Michelle Malkin and the warbloggers get everything wrong -- again
Poor Michelle Malkin.
When I wrote last year that warbloggers like her would have to find a new Iraq-based media conspiracy to chase in light of how spectacularly their then-beloved controversy surrounding the Associated Press and its allegedly fictitious source, Jamil Hussein, had imploded, I never thought she'd take my advice literally. I was making a rhetorical point.
But lo and behold, she and her press-hating warblogger friends did go chase another media conspiracy out of Iraq. They did target an innocent Iraqi: Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer Bilal Hussein. They did lob wild, unsubstantiated allegations against the AP (again). They did reveal their hatred for hard-working journalists trying to cover the extremely dangerous war in Iraq. And they did make collective fools of themselves.
Again.
Two colossal, Iraq-based media embarrassments in just over one year. Michelle, you're en fuego! And I'm not even going to mention how you Swift Boated that 12-year-old boy a few months back. (You're welcome.)
To be precise, warbloggers promoted the Bilal Hussein story in earnest following the collapse of the Jamil Hussein story in January 2007. But in truth, Malkin and her friends have been waging war on Bilal Hussein for nearly four years. (Very Captain Ahab/Moby Dick-ish, don't you think?) For four years they called him a terrorist sympathizer and much, much worse, and condemned the AP in every imaginable way for sticking up for Hussein. And now -- poof! -- it's all for naught because there was nothing to the warbloggers' endless claims.
So now Bilal Hussein joins the ranks of Jamil Hussein (no relation), and the two names, I hope, will be permanently linked to the warbloggers' sad brand of mob rule-style pseudo-journalism.
What's so amazing -- and truly frightening -- about the Bilal Hussein story is that the U.S. government may have actually turned to warbloggers for information. At least one source even allegedly credited the laughable Jawa Report blog for helping put Bilal Hussein behind bars for two years while the U.S. military in Iraq pondered his fate. That warbloggers are right less often than a stopped clock is one thing. That CENTCOM officials have apparently deputized the clueless Inspector Clouseaus in the War on Terror represents a national embarrassment.
Of course, Bilal Hussein and the AP now deserve detailed apologies from the warbloggers. But trust me, those are not going to materialize. As I noted when I performed the autopsy on their phony Jamil Hussein saga (for the details on that caper, click here, here, and here), being a warblogger means never having to say you're sorry. (See Glenn Greenwald's epic takedown on the collective lack of right-wing blogging standards, here.)
The photographer Bilal Hussein first gained notoriety in December 2004 when he snapped real-time images of four masked insurgents pulling two Iraqi election workers from their cars on Haifa Street in Baghdad and assassinating them in broad daylight. The vivid wartime portraits, which served as a reminder of the rampant lawlessness inside Iraq 21 months after the U.S. invasion, became part of a Pulitzer Prize-winning package by AP photographers.
For the warbloggers, the photographers were too good. Based on nothing more than a press-hating (and Muslim-hating) hunch, they accused Hussein of being in cahoots with terrorists; of being tipped off by them about the pending execution and having no fear of the terrorists. (i.e., He was an accomplice to murder.) It was all part of some sort of master plan the insurgents had hatched to use the Western press to spread the word about the chaos unfolding inside Iraq. (As if the death and destruction there were some kind of state secret.) And treasonous journalists were playing along, the warbloggers cried:
- Bilal Hussein: Terrorist operative posing as AP Photographer [Infidels are Cool]
- Bilal Hussein-Terrorist on the Payroll of the AP [Federal Way Conservative]
In April 2006, Bilal Hussein was taken into custody and held as a security risk for being linked to a terrorist group, although the U.S. military pressed no charges and over the years, according to the AP, provided only vague, elusive reasons from detaining Hussein. (For more details and background on the Hussein case, read this very thorough piece by American Journalism Review's Charles Layton.)
Nonetheless, warbloggers crowed about their work in cracking the big Hussein case. Here's Malkin last November bragging about her unique brand of gum-shoeing:
In April 2006, I broke news about our military's detention of Associated Press stringer Bilal Hussein -- who sources in Iraq told me was captured by American forces in a building in Ramadi, Iraq, with a cache of weapons -- and continued to follow the case here, here, here, here, here, here, and here
By all means, click through Malkin's archives and behold the evil that Bilal Hussein represented, and learn all about how "The Associated (with terrorists) Press" had "waged all-out war on the military," and was "in denial" about the truth.
Over at the Jawa Report, warblogger Rusty Shackelford was similarly impressed with all the great work he and Malkin had done in unmasking the AP terrorist:
Had Michelle Malkin, who was really at the forefront of this, and other bloggers -- like us -- not been so outraged by photos, then our reader may have never even heard of Bilal Hussein. ... And as far as we can tell, Hussein would have eventually been let go only to return to his propaganda duties for the terrorists.
The Jawa man gushed, "It's stories like these that make it all worth it!"
Am I right, or is there no thrill quite like the one you get by sending an innocent and essentially powerless man to prison while publicly denigrating and dehumanizing him based on bogus allegations, and while also simultaneously assaulting his employer for having terrorist sympathies?
As the Hussein story unfolded, and the military kept the AP's lawyers mostly in the dark about what kind of evidence actually existed against the photog, aroused warbloggers typed up every military morsel about the case with feverish delight. Like last November when U.S. officials finally detailed their allegations and signaled a Hussein trial was finally in the offering, claiming, "We believe Bilal Hussein was a terrorist media operative who infiltrated the AP," adding that the Pentagon "possesses convincing and irrefutable evidence that Bilal Hussein is a threat to security and stability as a link to insurgent activity."
Warbloggers became increasingly stimulated with each taste of Pentagon spin because it a) matched what warbloggers had been claiming for years, and b) could not be refuted because military spin was, by definition, the unvarnished truth.
Warbloggers understood that the pending trial of Bilal Hussein would simply be a formality because the U.S. military command center in Iraq had spoken. (As Malkin teased: "Bilal Hussein's day in court should be illuminating, to say the least.") Denials were of little interest, and introspection even worse. That's the warblogger mindset, and that's one of the reasons they detest journalists so much -- because journalists simply interfere with the preferred direct line of communication coming out of Iraq, which is from the U.S. military straight to American citizens.
The military talked tough about the Hussein case in November, claiming it was going to file formal criminal charges against him. Then this month, like so many other high-profile U.S. War on Terror prosecutions, it all fell apart. On April 9, when news broke that an Iraqi judicial panel had dismissed proceedings against Hussein under a so-called "amnesty" law, Malkin quickly assured her shaken readers: "There is more to this story, believe me. Amnesty does not equal absolution." Knowing that the Iraqi acquittal did not automatically mean that the U.S. Army would release Hussein, Malkin told her readers, "Stay tuned -- and do not just rely on the conflict-of-interest-addled Associated Press for the news."
But the following week when news came that the U.S. military was in fact going to following the Iraqi court's lead and cut Hussein loose, I did stay tuned to Malkin site for news updates, which in the past had been regular and frequent. But guess what? Crickets from Malkin regarding the story (the hoax?) that, for years, she had bragged about owning.
The number of items posted on Malkin's site in the seven days after news of Hussein release broke? 66.
The number of those 66 items, according to Malkin's own search engine, that contained any mention of Bilal Hussein? 0.
And Malkin wasn't the only warblogger who was suddenly hit with a colossal bout of amnesia, as a collective "Bilal who?" enveloped the right-wing blogs last week. For instance, the site Flopping Aces excitedly covered the public charges leveled against the "scumbag" Hussein last November. But then, in the 48 hours surrounding Hussein's release, Flopping Aces forgot to update readers about the photographer's freedom. How queer.
The same was true with right-wing hotbeds such as Riehl World View, Hot Air, Stop the ACLU, Sister Toldjah, and Jules Crittenden's Forward Movement.
They all dutifully typed up the military's dark claims about Hussein and pounded their chests about how warbloggers had uncovered a terrorist inside the AP. But when the Army decided Hussein no longer posed a threat, the warbloggers all played dumb. (Trust me, it's an art form for them at this point.)
