances of waterboarding were approved or conducted since 2003 (before Gonzales became AG), would tend to make one believe that there were other more important disagreements that led to Levin's removal. That is, while waterboarding has become a cause celebre for the Left (and, yes, I'm counting Andrew Sullivan in the Left), it has apparently never been an important tool in the Bush Administration's arsenal of counter-terrorism techniques.

Posted by: notropis at November 06, 2007 09:58 PM (msY1Z)

26 The following definition, arguably, would include jailing someone:

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

But then you add this sentence:

It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Well, that allows thumbscrews and iron maidens, provided the laws of a country make them a lawful sanction.

Do people realize how flexible these generalized descriptions are?

Yours,
Wince

Posted by: Wince and Nod at November 06, 2007 10:14 PM (lhJxs)

27 Wince and Nod, those generalized descriptions could also include watching more than about 5 minutes of C-SPAN. -lol-

Torture indeed!

Posted by: C-C-G at November 06, 2007 10:43 PM (PGjzz)

28 And if we, as reasonable people, agree that water boarding is torture (simple test: Would we consider it torture if the enemy were doing it to our guys?) Why use that test? There have been two cases of lefties with agendas volunteering to be water boarded, one just today, to show just how inhumane and painful and injurious it is.

Got that? They volunteered...

Posted by: bains at November 06, 2007 11:05 PM (F/dCx)

29 I am coming around to the conclusion that waterboarding probably ought to be considered torture. When we waterboard our guys, we don't do it the extent that we do on terrorists, I believe. However, as others have noted, the definitions are fuzzy enough and waterboarding is benign enough (compared with, say, applying red-hot irons to the body) that honest men can disagree. Ergo, claiming that Bush is "lying" by saying that we do not torture is rubbish.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 06, 2007 11:32 PM (hGVB/)

30 Even if, for the sake of the discussion, we state that waterboarding is torture, that does not ipso facto make it immoral.

There is a valid moral case to be made for taking one life in order to save others... this is one of the moral and legal tests for the use of deadly force by law enforcement personnel, I believe. Since torture is less severe than killing someone--unless the torturer goes too far, of course--I believe the same test can be applied to torture.

Therefore, morally, torture appears to be permissible in order to save lives.

The context of this argument now needs to be considered. We are at war with an ideology that thinks nothing of flying planes filled with innocent people into buildings full of equally innocent people. Therefore, interrogating these people in order to learn details of future attacks or the location of others of their ideology could be considered to be an effort to save lives.

While I do not believe it is right to grab any Johnny off the street of, say, Cincinnati; or any Abdul off the street of Baghdad, and torture him, if the person is caught in the act of terrorism, or there is a preponderance of credible evidence that the person is involved, and if there are no other means available to obtain the information needed, I believe torture would be morally permissible.

By the way, I speak as a Christian, lay preacher, and soon-to-be (hopefully) theology student. Therefore, only the most rabid anti-Christian could consider me to be a person of low moral standards. Of course, that won't stop some here from throwing mud at me or twisting my words, but that's okay, I can take it, and it will turn to glory in Heaven, so have at me.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 07, 2007 12:13 AM (PGjzz)

31 Unfortunately, CCG, what you're doing is assuming that torture leads to the obtaining of information, and that isn't strictly true in most cases. Even IF waterboarding is torture, which I posted my thoughts about right at the beginning of this, it's a pretty tame form of torture. The fact that Department of Justice officials, journalists etc are volunteering for it, enduring it, surviving it and seemingly leading perfectly standard qualities of live subsequently, no PTSD which you might expect to arise from severe mental trauma or lasting injuries from physical trauma, means it's pretty low down on the list of "Nasty things to do to people"

Given this, you can separate the people undergoing these acts into two groups: those who will break under limited applications, and those who won't. As has been mentioned, most of these activities are done to US soldiers in training, particularly special forces, in order to prepare them for potentially being tortured. These hopefully lessens their chances of breaking in the short term, and, depending on what techniques are applied, at all.

Now, given enough time, and severe enough applications, anyone will eventually break. The only other alternative, aside from rescue or release, is dying during the torture process, which any competent torturer will not allow to happen. The only variables are how long, and what needs to be done to you. Some would break quickly, with little application of methods of torture, other would resist for long periods of time despite varying methods being applied. The key point is that when they break, they break because they want the process to stop.

As such, torture cannot be regarded as a reliable form of information gathering. There's generally no way of knowing if the information accurate, if it's only partially accurate and the suspect hasn't fully broken yet or if he's just saying anything in order to get it all to cease. And generally, the worse the forms of applied torture, the less you can rely on whether the information obtained was given reliably or not.

Thus, torture goes from being a practical method of obtaining useful information to an unreliable form of obtaining information that then needs to be subsequently confirmed through other methods. And, as I say, the worse the torture, generally the less likely you are to know WHY the information was provided. There are scenarios where torture is a viable option, but they're less prevalent than most people think. Thus the general limitations on sanctioned interrogation techniques. Whether they can be described as torture is debatable, but regardless, they are necessarily constrained due to both practical and moral reasons. And to my mind, the moral argument is superfluous due to the practical one; if there is no practical need to apply torture to someone then there is no need to, any moral aspect is therefore academic, and situationally irrelevant.

And I reckon we can all agree that torture for any purpose OTHER than trying to obtain information leading to the aversion of casualties is reprehensible?

Posted by: Elydo at November 07, 2007 02:50 AM (ahyTm)

32 To Glenn and Wince:

Glenn first.

I may only be a "pseudo-lawyer" but this is the first time I've heard of the a rule of statutory construction which provides that a court, in applying the law in a case before it, should look to what a legislative body didn't enact after the fact to interpret a law that it had previously enacted. Although courts will look to the legislative history of a statute where there is a need to determine how it applies to a specific set of facts, this is the first time that I've ever seen it suggested that a court should look to non-action by a legislative body to interpret a law already on the books. Quite a novel approach to statutory interpretation, but I wonder if you've really considered it fully.

As just one example, let me refer you to garden variety state laws prohibiting murder. If you look at any of them I believe you'll find that they do not specifically list the methods the use of which would be considered murder. That is, like the US torture law at 18 USC 2340A, and the War Crimes Act of 1996, 18 USC 2441, most states define murder broadly, not limiting it by weapon or other method used by the alleged murderer to cause the victim's death. Here's a typical murder statute from Alabama which should prove illustrative:

§ 13A-6-2. Murder.

(a) A person commits the crime of murder if he or she does any of the following:

(1) With intent to cause the death of another person, he or she causes the death of that person or of another person.

(2) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, he or she recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person other than himself or herself, and thereby causes the death of another person.

(3) He or she commits or attempts to commit arson in the first degree, burglary in the first or second degree, escape in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, rape in the first degree, robbery in any degree, sodomy in the first degree, any other felony clearly dangerous to human life and, in the course of and in furtherance of the crime that he or she is committing or attempting to commit, or in immediate flight therefrom, he or she, or another participant if there be any, causes the death of any person.

(4) He or she commits the crime of arson and a qualified governmental or volunteer firefighter or other public safety officer dies while performing his or her duty resulting from the arson.

Very non-specific (except for the felony murder provisions in subparagraphs (3) and (4) which are a special case). Thus a person can be tried for murder if they use a gun, a knife, poison, or even if they abandon a wounded individual to his or her death, so long as they had the requisite intent to cause that person's death or acted knowing that his or her death was likely to result as part of their failure to act. Under your theory, because the Alabama legislature did not enumerate all of the specific circumstances which might constitute murder, a Court could consider that "legislative non-action" in determining whether a murder charge is valid. This is, of course, rank nonsense.

Statutes, and particularly criminal statutes, are written broadly by legislatures because they don't want to limit what constitutes a particular crime by failing to list all the possible ways that crime could be committed. To the extent a Court believes a statute is ambiguous it can rely upon the legislative history of the law as it was being considered, but no court I know of has ever said that the failure of a legislative body to enact a more specific statute after passage of the original law is evidence that a particular set of facts is not covered by the statute or law. Instead they will look to the language of the statute first, then to the legislative history, if any, and then to the decisions of other courts when construing the same law, or similar laws.

There are numerous legal precedents for holding that waterboarding is torture. Both Japanese and Nazi officials were convicted of war crimes after WWII for using the technique to torture individuals. It has long been considered torture by current and former military lawyers as this letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee by 4 retired Judge Advocates makes clear:

November 2, 2007

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Leahy,

In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s consideration of President Bush’s nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of “waterboarding” under United States and international law. We write because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.

In 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the authority to prosecute terrorists under the war crimes provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding “the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning (i.e., waterboarding) . . .” Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

We agree with our active duty colleagues. This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. All U.S. Government agencies and personnel, and not just America’s military forces, must abide by both the spirit and letter of the controlling provisions of international law. Cruelty and torture - no less than wanton killing - is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance. It is essential to be clear, specific and unambiguous about this fact - as in fact we have been throughout America’s history, at least until the last few years. Abu Ghraib and other notorious examples of detainee abuse have been the product, at least in part, of a self-serving and destructive disregard for the well- established legal principles applicable to this issue. This must end.

The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules that can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey.

Sincerely,

Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02

Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000

Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93

Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88

Perhaps Glenn, you legal credentials permit you to understand the issue better than these current and former military lawyers, but you'll pardon me if I accept their opinions as better authorities on the issue of whether waterboarding is illegal than I do your analysis.

***

As for Wince's comment that the reservation for actions taken in furtherance of lawful sanctions makes the laws prohibiting torture meaningless, the language regarding legal sanctions is meant to refer to specific sanctions authorized by the UN or by Congress, such as the sanctions against Iraq which were put in place after the first Gulf War. Many human rights groups felt those sanctions amounted to collective punishment of the Iraqi people which could violate the UN convention which is why when the US became a signatory it specifically made this one exception to its acceptance of its terms. Since the Iraq sanctions were authorized by the UN, participation by US officials in enforcing those sanctions did not violate the UN Convention against Torture, et al.

To my knowledge, neither the UN nor Congress has ever expressly authorized the "enhanced interrogation techniques" of which President Bush and his officials makes such frequent mention. I'm sure he would have liked to have had Congress, when it was controlled by the Republicans, pass a law to make legal the torture techniques his administration authorized to be used against terror suspects (since that would have gotten him off the hook regarding future prosecution for authorizing torture), but even the Republican majority apparently was not willing to go that far.

Posted by: Steven D at November 07, 2007 07:28 AM (NHupW)

33 This debate has been very shallow and deceptive at best on both sides in my opinion.

On the one side we have guys like Sullivan acting as if the US is running torture farms all over the world where people routinely have their fingernails ripped off. This caterwauling has become something of a conventional wisdom due to the Abu Ghraib scandal and the fallout from that. In fact if what has been published recently is to be believed it has been used only extremely rarely.

Moreover, being interviewed by a female isn't torture. Nor is being shown a ham sandwich, nor flushing a Quran. Nor are a whole list of other things that have been so described. Coercive? Yes. Torture? No.

(This is part of why Beauchamp matters, but I digress.)

On the other side we have folks arguing - some in this thread - that the plain language of the UN Convention Against Torture isn't US law. It is. It is a treaty negotiated, signed and ratified under the US constitution by the POTUS and the US Senate.

Or arguing that because the US uses various methods in training that proves it isn't torture when applied in wholly different circumstances. There is a rather clear difference between volunteering to be waterboarded as part of qualifying for a rank or unit and being under the complete control of a hostile power or person and having it inflicted involuntarily. In training you know you'll live. If you are a captive of Ahab the head-chopper you have no such assurance.

===========

Since the US is committed to a definition of torture by treaty and law, what the debate really should center around is whether waterboarding inflicts "severe" pain. There's no doubt or serious argument that it is physically and mentally painful to some degree - but is it severe? IMO it is. The fear of death is as severe as mental pain gets. Someone being waterboarded by a hostile would have good reason to fear death. That's why it 'works', to whatever extent it does.

Or more fundamentally, should we be involved in any mistreatment whatsoever? Shouldn't the US at least as a basic policy be against anything that represents mistreatment of people in our custody?

So IMO the US shouldn't be involved with it, and we should have no problem with the fundamental principle that we are different from the head-choppers in that we do not abuse our prisoners.

===========

That said, if I were still serving, and if I were confronted with a guy that had planted a bomb at a school or something, and it seemed that inflicting pain would get information necessary to save lives, I would immediately begin all manner of 'persuasion' necessary, and I'd go far beyond waterboarding if necessary (Isn't that odd? Thus the moral muddle.). I would count on my command to fade the heat and have my back and if what I did was right and saved lives I'd count on my CinC to pardon me.

But that scenario is a very remote possibility and the debate shouldn't center around that rare instance. The point is what the United States stands for fundamentally. We are not the head-choppers. We are better than they are, we represent the alternative to the 'feed them feet first into the plastic shredder' types.

Our policy has to be that we do not mistreat our prisoners in any way. If they have to do it then we can deal with that in the justice system as necessary.

Posted by: DaveW at November 07, 2007 07:44 AM (L04de)

34 DaveW, "Since the US is committed to a definition of torture by treaty and law, what the debate really should center around is whether waterboarding inflicts "severe" pain. There's no doubt or serious argument that it is physically and mentally painful to some degree - but is it severe? IMO it is. The fear of death is as severe as mental pain gets."

But from my understanding, the effect of waterboarding is to make the suspect experience the autonomic reaction that he is about to drown. No RISK of drowning is present. His life is not in danger from that specific act, and outside of the act being performed that should be obvious. Whether it is or not is much more difficult to debate of course. But my point is that the fear of death is a subconscious and autonomic response lasting only as long as the actual affliction of the technique. That's quite different from making someone believe they are about to be murdered.

Posted by: Elydo at November 07, 2007 08:09 AM (ahyTm)

35 Stephen D,
Based on the "research" by then Bush Department of Justice official Daniel Levin, who had himself waterboarded (link: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/DOJ/story?id=3814076&page=1 ), he was able to determine that based on his experience waterboarding satisfied the definition of torture.

No, that's not quite what he said. He said that it "could be illegal torture unless performed in a highly limited way and with close supervision." Which is to say that can be done without it being torture.

For his trouble he was forced out of the DOJ when Alberto Gonzales became the Attorney General.

And you find it nefarious that an Acting Assistant Attorney General gets replaced when a new AG takes over? Why, of course. Bu$hco!

As stated, "any act which causes severe pain or suffering, physical or mental" satisfies the legal definition of torture under the UN convention, and a virtually identical provision of US criminal law.

