Childhood's End
It took the uproar over the NYT's expose on the methods used by the US government to track terrorist finances for Andrew McCarthy at the National Review to state the fundamental tradeoff between safety and restricting our ability to fight the enemy. Do you want to stay safe? If so a certain amount of resistance against the enemy is indicated, such as for instance, gathering intelligence.
The only way to prevent terrorist attacks is to gather intelligence. It is to collect the information that reveals who the jihadists are, who is backing them with money and resources, and where they are likely to strike. There is nothing else.
How do you get such intelligence? Your options are few. The terrorists you capture, you squeeze until they break. Since your laws and protocols forbid physical coercion, you must employ psychological pressure — relentless detachment and loneliness that may render a battle-hard, hate-obsessed detainee hopeless enough and dependent enough on his interrogators to tell you the deepest, deadliest secrets. So you move your captives to places where they will be isolated, and forlorn, and … eventually — maybe after a very long time — moved to tell you what they know about their fellow savages.
Otherwise, you use your technological wizardry to penetrate their communications. You use your mastery of the global web that is modern finance to find the money and follow it — until you can pierce the veiled charities and masked philanthropists behind the terror dollars. Until you strangle the supply lines that convert hatred into action. ...
Life or death. Which one it will be turns solely on intelligence and secrecy.
But what's required to gather intelligence sits uneasily with individuals and institutions who fear these methods are brutal, dangerous and warlike, which of course they all are. And so they undermine them at every turn to ease their conscience.
What on earth would George Washington have made of Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, and his comrades in today’s American media? What would he have made of transparently politicized free-speech zealots who inform for the enemy and have the nerve to call it “patriotism.” Who say, “If you try to isolate barbarians to make them hand up the other barbarians, we will expose it.” “If you try to intercept enemy communications — as victorious militaries have done in every war ever fought — we will tell all the world, including the enemy, exactly what you’re up to.” “If you track the enemy’s finances, we will blow you out of the water. We’ll disclose just what you’re doing and just how you’re doing it. Even if it’s saving innocent lives.”
There would be no problem with the NYT's leaks, or acceding to demands that every enemy combatant be provided with the full panoply of procedural protections, requiring that captured terrorists only be asked their name, rank and serial number -- if they have any of those -- and insisting that gentlemen don't read other people's mail for so long as one was willing to pay the price. The problem is that many of the very same persons who want to restrict society's ability to make war also want casualty free wars, no collateral damage to enemy targets and a guarantee of safety not only to the population of the US and Allied Countries, but even to civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not principled behavior. It is infantile behavior.
Really principled behavior requires a willingness to sacrifice and suffer in exchange for restricting certain methods of warfare in order to preserve certain principles. Do we think wiretapping the enemy without warrants is dangerous? Then let's restrict it, fully understanding that it will make the war longer, allow threats to form undetected, even cost "innocent lives". Either that or embark upon some tradeoff with which society feels comfortable. But never, never is it possible to demand the free lunch. To say: bring the boys home but don't abandon Iraq; we support the troops, but don't allow them to shoot unless actually shot at; prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction but leave it to the United Nations. Each of these demands spoken simultaneously contains the seed of a contradiction. The intelligent thing is to recognize this and make intelligent choices about what we are prepared to give up and at what price. The alternative is to do what has been done up until now. Make impossible demands and insist that they all be fulfilled.
The sermon of last Sunday described the travails of one parish priest in the diocese, originally from Vietnam (though the homily was delivered by someone else), who managed to organize an escape for his entire family in 1981, minus his parents, who were too old to make the attempt. They were betrayed at the last minute, and as they were wading out the boat, the government troops arrived and opened fire on them. The future priest was struck glancingly in the head and temporarily lost his sight and struck out swimming for the boat which by fortune or providence he found. Once out of the sight of land, another menace appeared: pirates, men who habitually preyed on desperate families escaping the worker's paradise. And the story went that the entire boatload went down on their knees and prayed; and again, whether by fortune or providence a squall swept in and hid them from the brigands. And as I was listening to the account it struck me, that just as the Vietnamese priest's freedom was not free; neither were the "principles" of the antiwar movement who condemned him to that fate which he had such difficulty escaping. One can always march for Ho Chi Minh again; and march in the name in principle. But it should never be possible to march in ignorance. "Principle" has a price though you may never know who pays.
posted by wretchardthecat at 6/26/2006 01:34:00 PM
36 Comments:
Liberal means never having to say you thought about it.