That's bad enough. And if warbloggers had simply ignored the Hussein news last week, that would have been one thing. Instead, those who did acknowledge the development tried to insist they were still right about Hussein's terrorist ties and that he'd simply been released on a technicality.
Let's go back to Malkin's suggestion that when the Iraqi judges acquitted Hussein on April 9, it didn't really mean he was innocent. That's important because last week, when the U.S. military freed Hussein, warbloggers clung to that amnesty fig leaf for cover. Watch how the warblogger daisy chain of misinformation worked.
For instance, when charges were dropped against Hussein on April 9, the warblogging site Wizbang explained what was really going on: "You have to look to alternate sources of information to get the full poop here -- the charges aren't being dismissed for lack of evidence, but because Hussein's actions fall under a new amnesty law."
To help educate its readers about the new amnesty law, Wizbang linked to Malkin's post about how there was "more to this story, believe me." But Malkin provided no facts about the amnesty law; no evidence to suggest Hussein was still guilty of any crime.
Sill, Wizbang pressed on:
As the story continues to unfold, remember this clearly: at no point was Bilal Hussein adjudged innocent of the terrorist-related charges he faced. Instead, he was freed by the same law that also set loose a lot of captured insurgents."
The same line appeared at Power Line, which insisted the Iraqi court "decided that Hussein was eligible for amnesty under a statute passed in February. His guilt or innocence has not been adjudicated."
That talking point was everywhere, including the Jawa Report, which announced, "Bilal Hussein wasn't set free because he was innocent, he was set free because his case was part of a general amnesty for insurgents." [emphasis in original]
Ditto for warblogging central, Little Green Footballs: "The Associated Press story about the release of photographer Bilal Hussein, strangely, does not explain that Hussein was released because of a new Iraqi amnesty law -- not because the charges were found to be without merit."
But where were the details about this amnesty law? Where were the facts that proved that Iraqi judges, in an extraordinarily high-profile case against a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and in a case the U.S. military was heavily invested in, never examined the evidence presented against Hussein and simply allowed him to walk free regardless of his guilt or innocence? Did warbloggers quote U.S. military officials? Did they research Iraqi law? Did they even cite news accounts? No -- they just liked the sound of the amnesty spin.
Still curious as to how LGF could be so certain in its April 16 item about the details of the amnesty law and how it represented Hussein's bogus, get-of-jail card, I went back and looked at what LGF wrote following the April 9 news that the Iraqi judges had dismissed charges against Hussein.
LGF posted this: "AP photographer Bilal Hussein has received amnesty from the Iraqi government, under a new law. I was unable to find any details about this 'new law,' but apparently it covers Hussein." [emphasis added]
Oh, my. Warbloggers maintain this fantasy that they were right all along about Hussein being a terrorist and it was only the creation of a new amnesty law that saved him from a certain prison sentence. But in truth, warbloggers have no idea what the amnesty law means.
And by the way, that amnesty angle was total BS, according to Scott Horton, an actual attorney was who was actually involved in the case. (He was Hussein's lawyer.) "When we [in the U.S.] say 'amnesty,' it's usually an executive act. This was a judicial amnesty based on a review of the complete court record," he told CJR last week.
Horton also wrote this in a Harper's blog entry on April 9:
An Iraqi Judicial Commission reviewing his case took ten days to reach a conclusion: No basis existed for the terrorism-related charges which had been brought against him. The conclusion was a sweeping repudiation of accusations U.S. military figures have brought against him, backed by no evidence, but by a handful of strangely motivated American wingnut bloggers.
Back in November when the military floated its evidence against Bilal Hussein and warbloggers were getting ready for their Trial of the Century, Captain's Quarters blogger Ed Morrissey announced, "In the end, the only real damage done will be to the AP, which can replace its Pulitzer it won with Bilal Hussein with a Walter Duranty award for Best Useful Idiots In Wartime."
Of course, we now know that the real damage was done to Malkin and her loyal squadron of warbloggers. So, for the second time in 15 months, they are free to collect their Best Useful Idiots in Wartime awards.
Its about faith to these idiots now, they seem to have this logic that if they want to beleive in something bad enough it must be true. It's sad.
The right wing media for years now has promoted an extreme distrust of "liberal media", "elite academics", "judicial activists", etc. They have made it so that there is no standard of truth and any right wing conspiracy is as good as the facts.
It is kind of hopeless, isn't it.
I think the only solution is bad bad times ahead. Things have to get worse for these people before they wise up. They need to see who the bad guys really are.
Historically, that is what has always happened.
No, see, the only and full intent of the rightwing's tape-looped idiotic obduracy is to frustrate debate and considerations to such an extent it begins to feel hopeless, when it is not hopeless in the least.
>BLAM! >BLAM! Two in the head. End of idiotic rightwinger playing dumb.
--- ----
Justice, democracy, Americans -- whatever frame you choose for it, needs not put up with containing, tolerating, the FUXNews fascists any longer.
The Iraq vets are returning, and they are taking names of (Malkin, e.g.) who supported sending them into desert hell for no reason, and they are plenty p.o.'ed. Michelle, step forward, and receive the thanks of so many troops for your condemnation of them.
Unfortuanately, once a vet speaks out, or dares to question the farce and official narrative, they are reminded unkindly that they volunteered for "THE MISSION". So STFU already.
The neo-cans are blind to the premise that because they did volunteer that makes thier voice all the more credible. After all, if a draftee speaks out, the response has allways been, well we expect that some of our conscripts will always be complainers.
Many of them, per Coulter, actually admire McCarthy and believe he is much maligned by history.
McCarthy's actions (and Malkin's et al) were WAY more anti-American than anything their targets could have done.
Deez,
Can you state what did McCarthy actually did to earn you enmity?
The Verona Files from the former U.S.S.R. show that McCarthy was pretty accurate and proves that Communists agents had indeed infiltrated different levels of the United States Government.
oops... you mean VeNona... right?
Even bigger "oops" though: To date, NO ONE McCarthy named has been identified as a Soviet spy through the Venona files.
In fact, experts on the files, such as Harvey Klehr and National Archives researcher John Earl Haynes, argue persuasively that McCarthy made it more difficult to identify and catch the REAL Soviet spies with all of his groundless accusations.
Thanks for the correction.
I am not saying McCarthy was a prince, but I do believe that many people, Owen Lattimore, comes to mind who have been exposed by those files.
There were lists provided by the FBI to McCarthy of people suspected of being Communists.
M.Stanton Evans recent book, "Blacklisted by History - The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies" lists numerous other people.
Below is an excerpt from a column by Terrence Jeffrey explaining some of the misinformation regarding McCarthy.
“If we check out the State Department rosters of the era, we discover McCarthy’s use of the number 57 in referring to then-current security cases in State’s workforce was indeed mistaken -- but erring on the side of understatement,” writes Evans. “In fact, of the people he and [subcommittee assistant counsel Robert] Morris named up through the conclusion of the [Tydings committee] hearings, no fewer than 67 were still at State in 1950. Moreover, at least 15 of the people he named were at work that year on other official payrolls, often having moved there from State, precisely as McCarthy contended. Thus, of the total number of McCarthy/Morris cases, some 82 were still serving at official posts in 1950.”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23388AA,
What are you trying to say be quoting this excerpt?
Also, what's the point of quoting a discredited rightwing website?
I know nothing of the website and if it is or is not discredited. The point I wanted to make was the quote from the book, "Blacklisted By History..."
As I mentioned above, I wanted to reference the M. Stanton Evans book.
I've seen Terrence Jeffries columns on other websites. Why do you say it is discredited?
Who cares about the book, what does it have to do with this discussion?
It is discredited because many of the authors on it are known liars!
Skeptical,
All I ask is that you prove it. As I said in another reply, you are trying to use McCarthy like tactics by calling these people liars and not backing it up.
AA,
I fall for this every time, you got me, I was punked again!
Good one!
AA,
If you truly believe that Humanevents.com and M. Stanton Evans are truthful and credible then I fully understand where you are coming from now.
In the past I have found your comments and opinions to border on the edge of fringe thinking, but I flet you came by your opinions honestly and with some thought.