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that pain and fear are one and the same. They are not.

Indeed, in 1947 Yukio Asano, a Japanese officer, was charged with a war crime for waterboarding a US civilian during the war...

Asano was charged with a laundry list of offenses, one of which was not waterboarding, but water torture. The list also included beatings and burning with cigarettes, all of which are illegal under the Geneva Conventions, especially given that they were done to uniformed POW's. Read the testimony.

Posted by: Pablo at November 07, 2007 08:10 AM (yTndK)

36 Dave W,
Our policy has to be that we do not mistreat our prisoners in any way. If they have to do it then we can deal with that in the justice system as necessary.

Suppose Hillary gets elected and the new AG thinks it would be a peachy idea to prosecute the guys who waterboarded KSM. Are you OK with locking them up for what they did?

Posted by: Pablo at November 07, 2007 08:14 AM (yTndK)

37 I wonder if there is any evidence of Bushhitler being behind the latest trend in interrogation techniques, cookie torture.

Evil, yet surprisingly delicious.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 07, 2007 08:33 AM (HcgFD)

38 Elydo, the same argument can be made about the use of deadly force to save someone's life. Do we know, for certain, that the same potential victim won't lose his life due to violence at a later time? No, we don't.

We cannot see the future, and we should not be asinine enough to try to make laws that assume we can. Does waterboarding have the potential of saving lives? Yes, in certain circumstances. I leave the decision about whether or not it is likely to do so in the circumstances that prevail at a given time to those involved at the time.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 07, 2007 09:35 AM (PGjzz)

39 I can't believe so many people think that causing such excruciating pain isn't torture. Is there any question that waterboarding, when done properly, doesn't cause excruciating pain? That is why it is used. Calling it "simulated drowning" is an awful nice way to describe strapping somebody down and pouring water down their nose. That's gotta hurt.

I remember recently where Iran captured some British soldiers because they supposedly strayed into their waters. If they captured U.S. soldiers, would it be okay for them to waterboard our soldiers to obtain confessions? Or would that be torture?

Posted by: DR at November 07, 2007 10:54 AM (pZtEm)

40 Sgt Jeff you are an idiot if you can not perceive the difference in a training exercise and real torture. In the SERE school people know that they are not going to drown and they know that all mock executions are in fact mock executions. They also know that threats of having their wives and children tortured in foreign countries are in fact just threats.
Torture is only good for obtaining confessions. In the past it has proven to be very effective at making witches confess, and also at forcing witches to divulge their plans for future witchcraft and in identifying other witches including the most difficult to find "sleeper" witches.

Posted by: John Ryan at November 07, 2007 01:21 PM (TcoRJ)

41 I'm curious and freely admit my ignorance...
Does "the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" denote the specific individuals that are covered under its jurisdiction?

The reason I ask this question is, after having read some of the Geneva Conventions - specifically the one covering those who may or may not be granted POW status (sorry, don't remember the citation and I'm too lazy to re-look and also too lazy to read up on the 'torture GC' - does this cover only POW's or any/all detainees?

If the GC's only cover POW's wrt torture and not 'unlawful combatants' then the entire debate over GC definition is moot. US law, however, would remain open and still be problematic.

Now for my diatribe:

If the specific individual is an ‘unlawful combatant’ then all avenues are open for the apprehending entity under their law up to and including summary execution (if 'lawful'). Put yourself in a Nazi POW camp or as an AQ captive. The GC covering POW’s does allow for the execution of those POW’s engaged in escape attempts. As for AQ I only expect death at their hands in one form or another if I would happen to be their captive. The Nazi example deals with an officially recognized military and all subsequent GC requirements on POW's. The AQ example deals with an unofficial, non-state group engaged in militaristic activities that fail to meet GC requirements on POW's.

If, as has been discussed, any coercive technique ‘could be’ classified as torture in general, then why does the US even bother to capture purported terrorists? Why don’t we simply execute them after asking for Name, Rank, and Serial Number? The answer to this will inevitably be “because we are better than them”. My simple response to that answer is BAH! Good or evil is in the eye of the beholder. Perspective, gentlefolk, is what is described by that statement. In some cases it is necessary to be WORSE than the other guy. This is most often true in war. In order to win a war at least ONE of this short list of must be done:
1)Kill all of the enemy – not practical in general (See WWII Pacific Islands campaigns & 1+ Billion potential Islamic terrorists in the world plus sundry other groups).

2)Destroy the will of your enemy to fight – very practical (Hiroshima & Nagasaki, Vietnam)

3)Destroy the ability of your enemy to fight – not practical in the current geo-political climate

The question is how to destroy the will of the enemy. Hugs are the equivalent of ammo for some Americans; however, I am not above utilizing torture – in ALL its purported forms – to preserve my country and countrymen…as long as ‘the rule of law’ is returned with at least the same amount liberty, if not more, in the end.

Posted by: Mark at November 07, 2007 03:57 PM (4od5C)

42 Can you imagine being such a wuss like John Ryan? Thinking something that doesn't even cause any pain or permanent damage is torture is amusing. Terrorist lovers like John believe if you yell at a terrorist that's torture. Would I mind if our soldiers were "waterboarded? Of course not, sure beats the hell out of the alternative......you know......getting beheaded.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at November 07, 2007 06:39 PM (Lgw9b)

43 What are you going to do now that the children across America and probably the world are using waterboarding as a game to find out who is tough, and unlike the phonies on the left they don't use a mask under the towel. It was effectively used three time in the WOT and now that it's out that it harms no one it won't be used again. Even the wimpy limp wristed terrorists will be able to tough it out as well as a 10 year old, won't they?

Posted by: Scrapiron at November 07, 2007 07:28 PM (d/RyS)

44 Scrapiron - I suppose it's time to bring back the Rack along with the Spanish Inquisition... no one will expect it...

Posted by: Mark at November 07, 2007 07:47 PM (P8ylB)

45 DR, I am caused excruciating pain if forced to watch our elected representatives bloviate on C-SPAN... and I speak of elected officials of both parties.

Shall we then ban C-SPAN?

Posted by: C-C-G at November 07, 2007 07:48 PM (PGjzz)

46 Valerie Plame Wilson
Operations Officer, Directorate of Operations

That's odd. Wonder why it doesn't say CIA like all the rest?

Posted by: Guitar Hero at November 07, 2007 08:40 PM (ryO1F)

47 Steve:

A treaty doesn't over rule the Constitution. The Constitution forbides cruel and unusual treatment. The Geneva Convention specifies the summary exectuion of illegal combatants.

Care to tell me that torture is worse than summary execution. I can't wait to start beheading these people, just to make sure we stay within the limits of acceptable behavior that terrorists and the lawyers who support them apparently deem acceptable.

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at November 08, 2007 01:36 AM (A2ZNt)

48 Actually, waterboard is torture. Our survival training schools coach our personnel with high possibility of enemy capture (pilots, aircrew, commando services) on how to deal with waterboarding because various enemies who we would prosecute (in saner times) as war criminals have used it on our POWs, if we ever got our hands on the North Koreans or North Vietnamese who did it. John McCain said as much. The fact that Congress hasn't specifically said in writing "Waterboarding is torture" doesn't change that. We signed treaties outlawing torture. Treaties we sign carry the force of law unless they specifically over ruled by the Supreme Court. We have laws against murder, just like our treaty law forbids torture. If I murder you by hitting you over the head with a lead pipe, I can't claim innocence by saying "The law doesn't specifically outlaw lead piping someone." You are dead, I killed you, I am a murderer. If you waterboard, you have tortured someone, just like the North Vietnames or the Spanish Inquisition, and you have broken the laws incorporated into our treaty obligations. No need for Congress to spell out each torture method in detail for a separate law to cover each act. Murder is murder and torture is torture, we should be better than Communist scum. We used to be before George W. Bush.

Posted by: Moseleycat at November 08, 2007 10:13 AM (Ma38C)

49 Moseley, just saying it is doesn't necessarily say it's so. I can stand outside at 5 pm and declare what I see in the sky a "sunrise," that doesn't change the fact that it is really a sunset.

Your BDS is also showing, at the end of your diatribe. You really should try to keep that under wraps, you know.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 08, 2007 07:54 PM (PGjzz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 05, 2007

Everything Matters

As you are probably aware, were on our second week of raising funds to buy voice-controlled laptop computers for our wounded soldiers, in an online competition called Project Valour-IT.

More about the program, from Soldier's Angels:

Every cent raised for Project Valour-IT goes directly to the purchase and shipment of laptops for severely wounded service members. As of October 2007, Valour-IT has distributed over 1500 laptops to severely wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines across the country.

Valour-IT accepts donations in any amount to support the purchase and distribution of laptops, but also offers a sponsorship option. An individual or organization may sponsor a wounded soldier by completely funding the cost of a laptop and continuing to provide that soldier with personal support and encouragement throughout recovery. This has proved to be an excellent project for churches, groups of coworkers or friends, and members of community organizations such Boy Scouts.
Originally Valour-IT provided the voice-controlled software, but now works closely with the Department of Defense Computer/electronic Accommodations Program (CAP): CAP supplies the adaptive software and Valour-IT provides the laptop. In addition, DoD caseworkers serve as Valour-IT’s “eyes and ears” at several medical centers, identifying possible laptop recipients. Wounded military personnel can also directly request a laptop through the sign-up form or through the Valour-IT/Soldiers' Angels representatives at the following medical centers:

* Balboa Naval Hospital

* Brooke Army Medical Center

* Madigan Regional Medical Center

* National Naval Medical Center (Bethesda Naval Hospital)

* Naval Hospital, Camp Pendleton

* Robert E. Bush Naval Hospital (29 Palms)

* Walter Reed Army Medical Center

Thanks to the efforts of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Valour-IT is also able to reach patients in VA hospitals who would benefit from a Valour-IT laptop.

So here is what I'm asking of you, Confederate Yankee readers.

As was noted with unerring accuracy on a whiteboard somewhere in Iraq, "America is not at war. The Marines are at war. America is at the mall."

In addition to our Marines, of course, are tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors, and airmen, all putting their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan, and sometimes, those lives get shattered.

But there is something you can do. As part of "Team Air Force" I'd like to ask for Confederate Yankee readers to donate five dollars to Project Valour-IT. That's it. Just five bucks.

So many times I've caught myself almost donating to a worthy cause, and then I didn't, because our budget was tight that month. I wanted to donate a "worthwhile" amount, and was ashamed to offer the small amount I could possibly afford. Sound familiar?

But even on my worst day, I could squeeze five bucks out of my thin wallet for a worthy cause, even if I wish I had $50 or $500 to give. And so that's what I'm asking of you: five bucks.

Five bucks from every CY reader would be able to buy a voice-activated laptops for one of our brave wounded soldiers so that he can communicate with loved ones.

So please, donate just five bucks via the button below. Because they deserve it.

Because everything matters.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:28 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 This is a wonderful project and last year my college club (I am an advisor) gave Valor IT close to $700. This year we are making gift boxes and this saturday we are going to be at Bethesda handing them out.

Posted by: David at November 05, 2007 10:28 AM (K8BtQ)

2 Done, Dude, but I had to give some to Navy, too.

BTW, how come your blog isn't listed at Project Valour-IT under AF Team?

Posted by: Dusty at November 05, 2007 05:32 PM (GJLeQ)

3 As my blog is a member of the Navy team, Dusty, I'll say thank you.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 05, 2007 08:07 PM (PGjzz)

4 LOL, CCG. Welcome.

Posted by: Dusty at November 05, 2007 11:00 PM (GJLeQ)

5 Since I met Chuck himself (and went shootin' with him) at the Gunbloggers Rendezvous I had to go with the Infantry - even though my dad went to Annapolis.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at November 06, 2007 12:50 PM (VNM5w)

6 Zoomies unite! I'm happy to hit the jar.

Posted by: Pablo at November 06, 2007 06:39 PM (yTndK)

7 Consider the jar hit.

Posted by: J at November 09, 2007 11:23 AM (xkl0e)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 02, 2007

Shocker: Media Heavily Biased

Of course, this comes from the hard right-leaning people at The Limbaugh Letter Harvard University, so they are doubtlessly wrong:

Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."

The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.

Breaking it down by candidates, the survey found that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorites. "Obama's front page coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Clinton's was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative."

In stories about Republicans, on the other hand, the tone was positive in only a quarter of the stories; in four in 10 it was negative.

The study also discovered that newspaper stories "tended to be focused more on political matters and less on issues and ideas than the media overall. In all, 71% of newspaper stories concentrated on the 'game,' compared with 63% overall."

In related news, newspaper circulation is circling the drain. Do you think that these two stories just might be related in some way?

It has long been understood that newsrooms have been left-leaning for decades, and have been tilting further leftward, if slowly, over time. News consumers, however, have been more moderate throughout most of the country, and have been anchored against this leftward drift by the emergence of talk radio, the Internet, and cable television networks. As a result, the gap between the ever-more-liberal media and the average news consumer is widening not because of the public moving away from the media, but because of the media moving to the left of even many Democrats. This phenomenon is especially pronounced in print newsrooms on the coasts.

And so we see situations where the media exhibits a strong bias or even tells lies, and then swears the lie is the truth even when exposed.

And yet they act perplexed when their readers quit them in disgust.

Perhaps if responsible media organizations would actually stand up against those dishonest and unethical journalists, columnists and editors among them, instead of reveling in an incestuous "I'm okay, you're okay, can't we all get along" relationship, then we might be able to drum up some sympathy for them.

But they've done precious little to deserve our respect.

I've been told point-blank by journalists for national news organizations that their editors will not let them report on false stories or strongly-biased stories pushed by other organizations because of a warped sense of professional courtesy, and the very real fear that if that door was opened, that someone might then turn around and investigate short-comings at their magazine or newspaper.

Self-inflicted wounds, indeed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:55 PM | Comments (96) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

JPost Attributes Nuke Attack On Syria To Al Jazeera, Proving the Incompetence of Both Media Outlets

I suppose I should find it somewhat comforting to note that the international press is just as lazy as the American media, but when the subject is as deadly-serious as alleging a nuclear weapons attack, "comforting" is not the word that comes to mind.

The September 6 raid over Syria was carried out by the US Air Force, the Al-Jazeera Web site reported Friday. The Web site quoted Israeli and Arab sources as saying that two strategic US jets armed with tactical nuclear weapons carried out an attack on a nuclear site under construction.