Favor minimum wage and ignore the poor who are priced out of the labor market.
Favor racial preferences and ignore that the resulting stigmas handicap the very group you seek to help.
Denounce law enforcement and ignore the poor who suffer at the hands of the criminal class in their midst.
Demand that the insane be released from institutions and then wonder where all the homeless came from.
Wretchard's example here joins a long, long list.
A US President's inaugural oath includes a promise "to ensure the Law is faithfully executed." Statutes dating back half a century specify unambiguously what "media" or "press" are prohibited from disseminating, as dangerous to national security.
As Chief Magistrate, a sitting President may direct his Attorney General to prosecute derelictions accoding to law, as he deems fit. In politically sensitive cases of this kind it behooves George Bush, not Alberto Gonzales, as Magistrate and Commander in Chief, to direct the exposure of "leakers" and the indictment of their NYT enablers-- emphatically including Sulzberger, Keller, and their LAT confreres.
The question Bush et.al. should ask themselves is, What next? Let this issue pass, as GWB did last December, and the leaks will become a flood; the more "selective" will prosecution seem, and the more the Deaniac Left will increase decibel levels. In the past, Bush has proved strangely indifferent to confronting media sedition and libel. Gonzales cannot and will not
act without a nod. Alas, my feeling is that Bush will cop out again.
To call them liberal is too kind for they are not liberal.
To call them progressive is, well, contrary to logic.
Call them intellectually dishonest, for that is what they are.
A pox on their houses!
The sad irony of this is that the obvious targets of a terrorist WD attack are the very places that the MSM is headquartered in: Downtown Manhattan, Downtown LA, et. al. If the unthinkable happened, would that be irony? Or poetic justice?
I don't think most people want to stay safe. They want to feel safe. More importantly, they want to feel comfortable.
I think most people would sacrifice their safety for comfort. And for liberals, their entire self-image and comfort level hinge on their illusion of moral purity. Likewise, it was more comfortable for Jews to take off their clothes for a shower than it was to refuse an order from a Nazi.
I think it is a rare person who would rather be uncomfortable and safe than comfortable and dead.
By far the most irresponsible person in this scenario is President Bush, whose pusillanimity on almost all fronts seems to grow every day, as though he has checked his manhood in at the door, and only when Karl Rove says "go" is he supposed to act like an adult with real responsibilities of office.
Roberto Gonzales was on Limbaugh show this morning, sounding even MORE feminized than GWB, and said it was "WAY PREMATURE" to be talking about taking action against Keller, et all.
OK, then?
Then we have more and more, of course.
A MAJORITY of the major problems can be traced to Bush's reticence to do what every president before him has done:
Take action against his enemies.
The idea that 6 years later we are still paying for transgressions of of Clintonistas that could have and SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED Forthwith upon his taking office is absurd in the extreme, but no more so than any number of other INACTIONS on the part of GWB.
...and now he backpedals on Global Warming!
Wet Sponge in Chief, GWB
If the local police announced a moratorium on most of their enforcement responsibilies, would it behoove us to dissect and try to understand WHY Criminals would begin to run wild, and Cluck about how irresponsible THEY are?
Duke Cunningham is in Jail, Jefferson still "works" in Congress.
Delay is gone Murtha remains, continuing his abscam ways, being the biggest Cunningham-Style Crook in the Senate.
Sandy Bergler et all walk.
A wink and nod policy on immigration law enforcement...
on and on
If these revelations are really harmful to the War effort, and they are illegal, why not prosecute.
Why leave the Immigration laws unenforced, on the border and in the interior?
Why, after 6 years of a Bush presidency, are so many laws ignored?
All the while extending the Federal's reach into Medicine and Speach, limiting the States power in each area, where the Feds have never reached before?
If we are in a War and we are to be considered seriously, prosecute the NYTimes or at least those that sprung the leak. But we do not.