Now, unfortunately, I realize you get everything you spout from radical, discredited, untruthful, factless and thoughtless, rightwing websites and nutjobs.
You have never had a single solitary original thought, nor have you ever critically examined the crap you read, as is evidenced by your reference to abiotic oil and your defense of the indefensible Joe McCarthy.
This hasn't been an interesting discussion, since all you have been doing is reciting something that you read that was made up by some rightwing nutjob.
It would be interesting if you used what little intellect that you have and tried to be honest about a subject, but alas, that will never happen.
Have a fun fantasy life, indulging with your fellow fiction readers.
Sources?
Oh that's right... Given repeated chances all in the name of a good discussion, you haven't provided any.
Don't worry. You are following a pattern I see here all to often. It can be characterized by this old saying from the law profession.
If you don't have the facts, argue the law. If you don't have the law, argue the facts. If you don't have either, attack the plaintiff.
I guess we all know where you fall.
AA,
Look in the mirror. You have providing nothing also!
Pot meet kettle!
You can't have a discussion if you can't accept facts.
I provided my sources which you conveniently forget. You, on the other hand, are still batting zero.
Your source was a book written by someone who made statements that can't be backed up because he has no sources.
That's not considered a source.
Keep trying AA.
As I explained before, the book has numerous footnotes. I just don't happen to have the book before me at this point.
Anyone who is reading this thread, (which now has become boring imho) can see that you are not arguing in good faith anymore. Rather than just admit you are expressing your opinion you've gone overboard to try to cover it up. I've exposed your attempt at repeated sidestepping inability to provide sources. You are now chattering like a child. Time to let it go.
AA,
I will try one more time. The book you cite is not a reference. In that book, Evans makes a statement.
Anyone can make a statement. For it to be considered, he has to cite some source to corroborate his statement. Without the source, you have no backup.
Therefore, you haven't cited anything, as I have stated repeatedly.
Let's pick something you don't believe, like Global Warming. If I say Global Warming is occuring because Al Gore said so in a Movie, you wouldn't believe and I wouldn't expect you to.
But if I said, Al Gore claims Global Warming is occuring because of this particular evidence (and I cited his Source of the information like the NOAA) then I provided some backup for my claim.
You have provided nothing and now you are giving up because you cannot provide anything as usual!!!!!
First of all most of the people McCarthy accused and ruined or tried to ruin are not mentioned in Venona. Here is a link that details that accusation:
http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html
There is such a disconnect between Venona and McCarthy's lists, it is hard to believe McCarthy even knew about Venona.
Secondly, it appears that McCarthy used his power in a partisan way.
Thirdly, just showing up on a Venona list is not conclusive that the person was a spy.
Despite some pretty desperate attempts at revisionism, McCarthy greatly deserves his original scorn.
Open Mind posted:
"Secondly, it appears that McCarthy used his power in a partisan way."
_____________________________________
That kind of gets to the heart of the matter I think. Joe was an easy target from the right, who used bully tactics at times, and did not play well with other in the Senate.
Most of his research had been done ten years before by Congressman Martin Dies, (D) TX. McCarthy kind of stumbled onto his work and picked up the ball and ran.
My question, why not the same level of outrage against Dies? If McCarthy was barking up the same tree, then why has Dies work been mostly lost to history?
Hog,
Did Dies have public meetings regarding these people? Did Dies ruin peoples lives?
The answer is NO!!
Uh...check your sources again Skeptical. The answer is YES. Dies was the chairman of HUAC and did indeed hold many public hearings on New Deal Dems and Republicans of the time.
I think you're missing my point though. Dies was raising red flags in the mid-30's, McCarthy didn't pick up the trail until late 40's early 50's. My question to you again is why no outrage on the lefts part for Dies?
Can you cite the public meetings? And, if you are correct, you tell me, I wasn't there so I don't know why his story wasn't told.
Do you have some conspiracy theory?
Maybe Dies was looking at actual spies, unlike McCarthy, who made a mockery of the process.
Amazing. I don't have time to give you a history lesson so I've compiled some outhouse reading you peruse at your pleasure:
www.tsl.state.tx.us/arc/findingaids/martindies.html
John Cogley's 1956 Report on Blacklisting
Eric Bentley THIRTY YEARS OF TREASON (1971) ROBERT VAUGHN Only Victims (1972);
Victor Navasky, Naming Names
The Committee: The Extraordinary Career of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Report on Blacklisting, vol. 1, Dorothy Jones, "Communism and the Movies: A Study of Film Content" in Report on Blacklisting, Only Victims, Naming Names, Film and Propaganda in America and WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.'S The Committee and Its Critics.
After you've boned up on some "facts", we'll continue the debate.
BTW-no tin foil hat on here! ;)
Hog,
This ain't no debate! You stated something and I asked you about it. I don't care about Dies, but you seem to. If you won't provide the background for your statements, then I guess the discussion is over.
NIce try though!
Finally Hog,
I think your tinfoil hat is way too tight. If you have a theory as to why Dies is forgotten and McCarthy is villified, please enlighten me, otherwise I'll believe Shirley Temple was a sweet little child and not a Dirty, Rotten, Communist, Soviet (Russian actually) spy, stealing American secrets and helping those scumbag Commies take over the world.
Hog,
I did some more digging and the reason Dies didn't get the attention that McCarthy did, was because Dies didn't get the public TV exposure. Also, Dies was publicly ridiculed for his investigations, naming 9 year old Shirley Temple as a Communist Spy.
Do you think that explains it?
Mary,
You are getting your facts mixed up.
J. B. Matthews, a former Methodist missionary, teacher, pacifist, socialist and reformed Marxist, was the first of a series of Committee ideologists and policy-makers. He was a researcher for HUAC.
It was Matthews who was responsible for the charge that Shirley Temple was a Communist dupe.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/unAmericans.htmlEven though it came out very small I gave my source.
You??? Oh that's right. You don't do sources.
But apparently you are so into your shtick that you failed to notice.
Open,
Thanks for the link. If I am not mistaken, I think McCarthy got most of his names from the lists supplied the FBI and perhaps the CIA and other internal security reports.
I found this at the bottom of your link interesting:
It would take an extensive review of each person separately to come to a firm view on each case, and in a number of cases the passage of time might make reaching a firm conclusion impossible. My own view is that a number of those on the lists above, perhaps a majority, likely were security risks, but others, a minority but a significant one, likely were not, and some, Drew Pearson, Dean Acheson, and George Marshall for example, certainly were not.
How many of innocent people's lives were adversely affected and by how much? I don't know. It would be interesting if one could find out.
AA,
Don't you think even if it was one person, that is one too many?
Also, don't you undestand that McCarthy actually undermined the real investigation with his tactics?
Do you understand anything, or do you like to look stupid?
Certainly the American Communist Party of the '30s and '40s was little more than an intelligence front for the Soviets.
And certainly a number of Soviet sympathizers remained in government service into the '50s.
And as much as they hate to admit it, certainly the American Left was wrong in their defense of certain people.
But none of that alters the fact that McCarthy made allegations without evidence -- and ruined the lives of far, far more people than the number of real Soviet agents he put out of business.
Worst of all, the evidence seems to show that McCarthy's witch hunt distracted and diverted attention and resources from going after the genuine threats.
Come to think of it, I guess that's why he's being resurrected as a hero to the neocons and their fellow travelers who thought the correct way to deal with a terrorist threat based in Afghanistan and funded from Saudi Arabia was to invade Iraq.
Rod,
I've found some more names that were McCarthy suspects that have shown up in the Venona files or Fbi as having some sort of Communist connections:
Solomon Adler
Cedric Belfrage
T.A. Bisson
V. Frank Coe
Lauchlin Currie
Harold Glasser
David Karr
Mary Jane Keeney
Leonard Mins
Franz Neumann
Each were named significantly in the Soviet cables and were Soviet agents.
Rod,
It seems to me that McCarthy's evidence was not that it did not exist, but because of National Security held in secret. Much of it has since mysteriously disappeared from Senate archives.
What about the vast majority of the scores of people named by McCarthy that were not in Venona and had no other evidence against them? Was it okay to ruin their lives?
This was a reckless "shotgun" method of finding communist spies. I suppose if you spray out enough shot, you are going to hit something of consequence. Nevermind the collateral damage.
Open,
We do not know, (at least I don't,) how many if any innocent people's lives were ruined (it would be helpful if we could define ruined,) by McCarthy. Looking over that list, perhaps up to 100 were not security risks. How many of those were affected by the charges? That I would like to know.
AA,
Like I said above, one is too many. Also, McCarthy ruined the real investigation allowing the real spies to continue working as spies.
This is the guy you are defending?
I think that accusing one person of being something they are not - especially something as feared and reviled as a communist spy is a travesty. If I was to make up an accusation, I would make darn sure the evidence was presented (in a secret court if need be), but I would never ever make a charge like that without some cover of due process. McCarthy stuck his neck out when he was unable and/or unwilling to provide evidence for his claims.
The fact that we still cannot prove McCarthy was right underscores his lack of due dilligence at best and at worst, his criminal recklessnous.
Finally AA,
Owen Lattimore was not really exposed, only to people like you.
Most people felt the charges were trumped up and the star witness changed his story the second time around.
According to Evans book, there are files in the FBI and CIA that state Lattimore was divulging information to the Russians.
Sources AA, you need sources.
Cite the sources of the names you produced and cite Evan's sources.
If you don't, you can't be believed, because you usually cite some discredited right wing crap, like you did earlier!
They are from the book I mentioned. "Blacklisted by History" by M Stanton Evans. p. 39.
There is a whole chapter on Lattimore.
You have to do better than that AA. If you want me to cite something, then you have to cite the source that Evans used for his statement.
You can't use Evans' own book. He can write anyhting he wants, but can he back it up. I don't believe he can, which is why I am asking.
If you read his book, he does very little in the way of citing any facts. He just makes statements with no backup.
Sort of like someone else I know.
I think it is a bit extreme that you are asking me to give sources of the source I provided. The book is replete with footnotes. Of those people I cited, I do believe all of them were referenced in the Venona files. I hope that answers your question.
My question to you is, what do you do now that you have the source's source? My guess is you are simply playing a game with me in an attempt to move away from the fact that I proved your point about McCarthy not identifying any communists as incorrect.
This review by Ronald Radosh addresses the substance of Evan's book and the general attempt to resurrect McCarthy's image.
Radosh points out that he is the co-author of the book that Evans used to write his, although not accredited.
AA,
You obviously have the book in front of you. What is his source?
My point is that he doesn't have one. You obviously know that to be true or you would provide it.
Evans does a great job of pointing out that McCarthy was correct in suspecting that there were Soviet spies in out government. No one disputes that.
Evans is completely wrong when he claims that McCarthy was correct about who those spies were.
He has no evidence that Lattimore was a spy. His only eveidence is that Lattimore sympathised with the Chinese Communists positions. Other than that he presents no evidence of Lattimore being a spy.
Since you never provided Evans' source, you know this to be true, yet you hold onto it, because you are incapable of admitting what we all know, and that is that you are incapable of independant thought.
You also stubbornly hold onto a belief after the facts have shown it is not true. Then you wonder why people call you names.
It is because they get so frustrated with you and your inability to admit facts.
Skeptical,
This is getting tiring. So far I have not seen you provide any sources for your criticism. I have provided mine. If you don't like them, that is okay but if you are going to critique my sources, back it up.
I have told you there is a whole chapter in Evan's book with regards to Lattimore detailing his association with Communists. I do not have the book in front me now so I cannot list those sources, but that is immaterial. I have not said these are my contentions, I have stated that they are Evan's. You notice that Mary attempted to provide counterpoints by listing only websites. Do you ask for her source's sources? No you do not. It is a disingenuous argument on your part. You exclude yourself from the challenge of providing your own sources. You need to clean up your own house first my friend.
Even if you have a disgreement regarding Lattimore. That is only one person out of 10 that I originally cited from Evan's book. There is room for disagreement to be sure.
Nice Try AA,
Avoid the problems in my posts and keep repeating yourself.
Evans cannot be cited as a source.
Lattimore was your original name.
You never cited where those other names came from.
You are getting tiresome!
Yet keep plugging away, maybe someday you'll make sense to someone, but it ain't happening here!
I explained that Evans is my source.
You have not explained why his book, "Blacklisted by History" is not a source. You simply say he has no sources, which is not based on anything but your imagination.
AA,
I will try one more time. The book you cite is not a reference. In that book, Evans makes a statement.
Anyone can make a statement. For it to be considered, he has to cite some source to corroborate his statement. Without the source, you have no backup.
Therefore, you haven't cited anything, as I have stated repeatedly.
Let's pick something you don't believe, like Global Warming. If I say Global Warming is occuring because Al Gore said so in a Movie, you wouldn't believe and I wouldn't expect you to.
But if I said, Al Gore claims Global Warming is occuring because of this particular evidence (and I cited his Source of the information like the NOAA) then I provided some backup for my claim.
You have provided nothing and now you are giving up because you cannot provide anything as usual!!!!!
AA, I finally looked up Evans, he is a discredited rightwing author.
Sorry, no sale!
Mr. L.,
I do try to keep a list of books I'd like to read. I don't recall you recommending that one to me. Did you do so recently? Why again do you think I should read it? (Maybe we should form a book club?) :-)
That being said, your comment has nothing to do with subject at hand and really doesn't make much sense. But thanks anyway.
If you haven't read enough about McCarthy, you wouldn't know, but McCarthy spent a great deal of his time ruining peoples' lives over something that wasn't illegal. He spent a bunch of his time bullying entertainment industry people about their politics and their social associations and then practiced guilt by association to squeeze the next person down the line, ad infinitum. He did this until he was finally shamed publicly by a person he was bullying in a hearing who said "Have you no conscience, sir?" when the truth was, he didn't.
McCarthy was a self-agrandizing, bullying, lying, little puke of the same ilk as his festering little lying puke buddy and protoge, Richard M. Nixon.
They're filed in a box right next to the ones showing GW Bush's secret heroics in the Air Guard....
in that big warehouse at the end of "Raiders of the Lost Ark."
Wookie,
I think you mean to refer to McCarthy's attack against George Marshall. Some of the Communist agents I mentioned above, ended up working for Marshall and most likely influenced Marshall and his advice to Truman after the war regarding both Russia and China.
McCarthy did enough to earn the enmity of every thinking person who values civil rights, the rule of law and evidence, and our very Constitutional freedoms. He engaged in vicious, unsubstantiated smear and demagoguery. The Venona Project files never "proved" anything vis vis McCarthy and his smears and false accusations. The information in the files has significance only for the intelligence community. However, that hasn’t stopped McCarthy apologists and other propagandists from using the files to absolve a heinous individual and his equally monstrous activities.
Check out the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#Ongoing_debate ) entry on McCarthy and McCarthyism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism) and the sources linked there. Regarding the Venona Project (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona):
"Although there are some cases where Venona or other recent data has increased the weight of evidence against a person named by McCarthy, there are few, if any, cases where McCarthy was responsible for identifying a person, or removing a person from a sensitive government position, where later evidence has increased the likelihood that that person was a Communist or a Soviet agent."
The Wikipedia article also mentions that the records of the closed executive sessions of the subcommittee under McCarthy's chairmanship were made public in 2003-2004. The preface to the documents stated:
"Senator McCarthy’s zeal to uncover subversion and espionage led to disturbing excesses. His browbeating tactics destroyed careers of people who were not involved in the infiltration of our government. His freewheeling style caused both the Senate and the Subcommittee to revise the rules governing future investigations, and prompted the courts to act to protect the Constitutional rights of witnesses at Congressional hearings... These hearings are a part of our national past that we can neither afford to forget nor permit to reoccur."
On the era of McCarthyism, Wikipedia notes:
"During this time [late 40s to late 50s] many thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment, destruction of their careers, and even imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned, laws that would be declared unconstitutional,[2] dismissals for reasons later declared illegal, or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute. ¶ The most famous examples of McCarthyism include the Hollywood Blacklist and the investigations and hearings conducted by Joseph McCarthy. It was a widespread social and cultural phenomenon that affected all levels of society and was the source of a great deal of debate and conflict in the United States." (Footnotes omitted.)
Yes there was an anti-Communist hunt going on during the 40's and 50's. What is interesting is that McCarthy became chairman of the Senate Permanent Committe on Investigations. Correct me if I am wrong but his claims were against those serving in the Government, not Hollywood.
Like I said, McCarthy was no angel. He did attack those he thought were Communist agents and in certain instances reached too far in connecting the dots. My point is that it has been proven by an analysis of Venona files, FBI records, and Senate records that many of McCarthy's allegations turned out to be correct and not baseless as many have claimed. There were communist spies in the State Department and other Departments, some of whom had been there since the 30's.
I suggest that if you read the book, "Blacklisted by History" as it is very well documented if you have any doubts.
"My point is that it has been proven by an analysis of Venona files, FBI records, and Senate records that many of McCarthy's allegations turned out to be correct and not baseless as many have claimed. There were communist spies in the State Department and other Departments, some of whom had been there since the 30's." -AA
The vast majority of McCarthy's allegations were just as people suspected - wrong and baseless. What value is a charge from someone who was apparently wrong much more often than when he was right? I suppose it is probably wrong to ask a Bush apologist that question.
McCarthy never revealed his "evidence" - so the charges were baseless by definition.
I'll stand slightly corrected; it's been a long time since I looked into Venona and Haynes has done more research.
Of the 159 people McCarthy named in his various lists and speeches, nine (9) have been identified as working with the Soviets (generally as "sources" as opposed to "agents) -- only four (4) of which are in Venona. And some of the nine had been involved in the '30s and '40s, when being anti-fascist or pro-Zionist could lead to sympathy/support for socialism/communism -- but had become anti-Soviet by the time of McCarthy's witch hunts.
I'm sure you don't consider Ronald Reagan or Charlton Heston "liberal Democrats" just because of their earlier affiliations and activities, do you?
McCarthy was of the "Ready, Fire, Aim" school... and generally forget to aim even after the fact.
And I will repeat my statement that he did far more harm than good by diverting attention and resources from the genuine spies.
Rod,
Snappy comeback. Can you provide a link to that source?
AA,
Quit the source game until you provide one!
Sure... but I didn't bother since you'd already been provided the source YESTERDAY... and apparently couldn't be bothered to check it out.
http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html
Rod,
Thanks. I did check it out and even cut and pasted part of it back in a reply to you to show you that the author you cited thought that half that list might have indeed been security risks. I could not ascertain from this post of yours that you were referring to the same link. Thanks.
"... might ... have been security risks..."
But we'll never know -- because McCarthy's bullying and bombast so thoroughly poisoned the well that it disrupted even legitimate investigation.
Which has been my point all along: McCarthy had no real evidence and did far more harm than good.
AA,
The people in the Venona files were not people he targeted. You and your book are wrong, as usual.
According to the same link I provided earlier, only 9 people out of 159 that McCarthy named were found to have supporting evidence by Venona and other sources (such as Yeltsin's opening of Soviet era espionage files).
It seems that McCarthy was right about charges of espionage 5.7% of the time, which is really pretty good when compared to the average conservative.
Linus,
I find your selective cut and past of Wikopedia misleading and out of date. The preface you pasted was written by two Senators in 2003 echoing the commonly accepted view of McCarthy. Much of the facts surrounding McCarthy's charges have come to light since.
This review by Ronald Radosh addresses the substance of Evan's book and the general attempt to resurrect McCarthy's image.
Mary,
Next time rather than simply list websites, pick out the pertinent argument from those please.
Again your source does not back your claim. His review is a mixed bag even though Mr. Radosh does level some harsh criticism at Mr. Evans.Mr. Radosh only lists two examples that he takes issue with in Mr. Evan's book.
Now joining the fray is longtime journalist and prominent conservative M. Stanton Evans. Rather than a biography, Evans has written a defense counsel’s brief for his client, whom he seeks to defend against all the slanders made about McCarthy by his political enemies. Like any lawyer’s argument, Evans’s brief has strengths and weaknesses. He has done extensive research, and has managed to prove that many of McCarthy’s main opponents themselves had a highly partisan agenda, bending truth in order to score points. Most important, many of his critics were so upset with McCarthy that they totally ignored or minimized the serious issue of Communist penetration of the highest levels of the government. Evans’s brief, however, is weakened by a lack of balance, and his desire to write an unabashed tribute that seeks to exonerate McCarthy on virtually every count. ...
me - I am not trying to exonerate McCarthy. My motives are to simply show that there is another side to the story. Even though Rodesh thinks Evan's account is one sided he grudgingly gives Evan's credit where it is due while pointing out what he considers to be the one sided nature of the book. Fair enough.
AA,
Add to the list of your inabilities, the inability to comprehend the written word.
I expected that you would want to read the entire article because Ronald Radosh gave a fair assessment of Evan's book. Radosh's book would be good reading if you want a non-partisan account of McCarthy.
Mary,
I assume you have read Radosh's book?
Take a look at this counter regarding Radosh's review:
This contemptible Uriah Heep patronizingly writes, for example, that "Evans does an impressive job of reminding readers how serious the issue of Communist penetration was" -- something Radosh's own books failed to do because he's too busy denouncing right-wingers like Joe McCarthy.But Uriah Radosh complains that Evans "does not emphasize, although his own data make it clear, that most of the knowledge about these people came before McCarthy was on the scene. After all, Elizabeth Bentley first went to the FBI in 1945, and named key members of Soviet networks."
This is extensively covered in Chapters 10 and 11 of Evans' book. Extensively. There are even never-before-released charts in those chapters that you'd notice by merely flipping through the book before purporting to write a review of it. So even people who just read Evans' book for the pictures will know that he's covered that point pretty exhaustively. This includes one intricately detailed FBI chart mapping out Bentley's Soviet contacts. But thanks for reminding us about Elizabeth Bentley, Ron!
All of this information, incidentally, was delivered to the Truman administration, where it was promptly ignored.
This is the central fact that apparently must be explained to liberals over and over again. I will understand the rules of football before liberals will grasp McCarthy's point.
It is true that most of the high-value targets whom McCarthy cited to prove Democratic perfidy had been identified as Soviet spies before McCarthy came on the scene.
But the essence of what McCarthy was saying was: Let's get into this a bit. How could Whittaker Chambers meet with FDR's Assistant Secretary of State Adolf Berle in 1939, reveal massive Soviet penetration of the Roosevelt administration, and still have these same Soviet spies swarming through Democratic administrations a decade later?
How could Truman have nominated known Soviet spy Harry Dexter White to be U.S. director of the International Monetary Fund in 1946? How could Truman still be denying Alger Hiss was a Soviet agent in 1956?
Democrats want endless, pontifical investigations into how 9/11 happened, but they can't comprehend why McCarthy wanted an investigation into how an immense network of Soviet spies managed to run rampant through the Democratic administrations of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman.
After Hiss, the Rosenbergs and the loss of China, there was considerably more reason for McCarthy to investigate the State Department than there is for the current Congress to investigate Bush's firing of his own U.S. attorneys.
By exposing the Democrats' absolute blindness to Soviet totalitarianism, McCarthy shattered forever the nation's confidence in the Democrats' capacity to govern. For that, the Stalinist hate machine attacked him viciously and has never let up -- as detailed in Blacklisted by History, a book Ron Radosh might want to read someday.
But Radosh is not about to let the first book to render a full and honest historical account of Joe McCarthy ruin his blissful ignorance. Radosh knows less about McCarthy than I know about fly-fishing. He gets cases wrong, sources wrong, hearings wrong. He's been pulling this nonsense for 25 years now. The sole point of his current cliche-ridden ramblings in National Review is to make yet one more special pleading to liberals.
http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=135173
AA,
Good idea, since you can't seem to back up anything you say ever!