The sources were quoted as saying that Israeli F-15 and F-16 jets provided cover for the US planes.

The sources added that each US plane carried one tactical nuclear weapon and that the site was hit by one bomb and was totally destroyed.

At the beginning of October, Israel's military censor began to allow the local media to report on the raid without attributing their report to foreign sources. Nevertheless, details of the strike have remained clouded in mystery.

As AllahPundit notes, it doesn't seem that this story is on the al Jazeera web site, so if it was published, it certainly didn't make it into the English-language version. JPost was sloppy in not proving more specific detail about the al Jazeera report, and for a claim of this magnitude, should have collected a screen capture or provided a link to the article.

If the JPost attribution is accurate, then al Jazeera article should be rebuked as lazy pandering to it's reader base of the lowest order, blatant propaganda, and incompetent reporting.

A few simple minutes of web searching would have revealed that tactical nuclear weapons suitable for this kind of attack, such as variants of the B61 or the ground-penetrating variant known as the B61-11, would have created a massive and distinctive signature, as noted by GlobalSecurity.org:

A 1-kiloton nuclear weapon detonated 20 to 50 feet underground would dig a crater the size of Ground Zero in New York and eject 1 million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the air. Detonating a similar weapon on the surface of a city would kill a quarter of a million people and injure hundreds of thousands more.

Nuclear weapons cannot be engineered to penetrate deeply enough to prevent fallout. Based on technical analysis at the Nevada Test Site, a weapon with a 10-kiloton yield must be buried deeper than 850 feet to prevent spewing of radioactive debris. Yet a weapon dropped from a plane at 40,000 feet will penetrate less than 100 feet of loose dirt and less than 30 feet of rock. Ultimately, the depth of penetration is limited by the strength of the missile casing. The deepest current earth penetrators, the B61 Mod 11, can burrow is 20 feet of dry earth. Casing made of even the strongest material cannot withstand the physical forces of burrowing through 100 feet of granite, much less 850 feet.

Even a minimal level of Internet research would have revealed that it is impossible for a nuclear warhead to have been used without immediate and noticeable effects including a massive crater, something approaching a million cubic feet of radioactive material being ejected into the air, and of course, a massive seismic shockwave that would have been recorded by other nations around the region.

Photographic evidence shows no such crater. There has been no radioactive fallout recorded in the region, nor was distinctive nuclear seismic shockwave reported by friend or foe.

Reporters for both al Jazeera and the JPost should have known that this story was hihgly suspect from the beginning and could have easily debunked it with minimal reasearch, but they obviously didn't want to let facts get in the way of a good story.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:47 AM | Comments (237) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 01, 2007

By the Light of the Silvery... Moon?

Not to be hyper-critical, but is this supposed to be a photo, or a photo-illustration?

I only ask because the object in the sky in this photo is as seems as bright as the sun, and yet, the soldier is clearly looking through a nightvision monocular mounted to his helmet. I suspect that NVG would do him very little good if the sun (or moon) was a bright as the picture suggests.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:50 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 31, 2007

TNR's Publisher Responds

Along with at least one other person who contacted Canwest Global CFO John McGuire as part of the letter-writing campaign, I received an email from Elisabeth Sheldon, publisher of The New Republic.

Dear Mr. Owens,



Thank you very much for your interest in The New Republic . Your concerns were forwarded to me from John Maguire in our corporate offices.

While getting conclusive information on the Beauchamp file has been challenging, the editorial team posted an update on the website last Friday, October 26.

You will have a complete response soon.

From a business perspective, the Baghdad Diarist represented 3 pages of over 1,100 editorial pages published during the past year. Yet, it has accounted for a hugely disproportioned amount of time in trying to deal with the response.

Please be assured that we share your interest in transparency and in clarifying TNR's position as soon as possible.

Once we publish the final findings of our investigation, we hope that your confidence in The New Republic will be fully restored.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Sheldon
Publisher

I responded to Publisher Sheldon and CC'd CFO Maguire:

Publisher Sheldon,

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond.

I do agree with you on a major point in your letter: getting conclusive information on the Beauchamp file has indeed been challenging, which is why, as an ethical publisher, you no doubt understand that when a part of a story, and entire story, or entire series of story contain elements that cannot be verified, it is incumbent on the publication to immediately retract some or all of those stories, even if conditionally.

We saw examples of how this should be addressed by publishing professionals last summer, when photographs taken by Adnan Hajj were discovered to have been manipulated on August 5, 2006. By August 7, after other discrepancies were found, Reuters "killed" all 920 pictures of Hajj's they had for sale, and by January 18, 2007 a top Reuters photo editor had been fired.

Reuters retracted the initial Hajj photo the same day it was discovered, and the next day disassociated themselves from the disgraced photographer after more evidence of doctored photos was found. 48 hours later, as a precautionary measure, they killed all of his work. A little more than five months later, Reuters fired the photo editor that let these manipulated photos slip into publication.

The comparisons between the Hajj case and the Beauchamp case are quite dissimilar.

When Michael Goldfarb challenged Beauchamp's story "Shock Troops" for the first time on July 18, his immediate responses came from soldiers in our military--experts, if you will--that strongly disputed the claims of the author, along with military vehicle experts. The New Republic had every reason to conditionally retract all three anecdotes in "Shock Troops" pending re-verification of the contentions of the author no later than the evening of July 18.

We all know, of course, that this did not happen. The story stayed up.

By July 20, it was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the author fabricated key elements of a previous story, "Dead of Night." In that story, the author claimed to have found a kind of pistol cartridge which does not exist. He also ascribes a murder to the Iraqi police because, "The only shell casings that look like that belong to Glocks. And the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police."

Had the editors of The New Republic made even a passing attempt at fact-checking this story, they would have quickly noted that there is no such thing as a square-backed 9mm cartridge. They would know that the Glock pistol chambers a standard 9mm NATO pistol cartridge, easily the most popular and reproduced pistol cartridge on planet Earth. They would also have known, if they had even bothered to try so much as a Google search, that the Glock, far from being a weapon only provided to the Iraqi police, is among the most widespread handguns in the country of Iraq.

Likewise, it was noted that the author's first story, "War Bonds" was predicated on the author meeting an Iraqi boy while pulling security for a Humvee that was having its tire changed on a urban patrol. Because of the threat of ambush, it is standard operating procedure to tow vehicles that are disabled. There is also the not so minor detail that Humvees are all equipped with run-flat tires, a fact published no later than July 25.

At this point a responsible publication should concede to grievous problems with the three stories they published by this author, conditionally retract all three of them, and explain that this was done to ensure that this was done out of a respect for the magazine's readers, and that an investigation would be conducted quickly and competently.

Of course, we know that didn't happen.

Instead, Franklin Foe claimed, and has claimed, that "Shock Troops" was "rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published," a statement disproven by Foer when he had to shift the time of one key claim months into the past, and into another country. Doing so demolished the entire premise of the story, and again, should have necessitated a full retraction of this article. Once again, the editors of The New Republic failed their readers.

It has gotten worse, of course.

On August 2, "The Editors" attempted to claim that in attempting to "re-report" this story they interviewed:

...current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively. And we sought assistance from Army Public Affairs officers...

We know that multiple Army Public Affairs officers told The New Republic that the story was false prior to this publication, including Major Kirk Luedeke at FOB Falcon and Sergeant First Class Robert Timmons.

Since then, quite a few more experts have come forward to deny this story, as I noted earlier this week in a comment elsewhere:

Col. Ricky Gibbs, commander of the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Multi-National Division-Baghdad. Beauchamp's CO. "He [Beauchamp] did admit to the investigating officer that the incidents did not take place."

Major John Cross, the investigating officer of the formal investigation which found all claims to be false.

First Sergeant Hatley, Beauchamp's Sgt, who stated from the beginning "not a single word of this was true."

Major Kirk Luedeke, FOB Falcon PAO.

Major Renee D. Russo. Kuwait-based PAO, called the burned woman claim an "urban myth or legend." Told that to TNR's Jason Zengerle months ago. TNR refused to print it.

William "Big Country" Coughlin, civilian contractor, Camp Arifjan Kuwait. Said such a woman never existed, other words unsuitable for print.

Doug Coffey, Head of Communications, Land & Armaments, for BAE Systems, manufacturer of the Bradley IFV. Debunked the physics/mechanics of the dog story. Also killed TNR's credibility when it was revealed TNR purposefully refused to provide him details of the story, in order to create their whitewash of an investigation with their "re-reporting."

Richard Peters, Iraq Veterans Against the War (formerly stationed at FOB Falcon in 2005-2006) who called Beauchamp's claims "elaborate lies" and Beauchamp himself a "loser."

There were, of course, more. There was a formal military investigation completed, and all of the claims made in "Shock Troops" we found false. Not just uncorroborated: false.

How have Franklin Foer and The New Republic defended their inaction to date?

They've failed to provide a single on-the-record statement by any expert or soldier to corroborate the author's claims. In fact, one of the experts interviewed by The New Republic, Doug Coffey, Head of Communications, Land & Armaments, for BAE Systems, revealed that The New Republic did not show him the claims made by Beauchamp at all, and once he did review the claims made in the story, found them highly unlikely.

In addition to failing to support the story, there is evidence that they have attempted to orchestrate a cover-up for the fact that they did not fact-check a single one of the author's stories prior to publication, even though claims made in those stories include acts of barbarity, cruelty, and even an spurious allegation of murder.

"Shock Troops" should have been conditionally withdrawn by the evening of July 18, and all three of the author's stories should have been withdrawn no later than July 20.

The Editors of The New Republic passed this point over three months ago. Since then, the editors in this story have only further dishonored themselves and the magazine as they concealed testimony, hid interviews, attacked the military, and other critics, and misused experts.

I would ask you, Publisher Sheldon, just how seriously you regard The New Republic's obligation to act within a framework of journalistic ethics, and to what standards you feel the editors of The New Republic should be held accountable.

Sincerely,

Bob Owens

It will be interesting to note how she choses to respond.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:15 PM | Comments (65) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 It will be interesting to note how she choses to respond.

I'll put $5 on "she chooses not to respond, at least not directly."

Posted by: C-C-G at October 31, 2007 09:19 PM (ysloH)

2 Bob,

I'm sure you noticed that your response from Elizabeth Sheldon was word for word the same as a response received by a commenter here.

As one of the primary investigators of this sordid little mess that TNR has dug up for itself, one might have thought TNR would do you the courtesy of a personalized response.

TNR knows who you are. CanWest knows who you are - they've been a-visiting here, so you've mntioned. And yet this is the response you get.

Sure seems completely dismissive to me.

Posted by: Justacanuck at October 31, 2007 09:29 PM (hgxwr)

3 Well, yeah.

I'm just a little blogger, and they're a respected magazine. They've got nothing to fear.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 31, 2007 09:33 PM (HcgFD)

4 Learn to use "who", "that" and "which" properly. It would help your writing.

Posted by: Jake at October 31, 2007 09:52 PM (a8C6P)

5 I learned how long ago. Putting it into practice is admittedly spotty at times...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 31, 2007 09:59 PM (HcgFD)

6 I believe you have received their response. It think it's telling when she states "the baghdad diarist represent 3 pages out of 1,100 editorial pages." The company line will be "you right wing nutjobs are blowing this all out of proportion. Move along."

Posted by: Tim at October 31, 2007 10:00 PM (qi6HT)

7 From a business perspective, the Baghdad Diarist represented 3 pages of over 1,100 editorial pages published during the past year. Yet, it has accounted for a hugely disproportioned amount of time in trying to deal with the response.

She seems to be mystified by this. How amusing. I will be surprised if she answers with anything more than yet another evasion. Good for you for keeping the pressure on!

Posted by: Teresa at October 31, 2007 10:12 PM (rVIv9)

8 i agree with Tim, Bob. you have heard from the TNR folks all you are going to hear.

the only thing you will hear from that publication going forward is the sound of wagons circling.

THEY believe Beauchamp, and they believe the worst about the troops and the allied mission in Iraq. Thus you will not hear from them again, imho.

Posted by: mike d at October 31, 2007 10:23 PM (9m/wk)

9 You're doing great work, Bob, bless you. I've personally gotten to the point where I don't care, anymore. I don't trust anything these people report, anyway, so why should it matter to me whether they retract this Beauchamp b.s. or hunker down and hope that it blows over?

Unfortunately, I think that they are hoping that all of us adopt the same attitude. So, I guess that the moral of the story is: Don't be like me. Keep fighting.

Posted by: SWLiP at October 31, 2007 10:45 PM (PqwKs)

10 From a business perspective, the Baghdad Diarist represented 3 pages of over 1,100 editorial pages published during the past year. Yet, it has accounted for a hugely disproportioned amount of time in trying to deal with the response.

You can always use the classic "6 sigma" approach... So it's okay to have 3 pages of over 1,100 pages that are complete lies? I guess it's okay to have 3 patients die of mysterious causes in a hospital with 1,100 beds.

Of course, she also skews the stats by mixing pure opinion editorial content with this content which is pure narrative.

Posted by: JFH at October 31, 2007 10:48 PM (/bUQy)

11 "Skip the rush to judgement, rush to boycott."

Er . . . what rush? Did you not understand a single word that Bob wrote? The entire point of his article is that the TNR editors have had three months to respond to these charges. That is far longer than Reuters needed to respond when Adnan Hajj's chicanery was exposed.

TNR's critics have been far more patient than the magazine deserves. Franklin Foer and his staff have failed to provide an appropriate response not because anyone is "rushing" them, but because Foer and company have chosen to stonewall, spin, and lie rather than admit that they screwed up.

How much longer is Bob obligated to wait, in your view? Another three months? Six months? A year?

Posted by: Pat at October 31, 2007 10:50 PM (0suEp)

12 Learn to use "who", "that" and "which" properly. It would help your writing.

Posted by: Jake at October 31, 2007 09:52 PM

This has to be one of Mr. Grammar/Spelling challenged by day - sock puppet by night Glenn Greenwald's editors I presume?

Posted by: Timber at October 31, 2007 10:51 PM (ryO1F)

13 "Learn to use "who", "that" and "which" properly. It would help your writing.

Posted by: Jake at October 31, 2007 09:52 PM"

Snotty Jake here has his eye on the prize. It doesn't matter how strong, how dispositive your evidence.

What REALLY matters is making sure one uses "who", "that" and "which" correctly on a blog, where typically nothing is proofread..

Granted, I'm all for proper grammar and syntax.