Not for the signal intel leaks, nor for this banking revelation.
Even Mr Jefferson has yet to be indicted, wonder why?
That CIA lady that was fired, never indicted, nor the reporter from the NYTimes, nor Mr Keller.
Just Scooter, there ought to be a Law, well there most likely is.
It is just ignored, like the no photo regulations at Abu Grahib.
If the Law's enforcement is being spun for Political advantage, as motr dude thinks, then that is Criminal, in my mind.
To allow the criminal actions of others to endanger the Republic because it may get votes, along with dead Citizens & Marines, well that would, I think, be an impeachable offense.
So m.d. I'd have to hope you were wrong. Or Mr Bush is so derelict in his fulfilling his Presidental duties as to be criminally liable.
It's an almost laughable conspiracy theory you weave...
It would not suprise ME if Mr Rove is consulted about political fallout of prosecuting various individuals in the Govt and in the MSM.
...but it's only national security stuff, not like you'd be establishing new law, or breaking new ground, so why bother?
Esp if Rove things it may be harmful.
Only other explanation I can come up with is that GWB has been chemically neutered.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Without any trace of perceiving the danger inherent in public officials’ compromising of national-security information (a matter that the Times frothed over when it came to the comparative trifle of Valerie Plame’s status as a CIA employee), Keller indicated that the Times would continue revealing such matters whenever it unilaterally decided that doing so was in the public interest."
---
But how is Bush to know that he might not stop on his own if Bush just stays the course and continues to do NOTHING. (except "tough talk")
...like the illegals would just quit coming up for jobs just because GWB PRETENDED he was doing workplace enforcement.
He WANTS to turn this into a low wage nation, so at least that is logical, if illegal.
Does he WANT an attack that could be prevented?
Today Mark Steyn, on the radio, said that Kerry et. al insist that the War is not a war, but is a problem best handled by intelligence and law enforcement actions - and then protest whenever those very kind of actions are implemented.
Perhaps he reads Wretchard - you bring up the same point
rwe,
I've read most of the comments and almost all of our Host's threads in the last 18 months, Mr Steyn is also a reader, the influences are there to be seen. Over time.
Nothing plageristic to be sure, but timely insights that are contemperaneous. Often. Turn of a phrase repeated, more than twice that I recall.
Part of Secretary Snow's letter:
Powerline Blog
Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you.
It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from BOTH sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.
Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort.
Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the "public interest" in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective.
Indeed, you have done so here.
I urge everyone to read Pyrthroes' short, elegant comment carefully, more than once, and see if you can come up with anything that would constitute a FACTUAL disagreement.
The Chief Law Enforcement Officer
of the USA is AWOL.
Oh how liberals roar over Bush doing this and that "unilaterailly" or screwing over other people. How they issued a collective "gafaw, he's at it again!" when Bush said: "I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best."
Bill Keller is "The Decider" now, he decides, on his own and in flagrant disregard for the opinions of Dems, GOPers and security experts that he and his newspaper will expose to the world, including al Qaeda, a guarded program.
The White House gets whacked for revealing something as harmless as the reason Joe Wilson was sent to Africa -- but the NYT gets a pass on two stories in eight months that are the equivalent of telling the Germans we have Enigma machines.
Cries of treason are wrong, prosecution a bit premature, but denunciation of Keller's decision should be coming from all concerned with saving U.S. lives.
GWB is President of the United States. That comes with duties and obligations. He has been challenged by people that are openly hostile to the security of the US. Will GWB do his duty and be a president or will he be bitch slapped by the NYT?
"Cries of treason are wrong, prosecution a bit premature, but denunciation of Keller's decision should be coming from all concerned with saving U.S. lives."
---
It is AGAINST THE LAW to Reveal this information.
Keller should be brought before a Jury to reveal his source(s).
If he does not, he goes to JAIL.
"Turn of a phrase repeated, more than twice that I recall."
---
Lileks version, which also has more than a grain of truth:
"It's not THEIR War!"
fred,
In a serious, Grown Up World with a REAL President, like MANY that have come and gone before, your chain would simply mean more people went to jail.
It would take about ONE such incidence to bring this under control.
Mr Pollard Rots,
Mr Keller Walks.