AA,
The problem is that when you copy and paste directly into MMFA's comment area, there is hidden formatting information that does not show up in these windows. The way to avoid this is to:
Apparently the numbering function on text doesn't work. Here are the instructions:
1. Paste formatted text such as web text into windows Notepad. (Notepad is a plain text editor that comes in every windows system for free that will completely disregard the special hidden formatting when text is pasted there.)
2. After the text is pasted there, you can re-select it and copy it again.
3. Paste the text in the MMFA window. It should look like all of your other text.
PS. I wasn't trying to be funny above, but it is pretty ironic that the steps I was describing were how to avoid such an instance of microtype.
AA,
I'm going to give you a challenge. Just once over the next couple of days, find an actual mainstream or nonpartisan source that states something that you think is true.
You know, find one that independantly confirms a belief of yours. It doesn't have to be about McCarthy. Make it Global Warming, Abiotic Oil, Terrorism, Immigration anything.
I bet you can't do it!
I don't think you have one single thought in your head that didn't come from a RightWing website. Every solitary statement that you put forward comes from Far Right nutjobs.
You don't have any ideas about anything that you didn't read on one of these factless, devisive sites.
Please take up the challenge and let me know how you do.
Skeptical,
Since you have failed to provide even one source backing up your unsupportable claims in this thread, I find you issuing a challenge to be ludicrous.
Good One AA,
Afraid to see your world crumble around you?
Also, I'll take that as a NO!
I really didn't expect you to tax your idealogy!
McCarthy dragged peoples' names through the mud while showboating. He spent a bunch of time focused on Hollywood (none of his business, thank you very much) and spent his time making a lot of crap up. He pressured a lot of people into telling who they associated with, and then found them all guilty be association. If his logic were taken to its logical conclusion, we would all be communists, then.
He was a narcissistic idiot, as was his protege, Richard Nixon.
We have to let it go. For Malkin and LGF and Ace of Spades, their beliefs have nothing to do with reality any more, they are simply religious articles of faith.
They are constantly accusing climate change and evolution and a heliocentric solar system and the laws of thermodynamics of being "religious" beliefs and "mere theories" instead of the "hard facts" of Iran training Al Qaeda, of the black race having been created when Noah's sons caught him banging a coed and Abraham and his wife having triplets at age 834.
Just yesterday, I heard one of these fabulists on the Hugh Hewitt show, saying the Catholic Sex Abuse Scandal being "exaggerated". There have been 800 new cases in 2006 and 2007 (after the queens in the Vatican had supposedly "cleaned house"), but of course, to someone on the Right, this is just an "exaggerated scandal".
I think it may be best just to avoid these folks. That's why I let Media Matters and other professionals deal with them. It's better than exercising my 2nd Amendment "rights" and protecting my country against their type.
Pope. R, funny you should mention that Hugh Hewitt show. I once got jumped on by a conservative poster here for making a distinction between pedophilia and statutory rape involving and age difference of a few years. I wasn't trying to diminish one, but point out that the other was much worse.
I didn't catch who the apologist was on Hewitt's show, but I heard him describe the adolescent victims of the abuse as "having men's bodies, but not able to give consent", as well as clarifying for the wingnut audience that it wasn't a pedophile problem as much as a homosexual problem.Hewitt went right along with it.
Pope,
Can you cite where those numbers of new cases you quoted regarding the Priest sex-scandals came from?
Thanks
I got curious myself.
The only numbers I could find were from catholic.org, based on surveys conducted by CARA in 2006 and earlier:
714 new allegations in 2006. Although the trend, thankfully, is downward, I still think that 86 new allegations in 2007 would be a conservative estimate.
Thanks Pete.
Good lord, has a more stupid sentence ever been typed?
OF COURSE the United States puts innocent people on trial. EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty, and guilt is only established after a trial. Therefore, by definition, every single person ever put on trial by the United States is innocent.
Go read a Civics book, Daenku.
J.
Mary,
Your link does not prove your point. It looks like a college essay. There is no date on it either.
The essay you linked repeatedly conflates HUAC with McCarthy, lumping them together when the fact is they were not connected. The
McCarthy is often incorrectly described as part of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (technically HCUA, but generally known as HUAC). The HUAC is best known for the investigation of Alger Hiss and for its investigation of the Hollywood film industry, which led to the blacklisting of hundreds of actors, writers and directors. The HUAC was a House committee, and as such had no connection with McCarthy, who served in the Senate.
The HUAC hearings regarding the Hollywood ten took place in 1947. McCarthy chaired the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations six years later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthyThis witch-hunt and anti-communist hysteria became known as McCarthyism. Some left-wing artists and intellectuals were unwilling to live in this type of society and people such as Joseph Losey, Richard Wright, Ollie Harrington, James Baldwin, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole and Chester Himes went to live and work in Europe.
McCarthyism was mainly used against Democrats associated with the New Deal policies introduced by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s. Harry S. Truman and members of his Democratic administration such as George Marshall and Dean Acheson, were accused of being soft on communism. Truman was portrayed as a dangerous liberal and McCarthy's campaign helped the Republican candidate, Dwight Eisenhower, win the presidential election in 1952. "
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthy.htm
Mary,
Can you identify which people and which jobs? I do believe many worked for the government which at the time prohibited Communists from working there. The following is a portion of a response to a question regarding what laws caused people to lose their jobs during that era.
First it was a relatively small number of people. Except for government employees, there was no "law." These were private actions by private employers. There were certain laws regarding security clearances that were used to deprive government employees of positions (Such as Robert Oppenheimer). Then there were the cases of "loyalty oaths," mainly in state government which required people to swear they had never been members of a "Communist" party or organization or required some to disclose those they had been members of. Some people refused & lost their jobs.
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/answers2/frontend.php/question?qid=20080331141526AAwZn3uThen some people were prosecuted for perjury (eg Alger Hiss) for lying to Congress which as investigating communist influence in various government agencies & (at one time) the entertainment business. Ten Hollywood performers & writers were sentenced for contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions of a Congressional Committee. A larger number were "blacklisted" by the industry.
_____________________?
Demintx,
McCarthy was hardly the establishment. He was not popular with other Senators on both sides of the aisle because in many cases he refused to go along.
Demintx,
Do you have any examples of many lives McCarthy ruined?
AA,
I think the Col. is right. You are punking us. No one could ask that question with a straight face.
I'd say that your about as far to the right as Rev. Wright is to the left.
I am only repeating facts and listed my sources. I have seen people like you and skeptical try to deflect by casting aspersions my way but do not see you backing any of it up. Why no sources?
I really don't care about McCarthy. He's dead and it was 50 years ago. However I am interested in the true story. That is why I decided to find out more. I don't see why I am under personal attack.. It's a bit McCarthyish don't you think? :-)
If you disagree with what I have said, fine. If you want to call me names, go ahead. I just ask that you provide some sort of evidence to back it up.
I didn't call you names, I used your own twisted logic to show how far to the right you are.
You spent most of the last week calling us far leftists. You've been using specious evidence to attempt to portray those who argued against the War In Vietnam as far leftists. You dredge up Joe McCarthy, bathe the corpse in right wing detergent and present him to us as some sort of tarnished saint.
History has proven that McCarthy did more to harm Americans than he did to help them. History has shown that the Vietnam War was a mistake and came as close to tearing this country apart as anything ever has.
You can use all of the soap in the world, but this carcass still smells.
Worrier,
You are wrong my friend. I did not call you far leftist. I called Obama a far leftist.
BTW, I appreciate any conversation that discusses ideas and leaves out insults. My comments in that regard only applies where applicable. Tax, title, and fees excluded. Results may vary. :-)
AA,
Try an original idea sometime, instead of one from a rightwing website!
AA,
The problem is you haven't stated any facts. You have made false statements, so we point that out.
Or, you ask silly questions, which we point out.
If you are going to use discredited sources, then don't expect us to let you get away with it.
Uhhhh...I don't think anybody seriously questions the objectivity of the Jawa Report. It has none.
You may automatically dismiss the comments of anyone who cites them as a source.
Malkin is nothing but another conservative sheep out grazing for that little morsal of lies..