But fer GAWD's SAKE, Jake, can't you offer any opinion about the article itself, instead of giving us prissy comments not about what the author said, but how he said it?

Posted by: fulldroolcup at October 31, 2007 10:52 PM (NT2Kh)

14 That was odd. The comment I was replying to disappeared while I was composing my response. What happened?

Posted by: Pat at October 31, 2007 10:53 PM (0suEp)

15 I agree with the above, Bob. These people have an entirely different concept of Truth. What advances their agenda, and makes them feel good about themselves is "truth." It was Rather, I believe, that in all seriousness advanced the notion that something could be false, yet accurate.

There is just no dealing with such people. Their time has passed, but they don't see it. Time, Newsweek, and the old, gray woman are physically shrinking before our eyes, and yet they still believe...something.

Ms. Sheldon,

Your goose is cooked, but you can't see that it is plucked, and so are you.

Posted by: Bill Smith at October 31, 2007 11:03 PM (qCN0l)

16 ...represented 3 pages of over 1,100 editorial pages published during the past year...

Only 1097 pages left to fisk. I wonder how many more errors we will find.

Posted by: MagicalPat at October 31, 2007 11:12 PM (Rs/R9)

17 Reading that "3 [out of] 1100" comment I couldn't help thinking (I don't know why) of John Wilkes Booth and Abraham Lincoln. After all, Wilkes' bullet was just one out of millions fired by those supporting the Southern cause, yet "it accounted for a hugely disproportioned [sic] amount of time in trying to deal with the response." Sometimes size is irrelevant to importance.

Also, I'm with Jake on the grammar. It can make a huge difference in giving a professional appearance and can carry one a long, long way in getting taken seriously. It's not too much to ask when writing to a magazine to make an effort to get the grammar (and spelling) 99.9% correct. It's in any writer's best long-term interest.

As an example, Ms. Sheldon needs to bone up on the difference between "disproportioned" and "disproportionate". (As well as the difference between good journalism and shoddy journalism.)

Posted by: kcom at October 31, 2007 11:12 PM (JIczq)

18 Three of 1,100 leaves 1,097 stories still waiting to be fact-checked.

Posted by: J. Roth at October 31, 2007 11:24 PM (xrZlH)

19 Nifong tried the same game. He said he had "evidence." And, the defense wasn't allowed to have this presented to them in an organized manner.

Instead, one defense attorney, buying a book on reading DNA, sat with these thousands of entries, spread out on a conference table. To decern what Nifong tried to hide.

For this reason, in RULES OF EVIDENCE, the defense can have their own experts.

It might not look like a mistake, now. But the US ARMY did have control of Beauchamp. And, he was not made available to TNR. Then? Well, you get the Nifong presentation. You can buy it. Or not.

But for the US Army's PR machine to go after TNR, and ask them to surrender; overlooks the fact that our army should not be engaged in destroying liberal magazines. That's just a difference in points of view.

So far, this Iraqi engagement has cost us $3-trillion dollars. Maliki doesn't like Mr. Bush. And, we have troops in harm's way; among arabs who wouldn't mind killing our kids. We've had to learn protective measures.

This should not include going after a publication. Not without giving Franklin Foer the first thing he asked for: ACCESS. ACCESS DENIED. IS JUSTICE DENIED.

Posted by: Carol Herman at October 31, 2007 11:37 PM (q0Srt)

20 aside: Is calling her 'Publisher Sheldon' the appropriate way to start your letter, Blogger Owens?

Might be, but it sounds pretty funny .

Posted by: Kevin at October 31, 2007 11:45 PM (f0QzP)

21 I see that Ms. Herman hasn't been paying attention.

Posted by: Mark A. Flacy at November 01, 2007 12:19 AM (Ef+b7)

22 Oh, Ms. Herman has been paying attention, but Ms. Herman is attempting a bit of misdirection, and chaff flinging.

Bob has TNR nailed, and everybody knows it. What Nifong did, how Maliki feels, and the U. S. Army did NOT do, Ms. Herman, has zip to do with the facts presented.

Ms. Harman is trying the Rather defense: Our facts were wrong, but WE are right.

Whatever...

Posted by: Bill Smith at November 01, 2007 12:56 AM (qCN0l)

23 Carol - The U.S. Army is not making allegations against TNR. Their only actions were against Beauchamp. Check your facts.

If TNR has already 100% fact checked and rechecked the articles as they claim, they should not even need Beauchamp to prove the veracity of what they printed. Let them lay out their case. There is nothing they should be waiting for based on their prior statements.

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 01, 2007 01:07 AM (0pZel)

24 But the US ARMY did have control of Beauchamp. And, he was not made available to TNR.

Er, no, Carol. The only claim that "Beauchamp was not made available" was made by Franklin Foer. In every one of Foer's claims about this case that has been subject to independent examination, from "fact-checked before publication" to "we have been unable to speak...", Foer has been demonstrated to be lying.

The only things that Foer, TNR, and this Sheldon broad have come up with from their side are anonymous (nonexistent?) sources and unsourced and unverifiable allegations.

Stephen Glass at least tried to dummy up some evidence when he started TNR down the path of fabrication upon which others (serial fabricator Eve Fairbanks and now Foer hisownself) have kept the magazine.

They talk about the Army stonewalling, but consider the secrets they kept:

* the Beauchamp-Reeve connection
* the absence of pre-release fact-checking
* the phone call
* Beauchamp's refusal to stand by the story(!)
* Their own (Scoblic) conclusion that this merited retraction(!)
* Scoblic's backpedaling from involvement with the story (throwing Foer under bus?)
* the threat to Reeve's job in the phone call
* the subsequent execution of the threat
* the names of their corroborators (if any)
* the names of their military experts (ditto)
* the date, time and content of the FOIA filing (if any)

Transparency, my eye.

As an editor, Fabricating Franklin is a phony facsimile. In the phone conversation (which Fabricating Frank kept secret), Peter Scoblic says that Frank's reputation has been dragged through the mud. Sure it has, but only by Frank.

If you lie, you get a reputation as a liar. Ms Sheldon seems to think this terribly unfair. As she climbs down into Franklin Foer's mud.

Posted by: Kevin R.C. 'Hognose' O'Brien at November 01, 2007 01:10 AM (LkeNv)

25 I think your letter to Ms.Sheldon was too long. A shorter one would be:

Ms.Sheldon

Apparently when the "Weekly World News" ceased publication, you figured that the market niche for a publication that everybody knows is false had opened up. This is the only conclusion that can be drawn from your refusal to fire Franklin Foer so that his replacement can try to rebuild the shattered reputation of "The New Republic".

Posted by: Mark in Texas at November 01, 2007 01:33 AM (zoTIM)

26 How many of the 1,100 pages are advertising?

Perhaps they can rebrand themselves as publishers of war porn fiction. A lurid picture of a dog being run over by an M1A1 should be good for their first cover. Sad eyes with an "I know I'm going to die" look would be perfect.

I think (given the TNR attitude) that there is a big market for this stuff.

Throw in a couple of "no shit, I was there when it happened" type phrases and you have a real winner.

Posted by: M. Simon at November 01, 2007 05:17 AM (eeb3t)

27 Carol,

You are usually much better informed than you comment above indicates.

Either some one has stole your nic or you are losing your touch.

I vote for stolen nic. The above is too short for a real Carol Herman bit.

Simon

Posted by: M. Simon at November 01, 2007 05:28 AM (eeb3t)

28 "...represented 3 pages of over 1,100 editorial pages published during the past year...hugely disproportioned amount of time..." If those other 1097 pages had nothing but stories about alien abductions, predictions from Nostradamus about polar bears and chickpeas and Hollywood celebrity nonsense glitter, Beauchamp would have just been more background static.

Posted by: Kerry at November 01, 2007 05:53 AM (/FA98)

29 Yet, it has accounted for a hugely disproportioned amount of time in trying to deal with the response.

In other words, "You people with nothing better to do are wasting our valuable time."

To which I would respond, "And how much time was wasted investigating these scurrilous lies by an Army unit that has far more important things to do than you will ever, EVER have in your empty little lives?"

Posted by: DaveG at November 01, 2007 06:13 AM (0tHG6)

30 FYI, for anyone that is a long-time reader of Captain's Quarters, the above poster is not Carol Herman. The posters comments were a) completely understandable though deliberately false and b) she did not attempt to tie the topic in to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

The real Carol has a distinctive style that is a challenge to follow and indicative of a person who has experienced things that most of us have not. This Carol Herman is a drably ordinary inverse sock puppet troll.

Posted by: Immolate at November 01, 2007 07:27 AM (qHyi8)

31 Hmmm.

"The real Carol has a distinctive style that is a challenge to follow"

You got that right in one buddy.

It usually takes me a couple complete readings to unravel a real Carol Herman posting.

Posted by: memomachine at November 01, 2007 09:44 AM (3pvQO)

32 The Publisher mentioned an editorial error rate of three-tenths of one percent. One may look at business operations and be extremely happy that 99.997% of transactions are correctly processed.

I am a shareholder of a $2.2 billion dollar company with $2.0 billion in expenses. The 3/10 of 1% error rate applied to expenses means $6 million was not correctly processed. That is alot of shareholder money not sitting in my bank account.

Posted by: john43085 at November 01, 2007 10:31 AM (/GMul)

33 I respectfully disagree with commenters that believe TNR "screwed up" or "made a mistake" and should just admit it.

The editors of TNR are fully vested - emotionally, financially and politically, in their own country losing a war. Accordingly, we MUST lose the war. Period. Beauchamp's articles fit the narrative. Why check them? The ends justifies the means. Plus, the Franklin Foers of the world just KNOW that the US Military is full of the types of people depicted by Beauchamp. Fake but accurate.

TNR and the rest of far left that control the DNC will stop at nothing short of taking up arms themselves and fighting our troops to ensure that we lose the war. They just tried to alienate Turkey, a key ally, didn't they? They consistently lie about the war and our military don't they?

The MSM are the enemy. That may be emotionally unpleasant for some Americans, but its the truth.

Posted by: BDT at November 01, 2007 11:04 AM (T0uPR)

34 M. Simon, nobody stole my "nic." As a matter of fact, I can prove to you that it is ME. Because you once sent me in search of BASIL LIDDELL HART. Remember?

As to TNR's silence, I'm not so sure it isn't a winning device.

Here. Let me show you why.

One of the hardest things to do in selling, is "THE CLOSE." And, when people learn how do do it, well. They learn that as soon as THEY CLOSE, the shut up. To talk, is to weaken your position. And, you lose the sale.

SO. No matter how long it takes. You don't say a word. ALL THE WORDS THAT FLOW FROM OTHERS; are on the losing side. You just hold your pen, available. SO you can get the contract signed.

TNR? They asked to speak directly to Beauchamp, when the PR machinery of the Army went into full gear.

Sure. This could work if a judge was incipid. If he didn't know what happened to Nifong, from a hole in the wall. And, he didn't know that in America, under the US Constitution, we have an ADVERSARIAL posture. So, the prosecution "rests." And, the defense is entitled to have ALL the information being used to "convict." As well as the opportunity to have their own experts.

Beauchamp wasn't made available, though.

So, TNR just "shut up."

Some day, ahead, things will calm down enough; other issues will rise up. (Like the troubles Condi is having at State, now. With rebellion from diplomats who don't want to be forced into Baghdad.) Whole other issue. But it's out there.

Seems Irak ain't paradise. And, more than dogs in the streets get run over. (Do arabs even have dogs? They hate them so. Being a dog in Irak must be awful business.)

By the way, one thing we won't have from Irak, is either Paris. Or Saigon. And, the saud's aren't entertaining our troops, either. How come? Aren't the arabs supposed to be generous with hospitality? How come the saud's can treat our troops like crap. As if all they are ... are ass wipes for the Saud's grand plans ... without having a day of comeuppance?) You think I'm kidding?

Oh, I'm not the only American fatigued by Bush's crappy maneuvers. And, Rice? I hope she gets it good right on the grounds where she's "da boss." She's certainly not respected!

Rice or Beauchamp? Whose respected least? Nah. I don't care whom you choose.

Posted by: Carol Herman at November 01, 2007 12:34 PM (q0Srt)

35 You know, it's true. Most Americans don't like to read.

Heck, to write a best selling book in our world, all you have to do is sell less than one hundred thousand copies. (And, some of those go to libraries. Stuck up on shelves. Going unread.)

Posted by: Carol Herman at November 01, 2007 12:36 PM (q0Srt)

36 Carol,

If this thing with TNR was a 'business deal', you are completely correct in your analysis. However, since it is not, your 'closing' argument is based on fallacy and is, therefore, just as false.

As for the rest...huh? What the *bleep* does that have to do with this topic other than being a nice distracting segue?

Posted by: Mark at November 01, 2007 12:46 PM (4od5C)

37 Keep at 'em Bob! Those that can not see the importance of holding TNR to account are simply ignorant of duties of the journalist, editor, and publisher. The fact that these people are earmarked by the US Constitution as bearers of our information indicates there is a responsibility. The fact that journalists, editors, and publishers/producers have shirked their responsibility to manufacture ani-US and Anti-Bush information is what this Beauchamp story and the TNR's refusal to retract is all about.

Posted by: mekan at November 01, 2007 12:54 PM (hm8tW)

38 Bob, have you seen this?
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/10/in-defense-of-1.html

It looks like Beauchamp may not have made up the dog story out of whole cloth.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 01, 2007 12:55 PM (vMRk5)

39 "Beauchamp wasn't made available, though."

I know it's pointless to respond, but, yes, in fact, he was. At first he, himself, refused to talk to TNR, or anyone else. A bit later on, he evidently DID talk to TNR (although they never let on that such a conversation had taken place.) You perhaps have seen the transcript of that conversation? (If not, check out: http://hotair.cachefly.net/mm/stb1.pdf ) And Foer claims there was at least one more conversation.

(No word on whether Nifong was present at any of these phone conversations, however....)

Posted by: notropis at November 01, 2007 12:58 PM (cP1DU)

40 john43085- It's worse than you state. 1,097/1,100= 99.73% correct. You are correct in stating that 3/10th of one -percent were incorrect, but that means that 99.7% were correct, not 99.997%

Posted by: Dave S. at November 01, 2007 01:02 PM (Irbkv)

41 You deserve a big pat on the back for your efforts, and keeping us updated on your blog - thanks, Bob.

And in a world of words like "prioritize", "orientate", and "effectuate", I think you can be forgiven for your few grammatical lapses.

Posted by: Andy Robson at November 01, 2007 01:12 PM (Yddsb)

42 IMO, at least a part of the explanation for TNR's behavior is marketing.

TNR's historically been a magazine of the liberal / left. Where Bush is concerned, though, TNR didn't succumb to BDS as quickly as its audience (and it paid a price for its apostasy).

As I recall, on taking his post, Foer let it be known that he intended to "re-connect" TNR with its historical audience. Printing the Bea-chump stuff was just part of that 'reconnection'.

So here's what's happened / happening:

They ran with the stories initially because Foer, et al. knew they'd be welcome / prove popular with their target audience . . . consider them a "mea culpa" for being late to the party.

Then they blew up in Foer's face. Now what? Given his business plan, TNR's painted itself into a corner: not only will the target audience welcome (and swallow whole) Foer's "Army coercion / stonewall" claim - in fact, I suspect Foer thinks it will ultimately be 'good for business' - they also know/believe TNR will be punished by the same audience if it "backs down."


By Foer's calculations, the people who are offended by the fraud perpetrated by TNR don't read the magazine in the first place, so he's going to play to his audience. And that means continuing to insist it's true & accusing the Army of coercion / cover up.

Posted by: BD at November 01, 2007 01:13 PM (ezlAc)

43 Memo to Elisabeth Sheldon, cc: Franklin Foer

Here's how to deal with a contributing writer exhibiting a now obvious lack of accuracy in the assertions they've published using your good name.

It's something I thought I'd never post about HuffBlo, but here it is: Kudos Arianna.

Posted by: Justacanuck at November 01, 2007 03:32 PM (hgxwr)

44 Only 3 of 1100, eh?

Good thing she doesn't run an airline.

"Only 3 of 1100 flights have resulted in crashes. Aside from those, our safety record is perfect."

Posted by: Scott R. Lucado at November 01, 2007 05:32 PM (Xon+C)

45 I can't get TNR to cancel my subscription and return my money. Feel free to use my online access: mp@well.com, pswd: trashit

Posted by: M. Phillips at November 01, 2007 05:37 PM (kbeIu)

46 Hmmm.

@ Grey Fox

It looks like Beauchamp may not have made up the dog story out of whole cloth.

Take it from someone who has spent a lot of time inside of armored vehicles.

There's a HUGE difference between a hummer and an armored vehicle.

So no. That link doesn't actually do anything to support Beauchamp. Sorry.

Posted by: memomachine at November 02, 2007 02:12 PM (3pvQO)

47 memomachine,
I think the point of the post was that troops occasionally run down dogs for fun. Hence the "whole cloth" comment. I think it has been pretty well proven that they couldn't run down dogs in the way Beauchamp described, so he was still making stuff up. And, running down dogs was the least of the things Beauchamp claimed, so it hardly validates Beauchamp even if every word concerning dogs was true. I just though that Bob might be interested.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 02, 2007 03:20 PM (hGVB/)

48 Michael Yon had an opportunity to interview Mr. Beauchamp but declined. Mr. Beauchamp was offered a chance to leave Iraq but declined according to Michael from an interview with his CO. Thus Mr. Beauchamp has stayed to face his fellow soldiers and continue the fight. Good for him. That could be a story in itself. He has more guts than TNR management in this situation.

Posted by: amr at November 02, 2007 09:17 PM (AiJXe)

49 AMR, you are correct. Beauchamp does deserve credit for making up with his fellow soldiers and finishing his tour of duty.

Beauchamp seems like a guy who got in over his head and is now working on setting things straight.

Therefore, and for that, I salute him.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 03, 2007 08:29 AM (PGjzz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A Few Notes on "Emailgate"

I've seen over the past several days that Glenn Greenwald is focusing his attention to delving over emails attributed to Col. Steven Boylan, a U.S. Army officer currently serving as the public affairs officer to General David Petraeus [full disclosure: I’ve used Col. Boylan as a source several times, due in no small part to the fact that he is a Public Affairs Officer] .

And who am I to mind bloggers paying attention to words that our soldiers wrote? Frankly, I think that's just grand.

This particular story started when someone purporting to be Boylan sent Greenwald a scathing unsolicited email several days ago, which Greenwald dutifully published, along with follow-up conversations between Greenwald and Boylan, where Boylan claims that he did not send the original email and that he wasn't all that worried about the imposter.

After numerous updates to that page, Greenwald wrote about it again here, here, and again today, here.

Greenwald is notably convinced of several things:

• That the email header information indicates that that the original email did, in fact, originate from Boylan or someone with the ability to fake that information convincingly;
• that the military needs Greenwald's email to track down whoever sent the original email;
• that this exchange, however it began, is indicative of a military attempt to control the media "when they step out of line;"
• that somehow, this is all the Bush Administration's fault.

I will readily agree with Greenwald on the first point, that the email header seems to indicate this came from the same computer as other email’s attributed to Col. Boylan. Whether that IP address in question belongs to an email server used by hundreds of troops, is Boylan's personal computer, or is entirely spoofed, I have no idea.

I am quite certain, however, that the military needs no help at all from Greenwald in tracking this email down internally. If a rag-tag group of bloggers can track a bunch of Greenwald-approving blog comments under various names back to Greenwald's own IP address, then I'm rather certain that that the Army's own IT guys can muddle through in determining whether or not an email originated from their own server, without his technical wizardry. If the disputed email is indeed authentic, it would be recorded on the Army email server's log files, which they obviously have, which could track it back to the computer in question, which they could then traced to the user ID of who was logged-on to that computer at the time.

As for whether or not such an email, if real, would constitute a military attempt to control the media "when they step out of line," I would gently ask the noted First Amendment scholar Greenwald to note where it states that soldiers give up all their constitutional rights to free speech once they put on a uniform.

Is it only when they disagree with liberals?

I ask because while the questionable email that started this particular conflagration was no doubt scathing, and emails apparently from Col.Boylan to other bloggers also disputed some of their content and fact-finding efforts, I fail to see how these private emails to bloggers were somehow inappropriate, unless Greenwald thinks that he and his compatriots should be able to attack the military—even to the point of fabrication—without any response.

Greenwald has a long and mercilessly well-documented history of being unable to take criticism. Somehow, I think that has as much to do with his focus on this topic than any real concern over a military email server may have been compromised.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:57 PM | Comments (81) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Well said. He is making himself look like a bigger idiot than he usually does.

Posted by: Pam at October 31, 2007 04:47 PM (UWHnN)

2 Hey Glenn -- help me out here:

You've said recently:

The overt politicization of our military in Iraq -- working closely and in secret only with Drudge, The Weekly Standard and right-wing blogs -- seems at least as important as the monumental issue of what Franklin Foer knew and when he knew it.

Now Glenn, I'm sure some here might take that as a bit of sarcasm, but alas, we know better.

We also know that your latest monumental issue is quite dear to you personally. Whether or not you were pantsed by a sockpuppet or a real PAO (insert irony alert) must weigh heavily on your mind. (Being pantsed is already in evidence)

Could we please ask you to put aside your work on today's monumental issue and set your sights back to the Beauchamp/TNR affair? So many would thank you for putting your investigative talents to use there. Perhaps you might ask Franklin Foer if he in fact aware of Scott Beauchamp's real IP address. After all, whether or not Beauchamp actually sent these articles to Foer has yet to be proven - it might have been a sock. Your reknown mastery of IP addresses should quickly help us determine who said what and when. Please give this some thought.

Heckofajob Greenie.

Posted by: Justacanuck at October 31, 2007 05:08 PM (hgxwr)

3 I would gently ask the noted First Amendment scholar Greenwald to note where it states that soldiers give up all their constitutional rights to free speech once they put on a uniform.

And I’ll gently reply, Bob, that there are quite a few “free speech” activities that someone wearing a uniform cannot engage in and are prohibited by law from doing.


Federal Law (Titles 10, 2, and 18, United States Code), Department of Defense (DOD) Directives, and specific military regulations strictly limit a military active duty person's participation in partisan political activities.

Cannot - Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
Cannot - Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against of a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

Cannot - Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

There is a long list of other “cannots” that you might want to familiarize yourself with.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/milpolitics.htm

Posted by: Steve at October 31, 2007 06:20 PM (MN8Pv)

4 Oh, I am well aware of at least some of those--especially as it relates to speaking at political events, which has gotten soldiers in trouble recently--I've just seen no evidence that Boylan or other PAOs have done anything approaching that, protests from the Naomi Wolf/Glenn Greenwald wing of the Democrat Party duly noted.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 31, 2007 06:27 PM (HcgFD)

5 Salon.com has done a complete article about this, including interviews with a number of computer experts. It's highly unlikely that anyone other than Boykin sent the message. If you will quit jerking your knee long enough to look at the evidence, you'd see that too.

Posted by: John at October 31, 2007 06:45 PM (JqaKd)

6 John, If you read Salon closely, you'll note that they said essentially the same thing I did: the header information were able to narrow it down to a couple of computers on the military network. They never indicated that they were able to see beyond a mail server, which is what I speculated these computers may be even before I read their article.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 31, 2007 06:50 PM (HcgFD)

7 Steve - You need to remember that Bush isn't running in 2008 and that the Iraq War was approved by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress. Correcting misinformation is not a political activity even if Greenwald believes it to be so.

The e-mail in question wasn't supporting or questioning individual candidates or parties. Where do you see the offending violations?

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 31, 2007 07:09 PM (0pZel)

8 Bob - Another point to add. Greenwald has also concluded that the Army is doing nothing to investigate the e-mail matter or its IT security because they have not informed HIM of what they are doing in those regards. The clowns.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 31, 2007 07:11 PM (0pZel)

9 It all boils down to whether the Army's network assigns IP addresses dynamically or statically, and if statically, how often they are renewed, and whether or not they are assigned new addresses at renewal time.

Basically, a dynamic IP address changes every time a computer logs on. A static IP address is "leased" for a certain period of time (90 days is pretty standard in the non-military world, not sure what it would be in the military). The network administrator (a/k/a the "Alpha Geek") can also set most networks to renew the same address every time, or force a new address each time it is renewed... for ease of administration, most civilian net admins choose to renew with the same address... Alpha Geeks are notoriously lazy.

Therefore, without that information being released by the Army (and for their own computer security, I would expect that they will never release details like those), all Greenwald and his ilk can do whine.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 31, 2007 07:37 PM (ysloH)

10 So Socky McSockpuppet's rag has yet another post up on this silly affair. Greenie's bunkmate Farhad Manjoo has posted a rambling bunch of quotes and links seeking to portray Boylan as passionate about his job. Who knew?

Amongst all that waste of electrons can be found this huge steaming pile:

But neither Michelle nor Steven Boylan had anything to do with a curious e-mail recently sent to an elderly Vermont man. Late in September, the Brattleboro Reformer, a newspaper in southern Vermont, reported that police had uncovered an effort to defraud 81-year-old Fred Humphrey, who was looking to rent out his vacation cabin in nearby Guilford. Someone claiming to be Lt. Col. Steve Boylan (Boylan was promoted to colonel from lieutenant colonel) had inquired, in a series of e-mails, about renting the cabin as a surprise present for his godson in England. The e-mailer even sent Humphrey a check for $3,000, $2,500 over the asking price, asking that the difference be remitted to an address in New York. Police contacted Boylan in Iraq and determined that he wasn't the fellow behind the rental request. The $3,000 check, unsurprisingly, turned out to be bogus.

Salon attempted to acquire the fake Boylan e-mails from Humphrey in order to examine their headers, but Humphrey did not return our calls. The company through which Humphrey rents his cottage would not provide Salon with the e-mails without Humphrey's consent. In the Reformer's report, however, Humphrey describes the fake Boylan's letters as "worded in rather stilted language" and missing key words. "It didn't seem like someone who had risen to the rank of lieutenant colonel would write like that," Humphrey said.

The disputed e-mail messages to Greenwald -- as well as all of the blog posts bearing Boylan's name on the Web -- are not at all stilted. Indeed, they all share a strident tone, oozing confidence.

It's now quite apparent the brilliant researchers at Salon have never even thought to ask their very own IT department to explain the mysteries of IP addresses, mail servers and spam to them. If they had in fact bothered to get out from behind their keyboards to ask a few questions, they might have a working hypothesis of who might be behind Boylan's e-mail.

And if any of the crack Salon researchers had actually talked to someone in IT, this brilliant report by Farhad Manjoo would not have included the breathless 291 words I've quoted above. If Farhad or SockyGreenPuppet had bothered to ask one of their IT geeks - any geek who knows anything at all about e-mail, they wouldn't be wasting their impressive investigative skills trying to obtain an e-mail sent to an 81 year old.

Instead, we now know that Farhad and/or his researchers are incompetent and perhaps by the time I post this, someone will have already clued him in on what a 419 scam is.

What's next Greenie & Farhad? Will you next be insinuating that Boylan is possibly behind the next penile enlargement/Cheap Viagr@/stock pump'n'dump e-mail that comes with his name attached?

You guys have proven beyond a doubt that professional asshattery can be a paying job.

Posted by: Justacanuck at October 31, 2007 09:58 PM (hgxwr)

11 Justacanuck, I suspect that Farhad thinks that computers still use tubes.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 31, 2007 10:16 PM (ysloH)

12 Okay, so if it wasn't Boylan then it was someone else within the Army's network. Either that, or a hacker broke into the military's computers to forge intemperate e-mails under Boylan's signature. Come on, none of that passes the smell test and you know it.

Posted by: John at November 01, 2007 03:54 AM (JqaKd)

13 C-C-G,

To reduce power consumption and space requirements I believe they use nuvistors. 6CW4s. A tasty little number almost as small as a CK722.

Posted by: M. Simon at November 01, 2007 05:47 AM (eeb3t)

14 Mr. Socketty Sock Puppets hatred for the military makes the code pinkies look downright patriotic in comparison.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at November 01, 2007 08:31 AM (Lgw9b)

15 Simon, and the internet (invented by Algore, don't forget) is made up of lots of pipes, too?

Posted by: C-C-G at November 01, 2007 08:41 AM (ysloH)

16
Okay, so if it wasn't Boylan then it was someone else within the Army's network. Either that, or a hacker broke into the military's computers to forge intemperate e-mails under Boylan's signature. Come on, none of that passes the smell test and you know it.


I find the "hacker" explanation you postulate highly unlikely. If someone was able to penetrate this email server, I think they would have somethig more useful to do than mimic a PAO, such as stealing data.

I've little doubt that the author is indeed someone within the military network. As a result, I'm rather confident that an investigation is underway, somehow muddling through without Glenn's superfluous email or advice.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 01, 2007 08:50 AM (0BhZ5)

17 Hmmmmm.

1. It's possible to spoof email headers.

What the email headers are is a section of the email that lists the servers in turn that received the email and then sent it on. There is no perfect guarantee that the email in question actually traversed the servers in this list and it's very possible that someone simply edited the email headers to include US Army or DOD email servers when in fact the email didn't originate from any of those.

Remember folks. Email headers are just text appended to the body of the email. It's nothing more complex than that. And anybody with any experience in SMTP or TCP/IP programming can spoof email headers.

2. It's possible that a US Army or DOD email server, or any workstation or computer authorized to access one, was compromised to send this email. Why they would do so and then send a fake email to Socky McSockpuppet is frankly beyond me but it's possible.

3. Socky McSockpuppet is making all this up. He got an email or two from Lt. Col. Boylan and then edited the body of the email to make it far more advantageous for himself. The US Army or DOD email servers will have the the transmission of the email logged on it's servers and may, or may not, have the email in question stored in a backup log somewhere. They probably do as it's SOP for large organizations to have complete copies of all emails sent or received but you never know.

I really doubt this but Socky McSockpuppet has done some questionable things in the past to get attention so that's always a possibility.

Posted by: memomachine at November 01, 2007 09:40 AM (3pvQO)

18 A question and a comment.

CY, have you corresponded with Boylan?

Now the comment: Your jerking knee is getting sliced by Occam's Razor. Look, all you have to do is compare Boylan's latest e-mails to Greenwald to his earlier ones. Also, look at what Editor & Publisher has written. It's highly likely that Greenwald is telling the truth and that Boylan is lying.

Also, I didn't postulate a hacker explanation. You implied it earlier. I highlighted its absurdity. Look, I do realize that Boylan is a right-winger like you, and that you want to stick together. But there's no need to be a fool about it.

Posted by: John at November 01, 2007 09:52 AM (JqaKd)

19 It's highly likely that Greenwald is telling the truth and that Boylan is lying.

John, the problem with Greenwald on this one is not his facts (which is a nice change of pace), but his conclusions, which are quite stupid, the most blatant of which is that somehow the Army needs him to sort this out.

What is it that you think Boylan's lie is? If he did write the original email and send it under his own name, why would he then say he didn't? Do you suppose he thought an egotistical hack like Gleen(s) wouldn't mention it?

Posted by: Pablo at November 01, 2007 10:16 AM (yTndK)

20 To answer your question, yes, I did contact Boylan, and he told me the same thing as he told Greenwald: the initial email wasn't from him. Take that claim for whatever you think it is worth.

I never implied a hacker explanation, in the main post or the comments.

A hacker would hack into the system, use Boylan's account, and send the email. I never stated or implied that occurred. In fact, I postulated that I thought the only way someone outside of the military could have sent this is if the message was spoofed--sent by someone not at all on the military's network, but able to fake the headers convincingly.

This leaves us with two possiblities: either Boylan sent the original email, or someone at his base logged-on to his account and sent the email.

I agree that, looking at the what we have for evidence, that it is most likely that Col. Boylan sent the original message and then disavowed it for reasons unknown.

I'm puzzled as to why he would disavow the message. It was not political in nature, though certainly scathing. Of course, I'm puzzled as to why anyone would care enough about Greenwald to initiate a conversation with him in the first place.

I'm sure we'll know which is correct soon enough.

If Boylan sent it I wold imagine it would be easy to prove and I imagine he will be reassigned rather quickly, probably within a week. You can easily tell if that occurs becuase someone else would step into his role, which is not an unnoticable one.

If however, someone else used his ID (the only other internal option I see), they may be able to prove or diprove that theory quickly as well. At his level, Boylan spends a lot of time in meetings. If the message was sent at a time he could be verified to be in a meeting with other officers or even off base, that would clear him rather quickly.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 01, 2007 10:25 AM (EPsu8)

21 Another question, and a comment:

Posted by: John at November 01, 2007 10:59 AM (JqaKd)

22 Had you corresponded with Boylan prior to this incident?

Now for my comment. I'll split the difference on the hacker issue. I'm an old fart. What I don't know about computers fills books. To me, spoofing and hacking are one in the same. Maybe that's wrong. So score one for you. On the other hand, you raised doubts over whether Boylan actually sent the message, and your fellow right-wingers have taken up the attack. You ought to be scolding them, if you can bring yourself to do it.

In any case, you appear sane enough to notice that, if a liberal tells you the sun rises in the East, he's being truthful. We agree on what's really at issue here, which is that Boylan likely sent the e-mail. It's an open question as to whether the Army will investigate the matter to begin with, much less reveal the truth.

Boylan is a public affairs officer, and a fairly senior officer in the military. He is sworn to serve the United States, which includes all of us. As a PIO, it's part of his job to be reasoned, reasonable, accessible, articulate, and truthful. The tone of his e-mails is unacceptable. If he worked for a private company, he'd be fired for the tone of his comments.

If (as seems likely) he has lied about this Greenwald incident, he not only failed at his PIO job but he's put a stain on the Army. I notice that you've been aggressive in the case of a young private who wrote an article that contained some inaccuracies and exaggerations.

That kid is an amateur who's just starting out in life, but you and others have put him through the meat grinder. Boylan is experienced and senior, and there is every indication that he is a liar. CY, this is an integrity test. Not just for Boylan, but for you.

Posted by: John at November 01, 2007 11:01 AM (JqaKd)

23 John - Why don't you point out the innaccuracies and exaggerations in the e-mail that Boylan allegedly sent rather than just making a bald statement? Greenwald did a piss poor job of refuting it in his original response and has repeatedly mangled the facts of the Beauchamp matter. Lying, exaggeration and exaggeration are par for the course for Greenwald. Why don't you point out where you feel they exist in the offending e-mail that has Greenwald still hyperventilating?

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 01, 2007 11:15 AM (0pZel)

24 I wouldn't piss off Greenwald - he can field an army of millions of sock puppets with the stroke of a key.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 01, 2007 11:58 AM (XDffs)

25 That kid is an amateur who's just starting out in life, but you and others have put him through the meat grinder.

False. We put the magazine TNR through the ringer and continue to do so due to their lying and covering-up lies. The story is no longer about Beauchamp, and has not been for months.

Boylan is experienced and senior, and there is every indication that he is a liar. CY, this is an integrity test. Not just for Boylan, but for you.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Re-read CY's post. He very clearly stated in his original post, and in several follow-up comments to you, that he believes either Boylan wrote the email or that someone within the Army at his location wrote the email. He further stated that he believes that the Army is investigating and we will find out soon which is true. As to Boylan lying, the only lie would be if he indeed wrote the email that he disclaimed. The email itself contained no lies. And, despite your assertions otherwise, the email itslef did not violate any laws or Army regulations for him to have sent it.

However, I do agree that if he sent it, the tone of it was not an appropriate email from a senior Army official, particularly a PAO. But, there is an enormous difference between feeling the tone was unprofessional and claiming Boylan did something illegal - which is what you are trying to imply.

You also state that It's an open question as to whether the Army will investigate the matter to begin with, much less reveal the truth.

Having been in the Army and conducted and/or advised investigating officers, I can tell you that the Army is much quicker to investigate iteslf and/or its people than any Democrat ever has been in regards to a liberal. Almost any claim of misconduct will be investigated ad naseum, regardless of how meritless the accusations are. So, have no fear, this will be investigated.

In any case, you appear sane enough to notice that, if a liberal tells you the sun rises in the East, he's being truthful. We agree on what's really at issue here, which is that Boylan likely sent the e-mail. It's an open question as to whether the Army will investigate the matter to begin with, much less reveal the truth.

This is amusing coming from the side of the aisle that still defends TNR, "fake but accurate" Dan Rathers, and numerous other obvious falsehoods.

He is sworn to serve the United States, which includes all of us. As a PIO, it's part of his job to be reasoned, reasonable, accessible, articulate, and truthful. The tone of his e-mails is unacceptable. If he worked for a private company, he'd be fired for the tone of his comments.

I'm glad you find the tone of his email unnacceptable. Would that leftist considered the tone of their "arguments" the same way and actually engaged in reasoned debate rather than "Bush Lied" or calling everyone a racist/bigot/homophobe/sexist, etc., etc., when they disagree with a policy. It is a very one-way street with leftists. They want to be treated with kid gloves but have no limits on their own vicious rhetoric. While I think the tone of his email (if Boylan did send it) was unprofessional, it does not bother me that much - and it is up to his superior officers to decide whether it is acceptable or not.

Its too bad that the left is focusing on the "tone" of the email and not the fact that his comments in the email were correct with regards to Greenwald.

Posted by: Great Banana at November 01, 2007 12:03 PM (IDPbq)

26 You seem to have me confused with some sort of knee-jerk liberal. I'm not that. What I am is the son of a man who worked his way up the ranks of one of the largest corporations in the world and eventually became their director of public affairs. I come from a family of independent, moderate ticket splitters, and I have continued the tradition.

I came close to following in my father's footsteps, but he persuaded me to take a different direction. He told me I should be running the place instead of speaking for it. I followed his advice and went into business. Made a lot of money, and then I retired.

Like a lot of retired men, I spend too much time on the Internet. I look at it differently than many. I ponder the wreckage. It's a never-ending journey, and it took me to this little corner of the universe last weekend.

My father, who passed on a few years ago, was a brilliant man. To say I respect him would be a gross understatement. He was one of those rare fathers who could impart his knowledge and wisdom to his sons without making them feel small. When it came to the public relations stuff, a couple things stand out in reference to this situation.

In the 1950s, when he was starting out and had a family of three kids with another on the way, the company got in a bind and my father's boss instructed him to lie. He tried to persuade the boss that this was a bad idea, that lying to reporters was not only wrong but that it was counterproductive.

His boss refused to back down, so at the age of 29 he got an appointment with the president of this corporation, a very conservative man in his 60s. He told the president of one of the largest corporations in the world that he believed in the company and would do everything he could to put its best foot forward, but in no circumstance would he lie for the company, and that if the company wanted liars in its p.r. department then he'd have to look for another job.

Mind you, this was in the day when people didn't "job hop," especially from that place. Every time I read some movie review praising some actor for making a "brave" movie I laugh and think of my father. The president of the company looked my father in the eye and told him that he didn't want liars in his p.r. department either. Within a week, my father's boss was out and my father was the boss.

This man taught me that you don't lie, and that the test of a man is whether he will lie when telling the truth might cost him. No need to lead with your chin, but if you have to lie to keep a job then find something else to do even if you have to eat sawdust for a while.

Boylan told a direct, unambiguous lie. It's obvious. That's not acceptable. I'm not naive. I know that people play games, and I know that there are ambiguities and tough situations that can be read in more than one way. This wasn't one of them. Boylan lied, and liars have no business serving as colonels in the Army, and they certainly have no business dealing with journalists.

The other lessons that applies here is the need to be temperate and even handed. If you can't see the lack of those qualities in Boylan's e-mails, there's nothing I can do to convince you. All I can do is suggest that you take off those red-colored glasses and be honest about it, if your capable of doing that. That's a big "if" from what I can see.

Posted by: John at November 01, 2007 12:18 PM (JqaKd)

27 I forgot the other lesson, maybe because it was my mother who taught it and not my father. I know how quaint it will sound, but so be it. There was a vacant lot in our suburb and it was a dangerous place, or so or mothers thought anyway. You know how mothers are. They have a different view of danger than their eight-year-old sons.

I was instructed not to go there until I was old enough, which meant when I was 10. Two years! A lifetime! My friends went there, of course. Some of their parents were more tolerant, or so they said.

This was the early 1960s, and back in those times where I grew up, you had de facto aunts and uncles everywhere. You know, "It takes a village?" One of my unseen aunts saw me head into the lot with my buddies, and a few days later my mother confronted me. I didn't lie, because my father had already taught me that the lowest form of life is a liar.

Instead I said that she was the only one of my friends' mothers who wouldn't let her third-grader play in the vacant lot. I don't care what everyone else's mother says, she told me. I told you not to go there. You knew I didn't want you there. You promised me you wouldn't go there. I missed dinner that night.

When I complained to my father, he said I'd better not try that kind of end-run again. And just to make that lesson stick, I spent the following weekend raking leaves.

I don't care if Glenn Greenwald claims that the U.S. Army is a team of invaders from outer space. It doesn't give Boylan a license to lie, and it's no reason for anyone else to defend his conduct. I thought you people claimed to be conservatives. Where are your traditional values? Stop it with the knee-jerking, and be honest.

Posted by: John at November 01, 2007 12:31 PM (JqaKd)

28 Something else: I did not imply that Boylan did anything illegal. He lied to a journalist. It's not illegal, but it's wrong and it's stupid.

Posted by: John at November 01, 2007 12:37 PM (JqaKd)

29 bravo John!

this "but Clinton did it too" defense has always sounded desperate.

Posted by: dan of steele at November 01, 2007 02:11 PM (zJwn0)

30 John - The gasbaggery about your family surely must be interesting to someone somewhere, but it doesn't get back to the issues you raised earlier - inaccuracies and exaggerations in the e-mail allegedly sent by Boylan. You raised the point. Please be specific in providing examples of the conduct you describe. Also you mention lying. Apart from the issue of the provenance of the e-mail, are there other lies that you have noted. Please be specific.

Liberals are noted for that vagueness. Please be an exception.

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 01, 2007 02:42 PM (fObAs)

31 Let me boil it down for you, daley.

1. When Boylan claimed not to have sent the e-mail, he lie. That is apart from the content of his messages. Liars don't belong in the senior ranks of any organization.

2. The intemperate tone of Boylan's e-mails is plain to see. As the lawyers say, res ipsa loquitur: the thing speaks for itself. If you want to deny that, go right on doing it. All it says is that if Bill Clinton's brains were in his balls, yours are in your jerking knee. It certainly undercuts your and Connecticut Yankee's case against the 19-year-old private whose exaggerations so outrage you.

By the way, love your family values. Mine are different. I've done what I can to pass my father's onto our children.

Posted by: John at November 01, 2007 03:35 PM (JqaKd)

32 Ah yes, the old "the facts as I see them are..." conjecture argument.

Who can argue with this logic? ...Your mother taught you well.

Posted by: everydayjoe at November 01, 2007 04:14 PM (/c1gr)

33 I didn't spend 30+ years in business without learning a few tricks. I know what you're trying to do here, joe. You want to draw me into an extended argument over semantics, as a means of avoiding the real issues here, which are that Col. Boylan is an intemperate liar who's unsuited for both his job as a PIO and for his position in the U.S. Army.

Every big organization gets people like that. Through a combination of skill, luck, but most deception, they rise through the ranks until their character and performance flaws become destructive to themselves and perhaps the whole organization.

The Army will survive Col. Boylan, but I'd hate to see them keep the man around. If he were working for me, he'd been in a whale of trouble right now. This is not some kid we're talking about. This is a field-grade officer who serves as the chief spokesman for the general in charge of the U.S. Iraq effort. If his integrity is compromised, that's a huge problem.

The Army needs to decide quickly whether it really wants to have "Baghdad Bob" in that job. They have enough problems with their public credibility without having this sort of lying, loose cannon on their deck. They need to get rid of him and fill that post with someone else.

The ideal candidate would be intelligent, diplomatic, and focused on his task. At the bare minimum, however, the Army must make certain that they don't rotate another lying idiot into that position. The U.S. can't afford to be so ill-served in such a critical position.

Posted by: John at November 01, 2007 04:33 PM (JqaKd)

34 John - With the values that you claim your parents imparted on you and lessons learned in a long and storied business career, it would seem that you would be above flinging accusations about someone's character without having the willingness to back up your accusations or defend your position. That is exactly the cowardly behavior you have exhibited today. I doubt your father would be very proud or that the company you served as spokeperson for would have allowed you to get away with such behavior. He lied because I say he lied or he exaggerated and is innaccurate because I say so just don't cut it in the corporate world. Surely with your wealth of experience you can see that.

I played in the same arena as you for a number of years and would have been cut off at the ankles had I tried the same bit of jackassery you have today on this thread. You made assertions. Back them up with specifics.

I will grant you that provenance of the e-mail cannot be proved one way or the other at this point. I want to hear about innaccuracies and exaggerations, words for which you seem to have created strange definitions in the case of Beauchamp. Creating incidents out of whole cloth and passing them off as truth count for innaccuracy and exaggeration in your parlance for Beauchamp. I wonder how you define the words in the case of Boylan or the author of e-mail?

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 01, 2007 06:02 PM (0pZel)

35 It's not about whether he is correcting GG - Because of his position as PAO (now compromised) one could argue that Boylan is in violation of Article 133 (Or the person that sent/forged it)

Article 133—Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman

Text.

“Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused did or omitted to do certain acts; and

(2) That, under the circumstances, these acts or omissions constituted conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.

Explanation.

(1) Gentleman. As used in this article, “gentleman” includes both male and female commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen.

(2) Nature of offense. Conduct violative of this article is action or behavior in an official capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the person as an officer, seriously compromises the officer’s character as a gentleman, or action or behavior in an unofficial or private capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the officer personally, seriously compromises the person’s standing as an officer. There are certain moral attributes common to the ideal officer and the perfect gentleman, a lack of which is indicated by acts of dishonesty, unfair dealing, indecency, indecorum, lawlessness, injustice, or cruelty. Not everyone is or can be expected to meet unrealistically high moral standards, but there is a limit of tolerance based on customs of the service and military necessity below which the personal standards of an officer, cadet, or midshipman cannot fall without seriously compromising the person’s standing as an officer, cadet, or midshipman or the person’s character as a gentleman. This article prohibits conduct by a commissioned officer, cadet or midshipman which, taking all the circumstances into consideration, is thus compromising. This article includes acts made punishable by any other article, provided these acts amount to conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. Thus, a commissioned officer who steals property violates both this article and Article 121. Whenever the offense charged is the same as a specific offense set forth in this Manual, the elements of proof are the same as those set forth in the paragraph which treats that specific offense, with the additional requirement that the act or omission constitutes conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.

(3) Examples of offenses. Instances of violation of this article include knowingly making a false official statement; dishonorable failure to pay a debt; cheating on an exam; opening and reading a letter of another without authority;

Posted by: Jim at November 01, 2007 06:26 PM (TZikN)

36 Jim, it would be absurd for the military to take criminal action against Boylan for lying to a journalist. I realize that the military has special requirements, and therefore is more likely to criminalize certain forms of incompetence. But it's quite a stretch to argue that this case calls for such penalties.

daley, you are being obtuse to the point of dishonesty. Boylan lied about the e-mail. I have been as succinct as I can be about that. On that point even CY agrees. By itself, that's enough to disqualify him from service. He is a liar. His usefulness as a PIO is ended, and his presence as a spokesman is a blot on the Army.

As for the tone of Boylan's communications, it's obviously inappropriate. I employed spokesmen during my business career, and if I had had one who communicated as Boylan did, I'd have dismissed him. Just look at public sentiment; it certainly doesn't help to have your main spokesman be a lying idiot who can do nothing but preach to a choir that would believe everything.

As for the Beauchamp affair, in my world you temper justice with experience and even mercy. If Beauchamp were a colonel I would be harsh indeed. If he were my son, he wouldn't like what he'd hear from me. But he is neither one of those things. From where I sit, he's a kid who screwed up and who paid a price that, considering the circumstances, was too harsh.

His magazine, The New Republic, should have acted more swiftly and more clearly in the matter. However, in the real world it's pretty common to see the wagons circle. I would like to see more integrity in journalism and politics. I was impressed that the New York Times and the Washington Post admitted they had been duped into supporting the Iraq War. The Fox network, on the other hand, reacts to its failures by repeating them. They are far too certain of themselves. They remind me of my father's descriptions of the Hearst newspapers of his youth.

I don't intend to spend much more time on this. The Internet The reaction by Connecticut Yankee and you speaks volumes about your integrity. You have one standard for one group, and another standard for another group. Those aren't principles, they are talking points. There are too many talking points, and too few principles, in this country.

Posted by: John at November 01, 2007 07:08 PM (JqaKd)

37 Just one point.

It is not necessarily required to hack into the military email server in order to spoof an email header.

Therefore, for all we know, it could have been our commenter John here who sent the email allegedly from Boylan.

Something worth considering, no?

Posted by: C-C-G at November 01, 2007 07:17 PM (PGjzz)

38 C-C-G, unfortunately, that absurd comment of your is par for the course here. But that's not why I came back. I wanted to make a larger point about Boylan, which is that he's a good example of how leadership sets an example, both good and bad.

I view Boylan as a creation of Donald Rumsfeld, who combined some of the worst performance as a defense secretary in this country's history with an insufferably arrogant, petulant and supercilious manner of communicating. Boylan's style is patterned after Rumsfeld's, which I suspect is how he came to have his job.

People in any organization look upward for their cues. That's one reason why leadership is so important, the other being that leaders by definition have the ability to cast a wider net of influence and, as a result, their decisions have to be taken with more care and skill than those made below them.

Thus, along with leadership comes not only a bigger paycheck but increasing levels of responsibility. Not just for your decisions, but for those of your subordinates and for the example you set and the inspiration you create. Rumsfeld was a disaster, and I'm afraid Col. Boylan is one of Rumsfeld's stepchildren.

For Petraeus to tolerate this man as a spokesman says something about him, and by extension, about the entire U.S. effort in Iraq, which depends critically not just on the force of arms but on the ability to persaude and convince people who otherwise might not agree with you. This isn't any sort of catastrophe, but it's a telltale sign that something's wrong over there in Petraeus's operation.

Posted by: John at November 01, 2007 07:43 PM (JqaKd)

39 To clarify: By "the entire U.S. effort" I mean at the senior leadership level. An idiotic liar of a PIO says nothing about the skill, bravery, and heroism of people in the field. It serves them ill, but it does not reflect badly on them.

Posted by: John at November 01, 2007 07:45 PM (JqaKd)

40 Hello everyone, if we are to rightly call TNR to task for their defending of a story that is clearly a lie then we should be open to the same criticism if we defend someone who is clearly lying. There is no hacker, there is enough evidence that we can see Beachamp was a liar and Boylan is a liar. Beauchamp was a low in the military where as Boylan has a much higher rank and is a Public Affairs Officer.

Defending Boylan when the evidence is clear is no more admirable then defending TNR, the reasoning some are reaching for on this blog is the same as TNR. Let's face it is a liar and should be drummed out of the military for his behaviour.

Posted by: RealityCheck at November 01, 2007 07:53 PM (j2vGP)

41 John, if I sound less than convinced of your analysis, it's only because I find it refreshingly unburdened by the weight of evidence.

I happen to be a certified computer technician and have been since the days of the original 80386 machines. I know how easily one can spoof email headers, so I am not convinced that the emails came from Boylan simply because of the headers.

You only accept the evidence because you have a pre-existing bias against the military which you cannot move past.

I pity you for that.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 01, 2007 08:11 PM (PGjzz)

42
Boylan lied about the e-mail. I have been as succinct as I can be about that. On that point even CY agrees.


Two things really tick me off.

One of those is someone putting words in my mouth. The other one is someone what take a position of absolutes before all the evidence is in.

I never said he lied about the email. I said it was most likely. I try not to pass judgment until the facts are in, and all we know for certain is that either the email was spoofed by someone highly competent, or more likely than not, it came from a pair of Army email servers in Iraq.

You don't seem to grasp that while it is most likely that Boylan sent the email, that dozens or hundreds of others send email through those same email servers, which in turn are fed by an unknown number of desktop and laptop computers. We don't yet have enough information to know where it originated.

But we do have a bit of data that could be nothing, or proof that someone other than Boylan sent the email message.

I'm still working that. Perhaps you and the other Nifongs of this world should hold judgment until all the facts are in.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 01, 2007 08:24 PM (HcgFD)

43 CY, you don't understand. The Great Greenwald has declared Boylan guilty.

Evidence, proof, data, all that is irrelevant to the determination of The Great Greenwald.

Just like what happened when The Great Rather declared that the Texas Air National Guard memo was accurate, no?

Posted by: C-C-G at November 01, 2007 08:44 PM (PGjzz)

44 John - Your act is pathetic. The reflex patellar reaction of the left when someone says something negative about one of their Saints, Greenwald in this case, is to attack, regardless of the merits of the position. Your appeals to principled behavior should start with Greenwald and your friends, who all like to stick together, to use your turn of phrase, rather than the Army. Let's go back to earlier today:

You Say - "Boylan is a public affairs officer, and a fairly senior officer in the military. He is sworn to serve the United States, which includes all of us. As a PIO, it's part of his job to be reasoned, reasonable, accessible, articulate, and truthful."

That's your job description for him. When his integrity is directly impugned by dishonest bloggers such as Greenwald who have a track record of blatantly disregarding facts, misusing quotes and communicating with you as if they were bill collectors, does he not have a duty, as you point out in the job description, to correct the facts.

You Say - "The tone of his e-mails is unacceptable. If he worked for a private company, he'd be fired for the tone of his comments."

The tone was hilarious and deserved based on the tone of Greenwald's e-mails to him and Greenwald's blog postings about the politicization of the military. Boylan doesn't work for a private company. He works for the U.S. Army. Address any issues you have related to Glenn's wounded ego and hurt pride to his boss.

You Say - "If (as seems likely) he has lied about this Greenwald incident, he not only failed at his PIO job but he's put a stain on the Army. I notice that you've been aggressive in the case of a young private who wrote an article that contained some inaccuracies and exaggerations."

Greenwald put a stain on the entire senior leadership of the Army because of his BDS. Because the Army is trying to succeed in Iraq and he views it as Bush's war, he incorrectly views anyone talking about positive developments or avoiding potential negative developments as politicizing the war effort. That is an inherent danger when you become a hopeless idealogue such as Greenwald. Some innaccuracies and exaggerations you mention related to Beauchamp are really fabricating entire incidents from scratch and claiming they happened as described. Those are not the typical dictionary definitions of inaccuracies and exaggerations.

You Say - "That kid is an amateur who's just starting out in life, but you and others have put him through the meat grinder."

No one here except TNR has had any access to Beauchamp so your claim is a little hard to fathom. TNR didn't even acknowledge any contact with Beauchamp until more than a month after the fact. The Army dealt with Beauchamp through its own investigation. The right's interest, in my opinion since I cannot speak for others, is to have another dishonest liberal publication correct its smearing of the troops.


You Say - "Boylan is experienced and senior, and there is every indication that he is a liar. CY, this is an integrity test. Not just for Boylan, but for you."

Your fatuous statements here contradict the beginning of your comment from which this was extracted.

Your moralizing is pretty hollow when all you are really annoyed about is one of your icons getting his nose bloodied. You still haven't addressed the issue whether there was anything incorrect about the content of the e-mail, only the tone. Too bad.

Good Day, Sir!

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 01, 2007 10:08 PM (0pZel)

45 Heh... nice sign-off, Daley. Kinda reminiscent of one I've seen somewhere... but I honestly invite you to continue to use it.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 01, 2007 10:21 PM (PGjzz)

46 One of my favorite Greenwald quotes, culled from a comment he made one his own blog, 12/2/06 - essentially he'll do anything to take down the administration and not everyone is entitled to respect and civility - it explains a lot:

There are some people who treat our conflicts with the Bush administration and their followers as just a matter of basic, friendly political and policy differences - along the lines of "what should the rate of capital gains tax be?" or "what type of laws can best encourage employers to provide more benefits to their employees" - and therefore, we treat people who support the administration with respect and civility and simply have nice, clean discussions to sort out our differences among well-intentioned people.

That isn't how I see that, and nobody should come to this blog expecting that. I don't think I've done anything to lead anyone to expect otherwise. I see the Bush movement and its various component parts as a plague and a threat, as anything but well-intentioned. My goal, politically speaking, is to do what I can to undermine it and the institutions that have both supported and enabled it.

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 01, 2007 10:33 PM (0pZel)

47 Very good find, Daley.

Of course, since the members of the Armed Forces vote overwhelmingly Republican, Greenwald is therefore determined to undermine the very people who defend the freedom of speech he uses so freely.

Therefore, whenever Greenwald gets his hands on something that he thinks he can use as a bludgeon against the Armed Forces, he uses it to excess, having ridden the wave of his pre-existing bias straight to a conclusion without any thought being necessary.

Now that he's found that he has stepped in the substance that he tried to smear Boylan with, he's spinning furiously to avoid having to admit that he was wrong, and rank-and-file lefties like John here are doing the same, for the same reason.