No necessary reason for that.
Pollard leaked secrets to our ally.
Keller leaked secrets to our enemieS.
---
Frank Gafney reminds:
We only have SO MANY ways of getting these guys.
Giving up one every few months means we'll soon be blind, and remain dumb.
fred,
In some ways it seems like the Admin has also, over time since 9-11, gradually come to act as if
"The War is not a war"
and is an administrative problem to be dealt with through proper channels, such as the State Dept which NEVER regards the time right for anything but positioning and negotiation, a Justice Dept which seems more concerned with appearing FAIR and even handed than with JUSTICE, etc all with the poison leavening I mentioned before, that being all the Clintonistas that should have been removed that are still sprinkled throughout, leaking, subverting, and sabotaging whenever duty calls.
---
The idea that Fitzpatrick was given complete free reign to go after Libby, while all the Dem Perps get kid gloves or no gloves at all, is a Catastrophic Failure, pure and simple.
(That was in response to your first comment:
I'll let gokart respond to the second)
Doug, et al,
Isn't it a bit premature to be talking about GWB's and Gonzalez's "ineptitude" in not issuing indictments?
The Blogosphere moves quickly, but the wheels of justice still turn at their old pace.
I, for one, am heartened that those in power take their jobs seriously enough not to rush to judgment.
anonymouscoward
This particular Swift Program was fully known of by your Representitives in Washington.
While "secret" to the Public, it was well known to Mr Murtha, who argued the NYTimes should have refrained.
Your safety, in regards the Swift Program was assured by Congressional oversight and the Law.
The NYTimes violated the Law, or not.
No harm, no foul.
Which also revolves to
No foul, no harm.
What ever the NYTimes has done to date, it has not been worth the Government's effort to persue a legal remedy.
So it could not have been so bad.
Not like Mr Keller was smokin' dope or somethin' bad, that the Government would normaly prosecute over.
It does not raise to the level of Ms Stewart misleading investigators or Mr Libby alledgedly lying to a Grand Jury.
No, the NYTimes is more inline with Mr Jefferson, unindicted and free of criminal charges or civil liability, to date.
Not a security issue at all, judged by the Federal reaction, not rhetoric.
anonymouscoward-
When the enemy's boot is on your neck and the muzzle of his gun at your head, and your family all dead in the next room, I'm sure you'll appreciate how your liberties were preserved.
'Rat,
I don't think it has been confirmed that Murtha spoke FOR it has it?
Keller refused to do so, at least.
---
Nihimon,
GWB's record of lack of enforcing the law speaks for itself on many affairs prior to this one.
No Vetos, NSA, workplace enforcement, on and on.
I was moved by your homily about the Vietnamese priest. The Left has never acknowledged their culpability for the disaster in Vietnam. For them, it all ended in 1973, when the last major American military elements left - a "moral" victory for all their efforts. That the 1974-elected left-wing Congress cut the logistical and financial legs out from under the South Vietnamese is never mentioned. And it is a reenactment of this very same betrayal they seek now to inflict on the Iraqi's. Not because they hate the Iraqi's any more than they hated the Vietnamese. It is America they hate. The blow they seek to strike it at America, its power, position and credibility in the world. It is not Bush they hate, it is America. They want a different country. They deny any achievement in our history, and any necessity to sustain what we are. Until we can all accept that ugly truth about the Left, we will shortchange our diagnosis of the problem. Until sane and serious Liberals do something about the cancer in their midst, the problem will only metastisize.
Doug,
Keller said three outside the Administration called him and other NYT big wigs. He also said "not all" spoke against publishing this story. Keller did ID Murtha, Kean and Hamilton as the three. Secretary Snow's letter identifies Kean and Hamilton as speaking against publishing. Ergo, Murtha did speak to the NYT and did NOT ask them to refrain from publishing. See Michelle Malkin updates.
The point about sacrifice is so important, yet so little understood, that it deserves more discussion. We prate that "Freedom isn't free!" but we act as if we shouldn't have to sacrifice any personal comfort or privilege to fight those who want us to submit to them or die.
No society, certainly no republic, can exist and thrive without its people understanding that they must defend it.
Post a Comment
<< Home