Of course, we now know that the real damage was done to Malkin and her loyal squadron of warbloggers.
They won't care about their lack of credibility--they have NEVER been bothered with the lack of actual facts to support their claims. People who read and believe them will never accept anything that contradicts their opinions and will invent a million reasons that Bilal is really a terrorist.
Nerzog,
Your claim about those who believe in the Bible is simply religious prejudice and ignores the rules of war.
The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The authority to detain enemy combatants flows primarily from Article II of the Constitution. In the current conflict, the President’s authority is bolstered by Congress’s Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized “the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force” against al Qaida and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines” committed or aided in the September 11 attacks.” Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers (if any trigger were necessary) the President’s traditional authority to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief.
Do you know if Bilal Hussein was considered an enemy combatant?
According to the U.S. military, Hussein was arrested in April 2006, when bomb parts and insurgent propaganda were found in his house in Ramadi after the U.S. military asked to use it as an observation post during an operation.[8] The military said that Hussein was found with two insurgents, including Hamid Hamad Motib, an alleged leader of al-Qaida terrorists in Iraq.[1] According to a May 7, 2006 e-mail from U.S. Army Major General Jack Gardner, "He has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces."[1] Gardner continued, "The information available establishes that he has relationships with insurgents and is afforded access to insurgent activities outside the normal scope afforded to journalists conducting legitimate activities."[1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)
The Iraqis evaluated the evidence and decided to release Bilal. 'Nuf said.
"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:"
"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:"
But, weren't we "enemy combatants"?
Just as was the case with many detainees at Guantanamo, there was no evidence to hold Mr. Hussein. The military provided no proof to substantiate the charges against him and he was released.
Apparently you think it's OK to imprison people for years without any evidence or in many cases no charges ever actually being brought.
Edella,
I could not ascertain from the links that the military provide "no" evidence in this case. Maybe the did not. I can't tell.
That's disingenuous. The military has never been reluctant to publicly display whatever evidence they have in any case unless there is an issue of national security or sources and methods -- an exemption they have not claimed in this case.
But they have made nothing public other than statements and denied his attorney discovery.
Personally, if I was head of AP, I'd be filing a FOIA lawsuit for any and all evidence now that the charges are gone.
Rod,
No it's not. I cannot find the exact rulings or the evidence presented. All I see is that quote by the judge. If you can find out anything more, I will be grateful.
I would simply like to see what evidence was or was not presented in that case that caused the judge to toss it out.
Have you considered the possibility that there never was any evidence? I would like to see it myself. I suspect the evidence was just too pitiful and/or laughable.
Maybe we can all just blame it on "activist" liberal judges. Imagine that - a middle-eastern country with an "activist" liberal judge. What is the world coming to? No country is safe from them evil liberals - out to make war-bloggers look idiotic!
AA, in my rather extensive experience with the military, both in uniform and as a reporter, I can't recall a case where they made public accusations and didn't reveal the evidence, except for information (rightly or wrongly) considered classified.
They haven't claimed a classified exemption here -- but also have not publicly shown any evidence, just claims and statements, despite having two years to do so.
Add that there was no push to keep him in custody, and the logical conclusion here is that they didn't have squat.
Like I said, if I was AP, I'd be jamming a FOIA up the backside of someone in Centcom -- make 'em put up or admit they had nothing.
ps.You are wrong in your assumption. I believe in habeas corpus and all the ancillary rights as provided in our Constitution.
I thought I explained the reasoning behind the detention regarding enemy combatants. I can see why they might be detained. Whether this incident falls into that category I cannot judge since I do not have the judge's ruling or the exact court proceedings.AA,
What is an enemy combatant?
What are the distinguishing characteristics?
When we're dealing with an enemy who wears no uniform and blends into innocent civilian populations, who makes that determination?
Who does that unquestioned authority belong to?
Is an enemy combatant anyone who happens to be walking around in Afghanistan with a rifle?
Is it some guy sitting on a bus in Pakistan that simply looks out of place?
Whatever method the Bush Administration uses for determining who an enemy combatant is, it has been nothing less than an absolute failure.
AA wrote:
>>Pete, All good questions. You'll have to ask the military.
What a dishonest answer! If you cannot answer Pete's question, you have no business supporting the concept of an enemy combatant. You really *don't* support the concept of habeus corupus, which is at least 700 years old. People like you want to take us back to the 50's--the 1150s!
Funnyman,
Okay. You answer it if you know so much. If you think the military is wrong, prove it.
What is that? You don't really know? Wow! Are you being dishonest?
Just because someone asks a question about the military of which I do not personally know the answer does not make me dishonest as you falsely accused.
Quit with the silly attempts at putdowns. I have not said that this photographer was treated fairly or that he should have been kept in prison for two years. I have only pointed out that there seem to be reasons for his detention, historical and legal validity for his incarceration, and questions remain about the evidence that caused him to be locked up. I would think any fair minded individual would agree.
This question is a little off topic, but now that AA has brought it up, I was hoping he might be able to shed some light on a conservative view of the some legal issues.
How can the administration claim the title of enemy combatants to people that are not protected under the Geneva Convention (I think Gonzalas put forth the argument, although its ethical intricacies escape me)? Furthermore, during a time of war (i.e anytime), can I (or anyone, really) be labeled an enemy combatant even though I am a US citizen, and then can I be held without due process (as your post seems to suggest) all within the law?
P.S. One of the founder's, Benjamin Franklin, once said "Those who'd trade liberty for security deserve neither."
Billie,
I do believe you, as a citizen can be declared an enemy combatant during a time of war. The particulars escape me now but I saw a reference to it when I posted earlier.
I wish I had time to discuss further. Sadly I don't. Maybe someone else will pick up the ball and run with it.
Just to be clear... my earlier statement concerns civil liberties; this is why I included the quote from BF at the end of my post. Furthermore, to my awareness, no one has been brought to justice for violation of due process. If violation has occurred, this suggests that we no longer have the right to due process provided that some authority can 'reasonably' claim the arbitrary categorization of enemy combatant during a 'time of war'.
To my reading, AA finds this acceptable. I do not. You may argue that the administration is culpable for such a violation; but if such a transgression has been unconstitutionally carried out by the executive branch and the American legislature does not choose to use its check and balance, then in all intents and purposes this executive stance is legal. Now the legislature will not move on this issue unless it becomes politically advantageous to do so. Most people believe that giving up this and the surveillance issue are worth the additionally safety. Again, I do not. In my opinion, we have given up civil liberties for the appearance of safety (as was warned by Franklin).
appaulingrod,
A couple of concerns your post. Those covered underneath Geneva Conventions are intended to be those of a recognizable force, openly carry their weapons or follow the normal protocols of war like a chain of command or are following the convention articles themselves. Terrorists follow none of these.
"Article 51.3 of the Commentary: IV Geneva Convention also covers this interpretation: "Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.".[3] In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy." [4] "
The conventions do say that all combatants or those civilians engaged in hostilities still deserve humanitarian treatment. None of those kept in Guantanimo have died except for suicide or high cholesteral. However, I don't the terrorists have done much waterboarding either so give them credit. They just have jumped to the beheading part of humanitarian treatment expected.
"...Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."
That's exactly what I said -- and what Gonzales et al claimed was not the case.
As for the detainees who died from questionable treatment (torture or abuse, according to the Law of Armed Conflict), they died prior to being sent to Gitmo.
The fact that some of the Bad Guys engage in beheadings is irrelevant to the legal requirements about how WE treat detainees we have in custody.
"The fact that some of the Bad Guys engage in beheadings is irrelevant to the legal requirements about how WE treat detainees we have in custody."--rod
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Exactly! Sometimes I wonder if the Right won't stop until the difference between us and our enemies is indistinguishable.
The question is: if we abandon our principles to become more like our enemies, who really wins?
AA wrote:
>>Your claim about those who believe in the Bible is simply religious prejudice and ignores the rules of war.
