Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Can you list one, and I would prefer only one, action which has been ordered or undertaken by the government, and tell me which law it violates. I see the links, but they don't specifically answer the question. It's very easy to give a link, and make the general statement that it proves your point, but I'm not sure it does. If you can give me one example, and cite the law it violates, that would be evidence in support of your point. The abuses at Abu Ghraib, for example, are not, since they were contrary to the orders those soldiers had.

Summary: During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, writes the intelligence community's former senior analyst for the Middle East, the Bush administration disregarded the community's expertise, politicized the intelligence process, and selected unrepresentative raw intelligence to make its public case.

The Gasbag Gap
[from the March 6, 2006 issue]

Mainstream reporters tend to see both liberal and right-wing critics as a bunch of whiners who "just don't get it." And in many cases, they're right. But being mainstream reporters, they tend to believe--nay, know--that they are always right. In fact, journalism is just about the only field whose practitioners routinely justify themselves on the basis of the fact that they receive criticism from "both sides." The possibility that they might be screwing up in two (or more) ways simultaneously appears to be beyond their imaginative capabilities.

During the past generation, these same mainstream journalists have lurched to the right, thanks in large measure to an extremely well-funded, well-organized and well-disciplined conservative political assault comprising, essentially, two tactics: a willingness (and ability) to make life miserable for those who don't go along, and a determination to shape the zeitgeist in such a way that those who do go along may not even know they're doing so. In other words, what Tony Soprano cannot accomplish, leave to Antonio Gramsci.

While most fair-minded observers ought to agree with the above, particularly in light of the rise of the far-right media empire of Rupert, Rush, O'Reilly and talk-radio, etc., it's still pretty difficult to prove. Most academic studies of media content are compromised because even with the best intentions, it's impossible to control for independent political variables. As for the decades-old studies purporting to show that reporters vote Democratic: When not biased in the first place, they tell us nothing about the content of the news. A number of Rupert Murdoch's top lieutenants claim to be liberal Democrats--a lot that matters!

All this is reason to welcome the new study by David Brock's Media Matters for America, titled If It's Sunday, It's Conservative. MMA conducted a content analysis of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, CBS's Face the Nation and NBC's Meet the Press, classifying each one of the nearly 7,000 guests from Bill Clinton's second term, George W. Bush's first term and 2005 as either Democrat, Republican, conservative, progressive or neutral. Its key finding: "The balance between Democrats/progressives and Republicans/conservatives was roughly equal during Clinton's second term, with a slight edge toward Republicans/conservatives: 52 percent of the ideologically identifiable guests were from the right, and 48 percent were from the left. But in Bush's first term, Republicans/conservatives held a dramatic advantage, outnumbering Democrats/progressives by 58 percent to 42 percent. In 2005 the figures were an identical 58 percent to 42 percent." And remember, this study doesn't include Fox!

In addition, "more panels tilted right (a greater number of Republicans/conservatives than Democrats/progressives) than tilted left" for every single year of the study. In some years the gap was as high as four to one. Moreover, Congressional opponents of the Iraq War were all but banished from the Sunday shows, particularly in the period just before it was launched.

When spokespeople for the shows were contacted to explain the disparity, they claimed that they go where the action is, and today the action is Republican/conservative. (Though it should be noted that Face the Nation was considerably fairer than Meet the Press or This Week.) But of course, were that true, then the Clinton years would have been just as tilted in favor of Democrats/progressives as the Bush years have been toward Republicans/conservatives. But of course they're not even close.

Think about it: These shows feel empowered to engage an agenda-setting discussion with a panel of mostly right-wing politicians, followed by a journalists' panel in which conservatives are paired almost exclusively with down-the-middle reporters, rather than a writer or thinker who might credibly represent the liberal side. Every week, a politically neutered George Stephanopoulos seeks the wisdom of the deeply right-wing George Will, and the "neutral" (though personally conservative) Fareed Zakaria, with no balance whatsoever. (Sam Donaldson, a liberal, was previously an exception to this rule, though no liberal I know would have picked him to represent our side.) The guest list for the far more influential Meet the Press tells a similar story. Why, asks the MMA study's author, Paul Waldman, "would the producers of the shows believe that a William Safire (56 appearances since 1997) or Bob Novak (37 appearances) is somehow "balanced" by a Gwen Ifill (27) or Dan Balz (22)?"

