Steve Chapman: Have leaks crippled war on terrorism?

[Martin Eden]

This commentary cuts through all the bullshit and goes right to the heart of the matter: If Bush believed the publication of leaks on his anti-terror programs endangered national security, why didn't he go to court to stop it?

Published Sunday July 9 in the Perspective section of the Chicgao Tribune.

by Steve Chapman

When The New York Times published a story about a secret government program to find terrorists by monitoring financial transactions, conservatives responded as if the paper had given Osama bin Laden the keys to a missile silo.

The story, asserted President Bush, "does great harm to the United States of America." Vice President Dick Cheney said the Times and other newspapers "have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult." Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said the Times' decision was "treasonous."
--snip--

What could the government have done?

Simple: It could have gone to court and asked a federal judge to forbid the newspapers to publish. It could have done so without making public what the stories were about. Instead, it protested ineffectually--and then allowed something it says weakened our defenses.
--snip--

It's one thing for Bush to claim the stories did great harm. It's another for the administration to do what a court would have required: Prove it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0607090393jul09,1,1759071.column?coll=chi-news-col&ctrack=1&cset=true

[ninkasi]

1. The administration couldn't prove it

Bush had already talked about tracking financial transactions, so he couldn't prove that the New York Times had given the terrorists any new information. As far as the Republican's shrill cries of outrage, it was their president who authorized leaking the name of a covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame, and causing her whole operation to close. It's much more likely that exposing Brewster Jennings, and causing it to shut down, jeopardized people. We still don't know if any of her operatives died as a result of that bit of spite on Bush's part.

[msongs]

2. none of this stuff WEAKEND our defenses--->

any lame ass terrorist who thinks his email/phone/financial information/snail mail is safe from inspection is a total loser to begin with. evidently George W Bush does not believe people up to no good have brains about this sort of thing. Must be because HE has no brains about this sort of thing.

good thing he went awol back in the 70's before the age of total intrusion into private affairs.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[cgrindley]

3. There is no *war* on terrorism

It's just a campaign by the far right to plunge the country into a fascist totalitarian state and polarize the globe into a state of constant but unwinnable "war".

Okay, perhaps an exaggeration, but there really isn't a war on terrorism you know. One very specific sector of American political life is attempting to force its views on a majority by controling dissent through a fake state of war, using a few isolated terrorist attacks as preamble for a massive suppression of privacy rights and other individual freedoms. The scary thing is that the majority of these right wing types actually believe that they are acting in the best interest of the nation. The question is, how can they be educated to understand that their wars and their absurd foreign policies are only going to result in a never-ending escalation of terrorist attacks, that will, as time progresses, become more and more justified.

[ixion]

4. exactly...

and the more people write about how to 'win' (the unwinnable), the more credibility this PR campaign has. :grr:

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Martin Eden]

5. agreed, but ...

... what should we call efforts to quell terrorism?

What we need is a more accurate and appropriate phrase that defines efforts to defend our country from attacks by terrorists organizations, to root out those organizations, and to address the problems that fuel terrorism.

I agree with your post, but at the same time we cannot ignore the problem of terrorism. Current policies are wrong-headed and counterproductive. A different strategy is needed, as well as an accurate term that everyone can use when referring to it.

People refer to the "war on terror" because there is no widely acknowledged substitute. Yes, this is yet another right-wing success in framing the issue. Just keep in mind that columnists like Steve Chapman opposed the invasion of Iraq before it started, and their use of phrases like "war on terrorism" is not a right-wing attempt to frame the issue but rather the simple use of a reference term that everyone recognizes.

[humbled_opinion]

8. Sound advice...

This campaign on terror is more likely a long term Karl Rove plot to keep the thugs in power after 911.
When we win back the House and Senate in November we must insist on complete and open hearings into why we are fighting this so called war. Let the public decide. If it wants to spill precious American treasure to fight the phantoms of the Bush's dreams but, I think not.

The scenario that I fear the most is a win in the fall then a bigger win in 08 but then a series of 911 style attacks with which the thugs will crucify the Democrat President and make Bush look like he was right.

[Martin Eden]

13. Rovians will always spin things

and the sad reality is that the Bushites have pretty much guaranteed future attacks and a bad outcome in Iraq -- and the Rovians will do everything they can to pin the blame on Democrats.

This is why strong leadership and effective solutions that can be demonstrated as such are of paramount importance to the Democratic Party.

[brmdp3123]

10. How about The War AGAINST Terrorism.

TWAT

[Martin Eden]

12. I like the acronym

almost as much as I like Operation Iraqi Liberation

[humbled_opinion]

14. Now That Is Truth

[treestar]

16. Just as anti-terror efforts

"war" is a metaphor the right wing takes literally

[spooked911]

6. Certainly the "war on terror" as presented in the mainstream media

is complete bullshit.

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.

Al Qaeda is a scam, more properly known as "al-CIA-duh".

And 9/11 was an inside job.

[Child_Of_Isis]

7. exaggeration??

Probably not. I'd say you were right on the money.

[cgrindley]

15. I'd have to say that the war on terror is

America trying to find itself in a world where smaller interests are no longer cowed under by a competition between hostile superpowers. Now that the USSR is 15 years dead, there are many places in the world that are now basically free to voice their opposition to certain US policies--I daresay that there are some political philosophies that are, for the lack of a better descriptor, opposed to "our freedoms". Likewise, there are a lot of newly radical elements in the world whose behavior once was kept in check by their reliance on Soviet might and who find themselves the beneficiaries of the leftover fragments of Soviet ideology. Now, it is their turn to speak out. The world is a rough place, but no reasonable person would suggest feeding into it and creating an even more polarized situation.

Britain never declared a war on terror against the IRA; it was just widely known that the IRA was going to try things every now and then. People understood, too, that the IRA's aim was the unification of Ireland. No one contested their goal, merely the methodology they were using. Same is true, more or less, for ETA. No one contests that the Basques would like to have their own homeland. No global players really argue that they shouldn't. Ditto the Sikhs. Sweden isn't about to have an opinion on Amritsar other than a general condemnation of the violence. Canada isn't going to come out against the rights of the Basque people for self-determination, but Canada would deplore the violence that ETA used to use. For a little while, everyone was happy that East Timor was working itself out.

The big difference I guess is that no one is approaching the problem with the attitude that the radicalizing elements of some Islamic philosophies have a more or less coherent and understandable goal--the establishment of a greater political entity centered on their religion. As it is, the US won't even consider that there are some places where American style democracy and free market economics are simply not wanted. One of OBL's demands pre-9/11 was that the US should withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia. As far as vaguely insane evil genius ultimatums go, it was actually a fairly reasonable one and a fairly rational one, but OBL should have gone on a hunger strike rather than use terrorism.

The problem is that the US way is actually pretty good. It might not be the best democracy on the planet, but then again, no democracy is the best one on the planet. The best way to safeguard the nation is not to go around polarizing the politics of every little place on earth, but to listen to people. If their concerns are legitimate, then maybe dialogue is needed, if not, then I'm still pretty sure that a massive erosion of American civil liberties is probably still not the answer.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. I Don't Think This Would Have Worked

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that the Courts strongly frown on stopping the publication of information. I'm sure that Dear Leader will fix this problem once he's completed his ascent.

[Martin Eden]

11. It might have, if the leaks truly jeopardized national security

from Chapman's commentary:

The assumption is that the administration had no choice. The last time the government tried to stop the publication of secret information was in the 1971 Pentagon Papers case. After the Times and the Post published articles about a classified report on U.S. policy in the Vietnam War, the Nixon administration requested a court injunction to block any additional stories--and got it. But the Supreme Court shortly ruled otherwise, permitting the stories to run.

That decision is often taken to mean the government may never impose "prior restraint"--barring press organs from publishing (rather than, say, punishing them after they've done it). In fact, the real basis for the decision was that the Pentagon Papers didn't reveal any critical secrets.

Under some conditions, the court said, it would permit advance censorship. If national security truly had hung in the balance, the Nixon administration almost certainly would have won the case.

Justices Potter Stewart and Byron White, authors of the crucial opinion, indicated they would be ready to prevent the disclosure of national security information that "will surely result in direct, immediate and irreparable damage to our nation or its people." Conservatives on the court were even more open to suppressing military secrets. Even William Brennan, a fabled champion of the 1st Amendment, said he would allow suppression of a wartime story equivalent to "the publication of the sailing dates or the number and location of troops."

The point is that the Bush administration didn't even try.

[mzarathustra]

17. the spin

I agree that the whole 'war' metaphor is a form of manipulation, more overwrought distraction from the reality. It may be the most important point that Orwell made in "1984."

The invasive surveillance and torture into submission were only part of the picture. Perhaps the most insidious method of governmental manipulation is the constant beating down of questioning by invoking the pretext of this unrelenting state of battle engagement, the tedious daily grind... It gives rise to such ridiculously charged accusations as calling someone a "traitor" for questioning the effectiveness of government strategies.

This contorted usage of the term 'war' seems a bit odd. When I picture 'war,' it conjures up movie scenes (e.g. 'Troy') where you see these two armies on either side of the screen charging in opposite directions, meeting in the middle to hack one another to bits. (cheery picture, I know, but bear with me...) The whole notion of stretching the term 'war' to extend to what essentially amounts to cracking criminal conspiracies seems strained and counterproductive.

Counterproductive, because characterizing what is essentially an intelligence operation as a battle misrepresents the nature of the process, and thus obscures the true debate. The 'war' paradigm suggests a hierarchy with those at the top giving orders to be unquestioningly obeyed. Something the Bushmorons love, since they're at the top (currently).

But true intelligence is impossible without questioning.


As for terminology, how about simply "anti-terrorism?" We're talking about stopping criminals, not about waging swashbuckling battle.

And at any rate (as Joe Conason on Salon.com has astutely documented) the whole accusation that the NYT article revealed anything to terrorists that they didn't know already is completely silly. Bush didn't have a clue about it, but clearly the terrorists have known about this sort of monitoring for years. The real issue is how much spin the neocons can get off of such charged labels as "traitor" in November.

Rove's spiritual quandry: Who would Jesus smear with lurid lies?

[redqueen]

18. It's glaringly obvious that they don't care about security.

They care about maintaining their hold on power, and their ability to continue to loot the US Treasury, that's it.

[TankLV]

19. What's amazing is that people should be up in arms about this ILLEGAL

- AGAIN by the repukes and bushco.

It's not "treason" when you're exposing ILLEGAL/UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIVITY.

I'm more pissed that it seems the whole country ISN'T pissed at ANOTHER example of bunkerboy and the repukes wiping their asses on OUR constitution and laws!

It's just like 911 all over again when "they" all said that 99% - 100% of the country supported these asswipes! Me and my partner were among the proud 1% - 2% who NEVER did!

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY?!