Here's a tip for anyone who debates AA. His links will almost NEVER back up what he says. In this case, he cites a long legal passage that might be mistaken for a legal precedent. It is not. It is an *opinion* by William Hayes. You might also note the contradiction where AA states later that he supports Habeus Corups, but then cites an opinion piece which undermines the very concept. Obviously, if the president can simply declare someone an enemy combatant and hold him without a trial, habeus corups does not exist. In fact, the very case of Hussein shows how bogus and bad it is to label suspects enemy combatants.
Apparantly you are plagiarizing again
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=3492
"Without question, the President can detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002).
So this is from the Defense Dept? We are supposed to take THEIR say so? Lets look at what the BAR ASSOCIATION has to say, to me a better source for constitutional issues.
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/aba/abatskforce103rpt.pdf
No, Nerzog said imprison people WITHOUT A TRIAL. Quirin was about giving enemy combatants a military tribunal BUT STILL A TRIAL.
Since your source brought up Hamdi lets look at that FROM the above cited source.
The fourth circuit refused to dismiss Hamdi's Habeas pettition on this groud (enemy combatant status) and remanded the case to the district court because "in dismissing we, ourselves, would be embracing teh sweeping proposition namely that with no judicial reviiew any American citizen could be detained indefinitly without charges or counsel on the government's say so"
Notice that soon after this ruling the government DID grant Hamdi counsel and soon made a deal to deport him and didnt even TRY to keep him without judicial review or detain him indefinitly, Nerzog is RIGHT. As to Quirin they DID get trials so that is no good either
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin
Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.
Let me get this straight: the people who alleged Bilal Hussein's association to terrorists, a story they fabricated out of whole cloth, are perhaps the source for why he was detained in the first place.
I'd like to say it's unbelievable. But seven years three months of incompetence makes one somewhat jaded.
Randy
My question is where was their outrage over an amnesty law that let "terrorists" out of jail?
Seems they would have formed an on-line movement that would send e-mails to Bush demanding he rescind the evil "pro-terrorist" amnesty law.
Or maybe they did do that; I don't pay any attention to the antics of war-bloggers.
The first I heard of Malkin was when she was hawking her book, which tried to defend the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Here we have an Asian-looking Woman defending the unconstitutional imprisonment of American citizens because.... they looked Asian. Hmmmmm. This came out about the time the Bush Administration was imprisoning A-rabs without due process because they were arrested near a war zone. Hmmmmm. Does anybody really believe that Malkin became a highly paid pundit becuase of her rapier wit and scholarly acumen?
I, for one, seriously doubt it. She's just another toadie on the GOP's propaganda payroll.
Malkin and friends. Collective fools.
Thats about it.
"Does anybody really believe that Rush Limbaugh's success has always been purely 'market driven'?"
Recently I had a very long exchange about that exact issue with (guess who) in the bowels of this thread. I was up against complete ignorance of the Telecom Act and the subsequent radio station buying spree. I guess history is just plain insignificant to some people.
I'm a 56 year old Republican. An army and navy veteran . Malkin and the rest of her war loving friends disgust me. If she is so for this Iraqi war, why doesn't she do the right thing and join the military. You know, do her part in fighting terrorism.
I've written her and asked her why she doesn't join the military, but she has been too cowardly to answer. As have Hannity and the rest of the war mongers.
I think all she wants to do is to make money on the backs of REAL patriots: Our men and women in uniform
You'd think it would be someone who is actually fighting and or covering the war, who writes from the field.
But no, it's someone who sits stateside and writes a blog selling or supporting the war.
Like those who've taken over our country, they're people who'd rather send someone else to do the fighting and or dying, so that they can feel all warm and safe, wrapped up in the flag.
I'd like to know how many of these people felt strongly enough about their conviction, that this is a just war, to put their own ass on the line.
I'm willing to bet we'd be able to count them on no more than one finger and probably less than that.
There is an article by Steven Pinker in a January New York Times Magazine on evolution, neuroscience and morality that speaks to the differences in liberal and conservative moral reasoning.
Liberals are
Sorry for the premature post...
There is an article by Steven Pinker in a January New York Times Magazine on evolution, neuroscience and morality that speaks to the differences in liberal and conservative moral reasoning.
A survey found that, of five moral categories (not causing harm, fairness, community loyalty, respect for authority and purity), liberals are more concerned than conservatives with not causing harm and fairness, and conservatives are more concerned than liberals with loyalty, authority and purity.
This difference explains alot of wingnut behavior. For instance, while liberals see the unfairness of Bilal Hussein's treatment, some conservatives don't, because they can't get past the feeling that he betrayed America by portraying it in a bad (even if accurate) light, thereby, in their minds, aiding the enemy.
It also explains why some wingers continue to claim that the US would have won in Vietnam if not for the liberal media, DFH's, etc. and even that Joeseph McCarthy was an American hero.
Eric,
On Bilal Hussein, you completely missed the fact that an Iraqi judge remanded him to trial last March in the Irai Criminal Central Court on the charges of terrorism and participating in a kidnapping. A judicial committee working under the auspices of the new amnesty law review the charges (not the evidence, just the charges) and ruled that he qualified for amnesty. He was not proven innocent or exonerated as Scott Horton would have you believe. He was granted amnesty. From MNF-Iraq:
Hussein could still have been held in detention if the U.S. deemed him a security threat, but because al Qaeda was pretty much completely scrubbed out of Ramadi (Hussein's hometown), they judged he was no longer a threat. Those are the simple facts. BTW, for a lawyer, I'm unimpressed that Scott Horton doesn't know the difference between exoneration and amnesty.
In New York, the executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, Joel Simon, said the group was "thrilled" by Hussein's release.
"He now joins a growing list of journalists detained in conflict zones by the U.S. military for prolonged periods and eventually released without any charges or crimes ever substantiated against them," said Simon. "This deplorable practice should be of concern to all journalists. It basically allows the U.S. military to remove journalists from the field, lock them up and never be compelled to say why."
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2008/03/hussein01.html
"To date, the military has failed to produce any conclusive evidence to support their allegations and an independent investigation completed by a former federal prosecutor at the request of AP failed to find one piece of evidence that conclusively implicated the photojournalist in any wrongdoing."
BUNK did you ever READ the article above? In particular the debunking of the very LGF sewer article you linked to AND the rebuttal of it by the LAWYER INVOLVED IN THE CASE?
And by the way, that amnesty angle was total BS, according to Scott Horton, an actual attorney was who was actually involved in the case. (He was Hussein's lawyer.) "When we [in the U.S.] say 'amnesty,' it's usually an executive act. This was a judicial amnesty based on a review of the complete court record," he told CJR last week.
Horton also wrote this in a Harper's blog entry on April 9:
Charles Johnson at LGF has a fairly convincing take-down of this article.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29710_When_Media_Matters_Attacks/comments/#ctop
Perhaps you could respond to it.
By the way, I assume you are being paid for writing this -- is that so?
http://lgfwatch.blogspot.com/search?q=bilal+hussein
The U.S. legal system has been around for quit some time, and one of it's main emphasize is that a charged person is innocent until proven guilty.
Well we brought democracy and our legal system over to Iraq. The new Iraq legal system conducts a high profile case and wingnuts flip the innocent guilt standard, even though the "green" Iraqi court system didn't.
Just from my own observations; it seems more Americans tend to believe a person is guilty until proven innocent. Maybe the Iraqis are ahead of on this legal standard.
One side note: if you want to say someone is "on fire" in that context, it's not "en fuego" - which means nothing. *En" can be "on" and fuego is "fire" but the two together like that make no sense.
If you say "en el fuego," that would mean something, but it would be "in the fire," you know, like the fat's in the fire, the stinking fascist blubbery lard, etc...
"Encendida" is the word you want (assuming that she really is a woman, otherwise it would be "encendido.")
From the infinitive "encender: to burn, to ignite, to light, etc...
Cheers.
Second, he COMPLETELY derailed the discussion from the original warbloggers article here. While the nastiness of McCarthy and his lower-than dubious charges are linked to similar actions from warbloggers, the actual "discussion" got uselessly bogged down in the arcane re-airing of long-settled history.
It frustrated me so much I signed up to comment.
After finding out where he comes from I ignore "Another American." I'm embarrassed for everyone else who participated.