What's more, despite its having been produced by a liberal think thank, the study's grading of the guests--where the rubber hits the road--is extremely generous to the right-wing side, and therefore precludes any credible complaints that it's a product of liberal bias. For instance, liberal-hater Joe Klein, together with war-supporters Peter Beinart and George Packer, are coded "progressive," and Cokie Roberts and David Broder, who openly detest both Clinton and Gore while frequently apologizing for Bush--together with former GE chairman Jack Welch and Mrs. Alan Greenspan, Andrea Mitchell--were classified as "neutral." (Remember how quick Mitchell was during the 2004 debates to accuse Kerry of "demagoguery" for daring to criticize her husband?)

Indeed, as far as critical commentary goes, with the occasional exception of E.J. Dionne, there's not a single unapologetic liberal on any of these shows, save perhaps an annual appearance as a kind of anthropological curiosity. Tune in to every show every week for a year, and you are unlikely to see Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Rick Hertzberg, Harold Meyerson or anyone associated with The Nation, The American Prospect, The Washington Monthly, The New York Review of Books, Salon, In These Times, Mother Jones or even the liberal remnant inside The New Republic.

When you think about it, it is a tribute to the American people that they remain as receptive to liberal arguments as they do, given how infrequently they hear them.

I will defer to the legal minds among us to pick up the finer points of that.

My comment is a general one: Guantanamo Bay, and other more secret establishments we are beginning to be told about (and referred to in the links I posted earlier) was set up precisely so that the governbment could hold and process persons (prisoners of war, dissidents, and others) away from the reach of the American law agencies.

Persons are being taken across international boundaries, held incommunicado, and tortured there.
The British courts were not consulted about the Britons there
I'm pretty sure the Iraqi courts and Iraq's new government were not involved in the transport of Iraquis there
Many other nationals are involved, and the same comments apply

Dozens of laws are being broken, I will let the legal writers be specific: in the realms of kidnap, abduction, habeas corpus, torture, abuse, force feeding without supervision, independent scrutiny, lack of legal representation, lack of diplomatic access and representation, imprisonment without charge, human rights violation of all kinds

Pick any one, start with habeas corpus if you like, a cornerstone tenet of our laws.

The intelligence community never offered ANY (my caps) analysis that supported the notion of an alliance between Saddam and al Qaeda.

Evidence of Al-Qaeda Link

Looking at those who get their news primarily through radio and television, for most, following the news more or less closely had no reliable relation to whether respondents believed clear evidence had been found that al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were working closely together. Fox News was the exception. Those who followed the news closely were far more likely to have this misperception. Among those who did not follow the news at all 42% had the misperception, rising progressively at higher levels of attention to 80% among those who followed the news very closely.

On the other hand, those respondents who get their news primarily from print sources were less liekly to have this misperception if they were following the Iraq situation more closely. Of those not following the news closely, 49% had the misperception - decling to 32% among those who followed the news very closely.

From the Pillar essay (we'll recall that Pillar was the National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005)...

Quote:

The intelligence community never offered ANY (my caps) analysis that supported the notion of an alliance between Saddam and al Qaeda.

from the PDF, page 16

Quote:

Evidence of Al-Qaeda Link

Looking at those who get their news primarily through radio and television, for most, following the news more or less closely had no reliable relation to whether respondents believed clear evidence had been found that al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were working closely together. Fox News was the exception. Those who followed the news closely were far more likely to have this misperception. Among those who did not follow the news at all 42% had the misperception, rising progressively at higher levels of attention to 80% among those who followed the news very closely.

On the other hand, those respondents who get their news primarily from print sources were less liekly to have this misperception if they were following the Iraq situation more closely. Of those not following the news closely, 49% had the misperception - decling to 32% among those who followed the news very closely.

Now, why ANYONE AT ALL had the notion of an al Qaeda and Saddam alliance was due, of course, to the Bush administration (via Cheney etc) implying, suggesting, claiming explicitly (and falsely) that this was the case and that intel supported it. But Fox, above all other sources, was the one to carry forward the lie.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Can you list one, and I would prefer only one, action which has been ordered or undertaken by the government, and tell me which law it violates. I see the links, but they don't specifically answer the question. It's very easy to give a link, and make the general statement that it proves your point, but I'm not sure it does. If you can give me one example, and cite the law it violates, that would be evidence in support of your point. The abuses at Abu Ghraib, for example, are not, since they were contrary to the orders those soldiers had.