That is, unless John is another of Glenn "Sock Puppet" Greenwald's sock puppets.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 01, 2007 10:43 PM (PGjzz)

48 I began my involvement here today (the first and the last day of such involvement) by telling you that I think of the Internet as a pile of wreckage. I suppose that, by now, I should be used to it, but I still have the ability to be dismayed.

The Internet is full of what Eric Hoffer called "True Believers." Doesn't really matter whether they call themselves liberals or conservatives. What joins them is fear of the facts. You people know that Col. Boylan is a liar, and unfit for his job or for a position of trust in the military. But you're afraid to say so because you think it would threaten the entire edifice of your beliefs.

That's a sign of fragiility, and to hide your fragility you repeat each others' talking points no matter how ridiculous. The same thing happens on left-wing sites, which minimize, mischaracterize or deny stupidity, malfeasance and fraud by Democrats.

You're joined at the hip. Look up. Look around. Come to your senses. You can lie to yourselves for only so long.

Posted by: John at November 01, 2007 11:14 PM (JqaKd)

49 What neither group of knee-jerks can stand is a real independent. If I'd combine my father, who was very influential to me, with myself, we've always been ticket-splitters but voted predominantly with one party for some periods and then predominantly with the other.

The switches were always in reaction to excesses. The Democrats, the excesses were of misguided compassion. With Republican, they were of paranoia and authoritarianism. With both parties, at their peak of power each of them become unusually corrupt.

We were primarily Democrats in the 30s and 40s, Republicans in the 50s, Democrats in the 60s, Republicans in the 70s and 80s, Independent (Perot) and Democrat in the 90s. The decade was hard. The '00 election was the hardest of my life, because I've never trusted the Bush family (much like the Kennedys -- my father came to regret his vote for JFK), but didn't like Gore.

Starting in '04 the choice has been pretty easy. The Republicans have become paranoid, authoritarian, and corrupt on a scale not seen since Huey Long in the 30s and Harding and Coolidge in the 20s. This blog is representative of the party, at least in the first two categories.

Fortunately, the pendulum swings. I never thought I'd see the day when I looked forward to a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Posted by: John at November 01, 2007 11:43 PM (JqaKd)

50 John - Thanks for opinions John. At least you recognize some of the flaws of the left. I don't need somebody to write talking points for me to tell me what to believe. I don't fantasize about our constitution having been shredded by the evil Bush empire, wars for oil, wars for Halliburton, 9/11 being an inside job or many of the other strange conspiracy theories that seem to infect the left. I don't wake up filled with anger and rage the way many on the left admit they do every day.

I wonder how dishonest people like yourself can look at themselves in the mirror, though.

Good Day, Sir!

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 01, 2007 11:47 PM (0pZel)

51 John, you speak of True Believers, and that is appropriate, for you are one.

You are clearly bent on dismissing all exculpatory evidence in favor of accepting, on faith, the word of The Great Greenwald. When you've studied computers as long as I have (my first PC was a Commodore Vic-20), perhaps you will comprehend why email headers are not accepted as evidence in any court of law that I am aware of. They're just too easily faked.

I direct your attention to this article from Carnegie Mellon University, if you don't believe me. You may also wish to view this article which details specifically how to spoof an email header.

But, of course, you being the True Believer that you are in The Great Greenwald, you will accept none of this purely non-partisan evidence in favor of your partisan True Believer conclusion.

Good day, Sir. I said, Good Day!

Posted by: C-C-G at November 02, 2007 08:12 AM (PGjzz)

52 John,

Your comments are a farce. You potray yourself as a tough, hard, brilliant worker who moved up the corporate ladder by his own sweat. You claim to be the only independent minded, clear thinker around.

Yet, your comments are identical to any admitted leftist who comes here. You continue to defend TNR and Beauchamp, but want Boylan's head on a platter w/o even the courtesy of an investigation.

Who do you think you are fooling? I was in the miltary, put myself through college and lawschool, went back into the military, and since then have worked my way up in my profession. My family was not rich, my parents were not political. I started out in life as a very, very liberal person, and over time (through experience and education) became more conservative). so, how does your bio make you somehow smarter or more able to think independently than mine?

You may believe you are independent minded and weigh everything and make a logical decision, but your positions end up parroting the knee-jerk reactions of the left - why is that?

Just because we disagree, does not mean that I have not thought through things and come to my own opinion, so constantly attacking people and claiming we are nothing but "bush-bots" - while you don't say it, you imply it - is hardly a new or persuasive argument.

You have not made a logical or persausive argument here - you have merely called yourself smart and independent and called us dumb and followers, and think that somehow proves your point. You call the internet a wasteland and think that makes you smarter than everyone else here.

Instead of relying on your belief that you are smarter and more independent than others, or that those you disagree with (conservativesj) are incapable of independent or logical thought, how about you try and make an argument?

Why is it that leftists (which, despite your assertions, you conform to all the stereotypes) must always a) deny they are leftists and b) personnally attack the people they are debating with rather than debating a point?

I think most people here have stated that Boylan probably wrote the email, but we will wait for the Army investigation and see what they do. Moreover, I think the consensous veiw on this site is that if Boylan wrote the email - the email itself was not a problem (i.e., not illegal or against army regs in any way - even if the tone was unprofessional), lying about sending the email may be a problem for Boylan.

You have simply asserted that sending the email in the first instance is wrong, wrong, wrong. Yet, you have no credible arguments for why this is so aside from your own assertion. Point to a law or army regulation that Boylan violated.

Next you argue that we should all be calling for Boylan's discipline, w/o even allowing an investigation to occur (while at the same time basically defending the lying of TNR and Beauchamp). That seems premature to me.

you also state that Boylan told a direct, unambiguous lie. It's obvious. That's not acceptable. I'm not naive. I know that people play games, and I know that there are ambiguities and tough situations that can be read in more than one way. This wasn't one of them. Boylan lied, and liars have no business serving as colonels in the Army, and they certainly have no business dealing with journalists.

If you honestly believed lying was such a huge sin, you would have a hard time ever voting for a liberal (and certainly could never support either Clinton). Moreover, why can't we hold journalists to the same standard of never lying?

As to your assertion that admitting Boylan lied will somehow "destory our worldview", that is insane tripe. If Boylan lied, he lied. He will have to deal with whatever consequences the Army imposes - which I will be fine with. It will not affect my conservative world view one bit.

You see, I happen to know that people are fallible, and that the messenger is not the messege. So, for instance, if a republican officeholder who votes against gay marriage gets outed as gay, I realize that such an event does not have any bearing on whether or not I believe allowing gay marriage is a good policy.

It is leftists (liberal, progressive, whatever you want to call it) who believe that the personal is policy. Leftists seem to believe that because people don't live up to standards at all times, there should be no standards. That because people fail to act morally at all times, there should be no absolute morals. that is foolish in my opinion. We don't have standards and morals out of the belief that everyone lives up to them always, but out of belief that everyone should attempt to live up to them always, and that there should be consequences for not living up to them. Leftists see failures to achieve a standard or moral and say, scrap the whole system.

Thus, whether Boylan is proven a liar or not is of no consequence to my world view. I have come to my world view through education, experience, reading, thinking and analyzing. I constantly alter my "world view" based on new facts and new arguments. Just because I don't alter my worldview in ways to suit you does not mean that I don't think rationally about such things, as you imply in every one of your comments.

I don't, however, alter my worldview simply b/c some person has failed to live up to a standard somewhere in the world. If anything, such things tend to strengthen my worldview, as I realize that such failures demonstrate the need for such standards - otherwise there would be chaos.

So, if you really are interested in a reasoned debate, drop your talking points about how you are so smart and independent and how we are so dumb and nothing more than bush-bots and try to make a reasoned argument based on facts, rather than assertions. then we can argue in good faith and try to persuade each other of the merits of our positions. Otherwise, you are simply blowing smoke . . .

Posted by: Great Banana at November 02, 2007 08:37 AM (JFj6P)

53 Great Banana, just one word: AMEN!

Posted by: C-C-G at November 02, 2007 08:50 AM (PGjzz)

54 C-C-G,

The form of arguing used by the left, and being used here by John - is slowly driving me insane. I just don't understand how people can be so vested in an opinion when they are wholly unable to defend said opinion with a rational argument based on facts.

I have come to realize that there truly seems to be a left/right difference in thinking (call it brain structure, brain chemistry, whatever). People on the left truly seem to believe that if they can demonstrate that the person making the argument is somehow deficient, then the argument is deficient. No matter how many times we point out that those are two separate things, they always go for the attack on the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself. Which is why I believe for the left, personal is policy.

Conservatives have always argued that people on the left make decisions with emotion rather than with logic. I am beginning to believe that more and more. I don't even think they purposefully do it, I think they honestly believe that attacking the person making the argument is the same thing as attacking the argument.

I also think this explains why the left often seems much more passionate about their politics, and much more willing to engage in things like demonstrations and marches - their policy preferences are based on emotion, which is much more motivating to act than simply basing policy preferences on some form of rational argument.

Which explains why conservatives and liberals are wholly unable to have good faith arguments. We are basically communicating in two different langauges. And, I am not trying to make a value judgment in this diatribe, there is a place for emotional decision making and a place for rational decision making in this world.

I am simply coming to believe that there is a real cognative disconnect between liberals and conservatives and true communication is almost impossible.

Posted by: Great Banana at November 02, 2007 09:08 AM (JFj6P)

55 Hmmm.

@ John

Boylan told a direct, unambiguous lie. It's obvious. That's not acceptable. I'm not naive.

Prove it.

That's the problem you've got *and* we have. Nobody actually has any proof of any specific thing. And until somebody actually offers up some proof or other documentation, there really isn't anything that anybody can do about it.

I.e. it's all just speculation.

So if you're going to call Lt. Col. Boylan a liar then YOU need to provide absolute and unambiguous proof of it.

And quite frankly I don't think you can because it's simply not available.

Posted by: memomachine at November 02, 2007 01:26 PM (3pvQO)

56 Hmmmm.

The things people need to understand are pretty basic.

1. All communications using the internet use ASCII.

This is because early on the only computers that communicated on the internet used ASCII.

2. All communications using the internet use TEXT.

This is because the programs that initially were developed to use the internet were designed to be used from a command line, on a text only terminal using telnet.

3. The web browser you are using to read this communicated using TEXT. Plain text.

The reason is that, again, the internet was built primarily on text based software, it's easier to debug and track and in a pinch you can use telnet to accomplish anything as long as you've got the knowledge and are willing to suffer doing so.

Posted by: memomachine at November 02, 2007 02:02 PM (3pvQO)

57 Hmmm.

An example:

http://www.xoc.net/works/tips/telnet.asp

If you follow the directions exactly you'll see:

GET / HTTP/1.1
host: www.microsoft.com

HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Cache-Control: private
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Location: /en/us/default.aspx
Server: Microsoft-IIS/7.0
X-AspNet-Version: 2.0.50727
P3P: CP="ALL IND DSP COR ADM CONo CUR CUSo IVAo IVDo PSA PSD TAI TELo OUR SAMo C
NT COM INT NAV ONL PHY PRE PUR UNI"
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:04:57 GMT
Content-Length: 136

<html><head><title>Object moved</title></head><body>
<h2>Object moved to <a href="/en/us/default.aspx">here</a>.</h2>
</body></html>

----

As you can see. It's all text.

Posted by: memomachine at November 02, 2007 02:06 PM (3pvQO)

58 Hmmm.

@ Great Banana

I am simply coming to believe that there is a real cognative disconnect between liberals and conservatives and true communication is almost impossible.

*shrug* I've said for years now that:

Liberals think conservatives are evil,
Conservatives think liberals are crazy.

Strange. But true.

Posted by: memomachine at November 02, 2007 02:08 PM (3pvQO)

59 Banana, it is true that lefties do not use logic, for one simple reason.

If they examined the position of the modern left logically, they'd be forced into conservatism.

How else do lefties justify opposing a war that has liberated millions of people from a brutal dictator, while loudly proclaiming their concern for human rights? It only makes sense if you don't let logic within 100 miles of it.

Therefore, lefties cannot, truly cannot use logic, so they resort to the only other kind of arguing they know, which they learned on the elementary school playground and have never forgotten.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 02, 2007 06:53 PM (PGjzz)

60 This leaves us with two possiblities: either Boylan sent the original email, or someone at his base logged-on to his account and sent the email.

There is actually a third possibility. GG has received mail from Boylan in the past, so he has an example of what servers are used. Using the prior message as a template, the current message could have been created out of whole cloth.

Good Day.

Posted by: Loren at November 05, 2007 02:54 PM (sIRhH)

61 Indeed, Loren... and given Mr. Greenwald's known sock-puppeting activities, it doesn't seem that big a stretch for him to do so, does it?

Posted by: C-C-G at November 05, 2007 08:06 PM (PGjzz)

62 Greenwald vehemently denies any involvement, direct or indirect in manufacture of the disputed e-mail. While ny bias runs toward doubting the person formerly caught out in similar mischief, however, a person who frets a lot about being treated with the proper dignity a person of his caliber deserves, it does occur to me that Greenwald is not the only person who could have a grudge against Greenwald or Boylan, or might indulge a misguided attempt to gain sympathy or express the views of either.

For example a disgruntled Beau"champion" , or a mischievous Cabana boy who feels Boylan has used his friend rather ill, has staged the drama.

Anyone who has received email from Boylan could spoof his header information. if skilled enough. Some might have access to insert a spook straight onto the Salon servers.

The original email was innocuous enough, neither was it entirely unsolicited, in that it was a response to Greenwald public statements. The author purported to be speaking in his capacity as a private person, not in official capacity.
It had a critical and "woodshed lecture" tone, but the worst insult it contained was a comparison of Glenn to the talents of Alan Colmes.

So, I don't know why Boylan wouldn't own it. Friends of Glenn suggest Boylan wrote it in a fit of vodka-thirty and regrets it, and/or enjoys toying with the likes of Greenwald. But I tend to take Boylan at his word. He didn't write it, and his emails to Glenn, while taciturn, are consistent with someone who wonders if the mail bears hallmarks of a fake...as others have faked being him in the past.. ( "Interesting email, why do you ask"...etc)

Glenn is unsatisfied by this response, but seems clueless as to how impertinent his follow-up questions actually were, decribing himself as "civil" and "proffesional". I see little attempt at evasion by or failure of Boylan to adequately explain anything, as nothing more was owed but a denial of authorship.

Posted by: SarahW at November 06, 2007 09:49 AM (wF/xI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Processing 0.1, elapsed 0.2055 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1273 seconds, 530 records returned.
Page size 457 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.