Wes Vernon
Thundering silence and selective outrage
By Wes Vernon
Intriguing, is it not? The inside-the-beltway liberal establishment was utterly scandalized that someone dared to leak to columnist Robert Novak the name of a desk-bound CIA bureaucrat, Valerie Plame. Surely, that same cabal is jumping up and down demanding to know the identity of the subversive who leaked to the New York Times information on a program to monitor phone calls between al-Qaeda operatives and persons on American soil. No? Thundering silence?
Fascinating!
Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell kicked off 2006 by noting such "selective outrage" on Fox News Sunday's New Year's Day edition. His liberal colleague Chuck Schumer — appearing on the same program — did not contradict him. He would have looked foolish had he tried to argue there is no double standard. Mark down Senator Schumer's uncharacteristic silence as an admission that the left — which is his political base — is playing politics with the lives of Americans.
In fact, Schumer even declined to criticize the just-launched Justice Department investigation into the source of the leak to the New York Times, though he said that, of course, the main focus should be Senator Arlen Specter's planned circus-style hearing into the legality the National Security Agency (NSA) monitoring project itself.
Of course, Senator Schumer is a member of Specter's Judiciary Committee, and one dares not risk the danger of standing between Schumer and a TV camera.
Tom Rosenstiel, director of the D.C.-based outfit that calls itself the Project for Excellence in Journalism, tried to split hairs to justify the double-standard:
"There's a difference between a leak that violates, or might violate a specific law against outing an individual [Valerie Plame] who's undercover or whose identity is classified, and [on the other hand] an investigation into the more general kind of leaking about operations policies, that goes on, frankly, every day in this town."
Let's put in perspective the wording of someone who apparently does not understand what he is actually saying:
There is, in fact, a big difference between a leak that identifies a desk-bound CIA analyst who had not been undercover for five years and whose identity is such a classified deep dark secret that her husband reportedly went around Washington introducing her as "my CIA wife," and (on the other hand) a leak about listening in on conversations between al-Qaeda operatives overseas (possibly plotting to kill Americans) and their collaborators here at home. Yes, there is a difference there.
If Specter wants an interesting hearing, he might consider tying up the loose ends of how Plame's husband Joseph Wilson ended up going on "a CIA mission" (for which no one in real authority claims responsibility), did so on his wife's recommendation to the agency, and came back to imply (falsely, as the Senate Intelligence Committee determined) that he had been sent by Vice President Cheney.
You may want to look at that, Senator Specter. Who knows? It might lead to a revelation of an entrenched CIA bureaucracy that seeks (in many different ways) to undermine the commander-in-chief in time of war. That in turn could raise the question of sedition in our premier intelligence agency.
There is only one problem with holding such a hearing out in the open. Vetting the intelligence community's dirty laundry in public could give and aid and comfort in our enemies' propaganda war against the United States. But far worse would be the circus hearing Senator Specter wants to conduct into the NSA's monitoring of al-Qaeda phone conversations. That hearing could cost millions of American lives.
Is the NSA (No Such Agency) legally justified in the very limited monitoring it is doing here? The answer is a resounding yes. And the justification needs to be repeated over and over again.
It is true the Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. But in 1972, the Supreme Court added the caveat that effectively said that it is not "unreasonable" for the president to use such surveillance of foreign enemies "within or without this country." In compliance with the High Court's lead, no fewer than four lower courts have given the green light to those kinds of searches without a warrant.
Critics of the NSA programs keep calling it "domestic" spying. Phone calls involving terrorist operatives in such far-flung locations as Baghdad, Kabul, or Hamburg are not "domestic spying" just because the party on the other end of the line is on our soil. Anyone with the IQ above that of a gnat should be capable of connecting some dots; i.e. A communication between al-Qaeda and someone in a town near you or me here in the U.S. would be, if anything, of more (not less) interest to the U.S. government than would be the case if both parties were overseas. Somehow, getting that point through to the Boxers and the Kennedys of the world is problematic.
Even officials from the Clinton administration have acknowledged the need for warrantless searches for foreign intelligence. Clinton-era Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick called it an "inherent" presidential prerogative. Clinton's Associate Attorney General John Schmidt, in a Chicago Tribune article, made essentially the same point.
One is tempted to speculate that we Americans have been lulled into a false sense of security by the fact that for generations we lived in relative safety, free of physical harm on our soil, and that even 9/11 failed to awaken us to the realities that evil people out there want to kill us right in our own backyard.
But in fact, ordinary Americans are way ahead of the elites on this one. . A Rasmussen poll finds that beltway blowhards such as Schumer are "out of the mainstream," a phrase the New York senator likes to use when referring to anyone who disagrees with him. The survey finds that 64% of Americans believe the National Security Agency should be allowed to intercept phone conversations between terrorist suspects abroad and people living here in the U.S. Only 23% disagree.
Keep your eye on the ball. The beltway media echo chamber won't remind you, but the key question is this: Who endangered us by outing the NSA and the commander-in-chief's efforts to protect us? Protecting this nation from its sworn enemies is the number one responsibility of any president.
I believe there should be legislation to protect a journalist from revealing his sources, assuming the information would be used to inform the public of corruption or wrongdoing. That is a reporter's responsibility. When that source is playing with the lives of Americans, it is another matter. Protecting that source then becomes a question of arrogance and undermines the case for a shield law.
Let the beltway chatterers in their selective outrage moan about Valerie Plame. Americans understand that we are at war. This is a time for serious people.