Orders schmorders. Who bought the dog leads? No senior personnel have been charged yet. Who trained in these techniques? Who indented for the hoods, gags, blindfolds? Can we see the scale of the procurement schedules? Who drew up the procedures? Who planned for dogs to be available? Whose idea was the women's underwear and the smearing of the menstrual blood? Not the clowns so far charged, obviously. Who in their right mind believes the official accounts so far given?

McTag wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Can you list one, and I would prefer only one, action which has been ordered or undertaken by the government, and tell me which law it violates. I see the links, but they don't specifically answer the question. It's very easy to give a link, and make the general statement that it proves your point, but I'm not sure it does. If you can give me one example, and cite the law it violates, that would be evidence in support of your point. The abuses at Abu Ghraib, for example, are not, since they were contrary to the orders those soldiers had.

Orders schmorders. Who bought the dog leads? No senior personnel have been charged yet. Who trained in these techniques? Who indented for the hoods, gags, blindfolds? Can we see the scale of the procurement schedules? Who drew up the procedures? Who planned for dogs to be available? Whose idea was the women's underwear and the smearing of the menstrual blood? Not the clowns so far charged, obviously. Who in their right mind believes the official accounts so far given?

I must point out that you have yet to specify even one law that this administration has broken, despite being invited to give a concrete example of what you are alleging. Is it that you cannot give so much as one concrete example? If this administration is trampling all over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it seems kind of odd that you can't specifically tell me even one example. You might speculate that higher ups are involved in the Abu Ghraib abuses, but that is speculation only. Again, I invite you to tell me one and only one thing this administration has done which is illegal, and then tell me which law it violates. I am not saying that there are no such cases, only that there are very few.

I am amused toi note that single "studies" or news reports, or even statements are routinely taken here as proof positive that government officials are lying about both their intentions and the details in question. We are being asked to believe that the government is totally effective in controlling both public information and every detail of the utterances of its spokesmen, and that all is being done to sustain a tissue of lies about the justification of government policy and the actions taken to advance it. At the same time we are asked to believe that the independent media have no particular agenda for or against government policy and actions, and that its functionaries are invariably accurate and truthful in their reporting.

After two months of insisting that President Bush did not need court approval to authorize the wiretapping of calls between the United States and suspected terrorists abroad, the administration is trying to resist pressure for judicial review while pushing for retroactive Congressional approval of the program...

But two days before Mr. Bush spoke, the White House opened the door to talks in the hope of avoiding a full-scale Congressional investigation. According to lawmakers involved in the discussions, a number of senior officials, including Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel, and Andrew H. Card Jr., the chief of staff, began contacting members of the Senate to determine what it would take to derail the investigation.

Senior Lawyer at Pentagon Broke Ranks on Detainees

By TIM GOLDEN
Published: February 20, 2006
One of the Pentagon's top civilian lawyers repeatedly challenged the Bush administration's policy on the coercive interrogation of terror suspects, arguing that such practices violated the law, verged on torture and could ultimately expose senior officials to prosecution, a newly disclosed document shows.

The lawyer, Alberto J. Mora, a political appointee who retired Dec. 31 after more than four years as general counsel of the Navy, was one of many dissenters inside the Pentagon. Senior uniformed lawyers in all the military services also objected sharply to the interrogation policy, according to internal documents declassified last year.
But Mr. Mora's campaign against what he viewed as an official policy of cruel treatment, detailed in a memorandum he wrote in July 2004 and recounted in an article in the Feb. 27 issue of The New Yorker magazine, made public yesterday, underscored again how contrary views were often brushed aside in administration debates on the subject.

"Even if one wanted to authorize the U.S. military to conduct coercive interrogations, as was the case in Guantánamo, how could one do so without profoundly altering its core values and character?" Mr. Mora asked the Pentagon's chief lawyer, William J. Haynes II, according to the memorandum...

In a break from standard practice, former Pentagon lawyers said, the final draft of the report on interrogation techniques was not circulated to most of the lawyers, including Mr. Mora, who had contributed to it. Several of them said they learned that a final version had been issued only after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke.