government accountability
23 Oct 2005Jackson has weighed in on the Plame affair, as has Brittney. I guess I should go ahead and write this now, since as Bill Plante reports:
(AP) Indictments of one or more of President Bush’s top advisers in the CIA leak investigation could come today, next week or even not at all.
Umm. Yeah, thanks. So I just have a few opinions to provide as a matter of record:
1) Putting Judith Miller in jail is a dangerous precedent for a government. I don’t care how wrong, creepy (she is very creepy), irresponsible, self-serving and outright contrary to the truth her reporting at the NYT was. Matt Welch:
Therapists, lawyers, priests, and spouses all have at least some protection against having their confidential conversations made into fodder for rampaging prosecutors. If it were up to me, that shield would be extended to the full population, at least until the grand jury system was reigned back in.
But in the meantime, no matter how much we hate individual or institutional journalists, no matter which political party we shill for, expanding that protection to cover those who intend to commit acts of journalism is at least a pinkie in the door. It’s a small gesture toward protecting what few constitutional checks we still have against the government’s ability to demand anything out of anyone at any time. A federal shield thus construed would also make it easier for all of us to contribute to the free exchange of information.
2) The outing of a CIA agent should not be a crime. Too many progressives are taking such delight in a glimmer of hope that the Bush Administration might finally reap what it has sown that they are getting a little too sanctimonious in defending the law that they broke in the first place. Criminalizing the disclosure of information is bad news, particularly in defense of an organization with as despicable a track-record as the CIA. It’s hard to imagine this practice not leading to a lack of accountability and abuse in our government. Outing an agent should obviously have repercussions, but it shouldn’t be illegal.
3) Despite 1) and 2), I will take great pleasure in seeing indictments handed down – not in spite of my misgivings, but right alongside them. The fact that I don’t think CIA agent outing should be a crime doesn’t change the fact that it is – and one that the Bush administration willfully committed to slander a political opponent. For that, I have no pity.
It’s a complicated issue that way.
I’ve been analyzing my own admittedly tepid reaction to the Plame affair, and I’m just going to use your blog to write down some of my own thoughts on the subject. Note this is probably re-doing the work of lots of other people, but I don’t really care. I always preferred figuring things out the hard way.
Regarding the Behavior of the New York Times:
Organizations have one or more goals. Maybe these are described by some kind of pithy “Mission Statement” or maybe they’re encapsulated in the name of the group. They could be a part of a more detailed document, such as the preamble to the constitution of the United States.
From the New York Times Company web site: “The Company’s core purpose is to enhance society by creating, collecting and distributing high-quality news, information and entertainment.”
There are various perversions that can occur in an organization’s relationship with its goals. It’s possible an organization does not have a publicly stated goal, but I would argue that is merely an indicator of a secret goal, which if generally known would damage the organization’s ability to achieve its goal.
Similarly, it’s possible for an organization to have an extremely CONFUSING goal. For instance, the Democratic Party platform for 2004 is 43 pages long. For comparison, the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America is one sentence; fifty-two words. This seems to me a likely indicator that most if not all of the organization’s goals are, in fact, horseshit which no organization members actually belive in.
It’s also clearly possible that some or all of the members of an organization are not aligned with the stated goals of the organization. Sometimes in this case, members work to change the stated goals. Other times the new goals remain secret, behind the facade of the old ones. Occasionally, other forces influence the change of the organization goal as well.
Now, If you’re running an organization such as, for instance, the New York Times, or the Bush Administration, there are some things related to your organizational goal you ought to pay attention to. Behavior of your members can affect can affect your organization’s ability to accomplish its goals. Because of this fact, many organizations implement rules for their members. However, it’s not enough just to have rules. There are two additional steps: 1) enforcing rules and 2) maintaining (adding, changing, removing) rules.
Looking at the Times Company’s purpose, it’s not at all clear to me that Judith Miller’s goals were unaligned with those of the New York Times Company. I suspect this was also the case for Bill Keller, her boss. He might also have a goal for his department, but it must of course be aligned with the overall goal of the Times Company. Given that, it’s not really that surprising that no action was taken against her until her behavior started affecting (probably) the paper’s “distribution” due to the growing perception that the Times is full of idiots who don’t give a damn rather than journalists.
So in conclusion, I think the Times is crap, and I’m going to continue hacking their web site to read their articles instead of behaving in a way that might provide them with a revenue stream.
Regarding the Behavior of the Federal Courts:
Now then, Judith Miller was jailed on federal contempt of court charges. For better or for worse, it’s been established that anyone can be called to testify in court, with some exceptions. The exceptions are based on the constitution, and the laws of the United States. The courts have ruled in the past, and have done so again, that the first amendment of the consitution does not protect reporters from being forced to reveal their sources.
I think that sucks, so I suggest you join me in writing your representatives in congress regarding the current drive for a ‘shield law’ for reporters.
Regarding the Laws of Congress on outing CIA agents:
I don’t have a strong opinion on whether the ‘outing’ of a CIA agent should be considered a crime or not.
Regarding the behavior of the Bush Administration:
Someone appears to have broken the law, probably in trying to discredit their opposition, as they prefer to do rather than debating issues as politicians ought to.
I will enjoy the irony of it, particularly due to the fact that outing an agent in our ‘war on terror’ is a perfect example of the kind of issue that people think the Bush Administration is doing a good job at, when in reality, they are just fucking with us.
But seriously, after lying to Congress and the American people about the reasons and probable outcome of the Iraq war, can’t we get someone on THAT case?
Regarding the Behavior of Judith Miller:
Call me a Republican, but she can do what she wants. It’s a free country, my friend.