© Wes Vernon
Intriguing, is it not? The inside-the-beltway liberal establishment was utterly scandalized that someone dared to leak to columnist Robert Novak the name of a desk-bound CIA bureaucrat, Valerie Plame. Surely, that same cabal is jumping up and down demanding to know the identity of the subversive who leaked to the New York Times information on a program to monitor phone calls between al-Qaeda operatives and persons on American soil. No? Thundering silence?
Fascinating!
Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell kicked off 2006 by noting such "selective outrage" on Fox News Sunday's New Year's Day edition. His liberal colleague Chuck Schumer — appearing on the same program — did not contradict him. He would have looked foolish had he tried to argue there is no double standard. Mark down Senator Schumer's uncharacteristic silence as an admission that the left — which is his political base — is playing politics with the lives of Americans.
In fact, Schumer even declined to criticize the just-launched Justice Department investigation into the source of the leak to the New York Times, though he said that, of course, the main focus should be Senator Arlen Specter's planned circus-style hearing into the legality the National Security Agency (NSA) monitoring project itself.
Of course, Senator Schumer is a member of Specter's Judiciary Committee, and one dares not risk the danger of standing between Schumer and a TV camera.
Tom Rosenstiel, director of the D.C.-based outfit that calls itself the Project for Excellence in Journalism, tried to split hairs to justify the double-standard:
"There's a difference between a leak that violates, or might violate a specific law against outing an individual [Valerie Plame] who's undercover or whose identity is classified, and [on the other hand] an investigation into the more general kind of leaking about operations policies, that goes on, frankly, every day in this town."
Let's put in perspective the wording of someone who apparently does not understand what he is actually saying:
There is, in fact, a big difference between a leak that identifies a desk-bound CIA analyst who had not been undercover for five years and whose identity is such a classified deep dark secret that her husband reportedly went around Washington introducing her as "my CIA wife," and (on the other hand) a leak about listening in on conversations between al-Qaeda operatives overseas (possibly plotting to kill Americans) and their collaborators here at home. Yes, there is a difference there.
If Specter wants an interesting hearing, he might consider tying up the loose ends of how Plame's husband Joseph Wilson ended up going on "a CIA mission" (for which no one in real authority claims responsibility), did so on his wife's recommendation to the agency, and came back to imply (falsely, as the Senate Intelligence Committee determined) that he had been sent by Vice President Cheney.
You may want to look at that, Senator Specter. Who knows? It might lead to a revelation of an entrenched CIA bureaucracy that seeks (in many different ways) to undermine the commander-in-chief in time of war. That in turn could raise the question of sedition in our premier intelligence agency.
There is only one problem with holding such a hearing out in the open. Vetting the intelligence community's dirty laundry in public could give and aid and comfort in our enemies' propaganda war against the United States. But far worse would be the circus hearing Senator Specter wants to conduct into the NSA's monitoring of al-Qaeda phone conversations. That hearing could cost millions of American lives.
Is the NSA (No Such Agency) legally justified in the very limited monitoring it is doing here? The answer is a resounding yes. And the justification needs to be repeated over and over again.
It is true the Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. But in 1972, the Supreme Court added the caveat that effectively said that it is not "unreasonable" for the president to use such surveillance of foreign enemies "within or without this country." In compliance with the High Court's lead, no fewer than four lower courts have given the green light to those kinds of searches without a warrant.
Critics of the NSA programs keep calling it "domestic" spying. Phone calls involving terrorist operatives in such far-flung locations as Baghdad, Kabul, or Hamburg are not "domestic spying" just because the party on the other end of the line is on our soil. Anyone with the IQ above that of a gnat should be capable of connecting some dots; i.e. A communication between al-Qaeda and someone in a town near you or me here in the U.S. would be, if anything, of more (not less) interest to the U.S. government than would be the case if both parties were overseas. Somehow, getting that point through to the Boxers and the Kennedys of the world is problematic.
Even officials from the Clinton administration have acknowledged the need for warrantless searches for foreign intelligence. Clinton-era Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick called it an "inherent" presidential prerogative. Clinton's Associate Attorney General John Schmidt, in a Chicago Tribune article, made essentially the same point.
One is tempted to speculate that we Americans have been lulled into a false sense of security by the fact that for generations we lived in relative safety, free of physical harm on our soil, and that even 9/11 failed to awaken us to the realities that evil people out there want to kill us right in our own backyard.
But in fact, ordinary Americans are way ahead of the elites on this one. . A Rasmussen poll finds that beltway blowhards such as Schumer are "out of the mainstream," a phrase the New York senator likes to use when referring to anyone who disagrees with him. The survey finds that 64% of Americans believe the National Security Agency should be allowed to intercept phone conversations between terrorist suspects abroad and people living here in the U.S. Only 23% disagree.
Keep your eye on the ball. The beltway media echo chamber won't remind you, but the key question is this: Who endangered us by outing the NSA and the commander-in-chief's efforts to protect us? Protecting this nation from its sworn enemies is the number one responsibility of any president.
I believe there should be legislation to protect a journalist from revealing his sources, assuming the information would be used to inform the public of corruption or wrongdoing. That is a reporter's responsibility. When that source is playing with the lives of Americans, it is another matter. Protecting that source then becomes a question of arrogance and undermines the case for a shield law.
Let the beltway chatterers in their selective outrage moan about Valerie Plame. Americans understand that we are at war. This is a time for serious people.
© Wes Vernon
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
