On Rhetorical (?) Questions About Outing Jamil Hussein
Confederate Yankee is soliciting comments about whether he should reveal the actual name of the man who may have been quoted by the AP as Jamil Hussein.
I’m going to assume that this is a rhetorical question, but it’s not completely obvious from the post itself. If it really is a serious question — which I doubt –then the answer is obviously “no.”
I understand that a lot of leftist lunatics jumped around like screaming, poo-flinging monkeys claiming that any conservative who ever questioned Jamil Hussein’s existence and/or identity was a Bonafide Idiot. I understand that these monkey-displays were completely inconsistent with the claim that revealing Jamil Hussein’s “real” name is somehow a danger to him. If the claims of the fringe left were correct — and if the conservatives in question were really Morons, and Jamil Hussein was really who he said he was — then, the argument goes, what’s the harm in releasing the name of a different person? And if releasing his name really would harm him, then yes, the AP was either duped or unethical.
The left can’t maintain both claims at the same time. And yes, many of them are. And yes, many of them are genuinely stupid and illogical.
Shocking, I know.
But because one of the possibilities entails the theory that the AP used a pseudonym for Hussein (knowingly or not), releasing his actual name could kill him.
So Bob, if you’re making a point — and if that point is that certain vocal elements of the fringe left are often shrill, stupid, and illogical — then I suggest that the point is already obvious.
But if you’re serious in your question, then the answer is: don’t do it. There’s no need to risk anyone’s life to provide more proof of the fringe left’s lunacy.
I don’t need to know AP stringer’s real name
papertiger (734d33) — 2/1/2007 @ 1:44 amHowever I will require more then “scientist’s agree” when the papers write on the subject of global warming. Our politico’s are actually making laws based on this unsubstanciated, anonymously accredited, seudo science.
Patterico:
Here’s a very simple point that cannot be made too often:
If the Left is saying “don’t reveal Jamil Hussein’s real name,” then they are admitting that there is no “Jamil Hussein.” Not under that name.
At best, there was another person masquerading under that name… and therefore, the conservatives were right all along.
Am I missing some link in this chain of logic?
Dafydd
Dafydd (445647) — 2/1/2007 @ 3:39 amBullshit. Reveal the name. Share news. Tell the truth. Let the sun shine in. Let the chips fall.
TCO (ac2bf3) — 2/1/2007 @ 5:59 amPatterico,
How many people has Jamil Hussein killed? How many retaliations have there been for the multiple, never-confirmed, possibly-to-probably false stories that used him as a source?
Who are you protecting him from? Certainly not the Baathist jihadis, he’s obviously on their side. Probably not the al Quaeda jihadis as those stories advanced their chosen story-line. Probably not the criminals acting as jihadis, they are only in it for themselves. No, you’re protecting him from the people he’s quite obviously at war with, shiite jihadis and the Iraqi Army (no, the shiite jihadis and the Iraqi Army aren’t, or shouldn’t be, on the same side, but they can be against the same people, the enemy of your enemy isn’t always your friend).
I don’t know if I think it’s right to out him, but the facts aren’t as clear cut as you seem to think. Jamil Hussein is obviously at war and is using the media as his weapon. All of his stories, that I know of, portrayed the shiites as murderously rampaging amone innocent sunnis. Does he get a pass? Would you have outed Lord Haw Haw? Tokyo Rose? Just because he’s some cut-rate, AP source, doesn’t mean he isn’t spreading enemy propaganda and therefore, is the enemy to the people who are trying to make Iraq into a stable, free, democratic-republic.
I have to admit, I thought pretty much as you did until I noticed the last block quote at Confederate Yankee’s post Jamil is a proven bad source whose stories seem designed to help the Sunnis and the insurgents at the expense of the Iraqi Army……. It is fair game to out sources who lie like that”
Veeshir (dfa2bf) — 2/1/2007 @ 6:47 amSo no, the issue isn’t so clear cut.
I think it’s sufficient to have shown that “Jamil” is a pseudonym. If “Jamil” is actually trying to stoke the flames of civil war, then the Iraqi authorities should arrest and try him for that offense, or at least fire him. I wonder why they haven’t done so. (Of course, I’m assuming that if CY can uncover “Jamil’s” true identity, the Iraqi authorities certainly must know).
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 2/1/2007 @ 8:20 amI agree with Patterico that it might endanger Jamil [not] Hussein, plus there is minimal benefit from outing him. The story now is not Jamil’s true identity. The story is the AP itself and whether it can substantiate its last 2 years of questionable Jamil Hussein reports and its Baghdad reports in general. Outing Jamil lets the AP divert public scrutiny away from its questionable reports and put the focus back on Jamil, something it seems very willing to let happen if it will help this story go away.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/1/2007 @ 11:05 amNo, we (the VRWC) should not release his actual identity. Since the Left is infamous for eating its’ own, they will eventually reveal to the world who he is.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 2/1/2007 @ 5:38 pm