.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Friday, May 20, 2005

Publishing classified intelligence is TREASON, again

The NYT explains the provenance of its 6000 word report on possible wrong-doing by U.S. soldiers in the deaths of Afghan prisoners:
The story of Mr. Dilawar's brutal death at the Bagram Collection Point - and that of another detainee, Habibullah, who died there six days earlier in December 2002 - emerge from a nearly 2,000-page confidential file of the Army's criminal investigation into the case, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.
"Confidential" is a national security classification. To publish confidential reports, harmful to the United States, in time of war, is to give aid and comfort to the enemy. The fact that the Army has compiled a 2000 page criminal investigation indicates that any wrongdoing that occurred is already being dealt with internally. No public interest is served by making this classified intelligence public, and even if there were a public interest, it would still be treason. Does the NYT actually have to be on the terrorists' side?

Isikoff's Periscope item on Koran flushing was also sourced to a report that would certainly be classified:
These findings, expected in an upcoming report by the U.S. Southern Command in Miami...
When the report is completed it will presumably be classified, and the interrogation logs on which the report is based certainly must be classified. Publishing this stuff would seem to be a criminal offense.

Isikoff had another stinker last year based on what PBS asserts were "classified" (not "declassified") memos. "Double Standards?" blares the MSNBC headline, followed by the subhead:
A Justice Department memo proposes that the United States hold others accountable for international laws on detainees—but that Washington did not have to follow them itself
It is a bold faced lie, repeated in the article's first paragraph: "Justice Department lawyers advised that President George W. Bush and the U.S. military did not have to comply with any international laws in the handling of detainees in the war on terrorism." Click on the PDF of the memo and what it actually says is:
"We conclude that these treaties do not protect members of the al Qaeda organization, which as a non-state actor cannot be a party to international agreements governing war."
It does not advise non-compliance with international agreements. It says that compliance with international agreements does not require treating al Qaeda as regular combatants.

To get into the details of the controversy between Justice and State on the matter, Isikoff has to cite the Justice Dept. position that the treaties do not apply to al Qaeda, but he just pretends that this is consistent with his lede characterization. Not JUST a criminal, but a dirtbag too.

P.S. Remember the pessimistic classified intelligence report on Iraq that anti-Bush operatives in the intelligence community compiled and leaked to the press last September. Kerry used the leak to paint Iraq as Vietnam, which Kerry had helped us to lose by lying about war crimes before the U.S. Senate. Funny how trying to reprise his role as hero-for-the-other-side did not win Kerry the presidency, but not a funny trick on the part of the seditious analysts who leaked the classified intelligence.

Excellent, that was really well explained and helpful
classified advertising list

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?