5/6/2010

11 Responses to “Terrorism Coverage”

1. And it will remain so until they’re the ones dying; then they’ll attempt to raise holy inferno about it. This will go on until the inferno is not allowed to be raised, at which time they’ll just cry in their … oh, there won’t be beer, either.

   archy interviews a pharaoh who yearns for a beer

   htom (412a17) — 5/6/2010 @ 10:43 pm

   
   

2. Reading comments on other blogs that were discussing the police search & seizure of the stolen iPhone, I was unsurprised, but saddened, to see many people assert that the California version of the journalists’ shield law somehow gave immunity to the raided blogger and invalidated the police search. The theory seemed to be that the blogger could call himself a journalist — I’m okay with it that far — and that if he was indeed a journalist, then it wouldn’t be a crime for him to receive/possess stolen property. In a phrase: “It’s not a crime if he’s press.”

   That’s utterly crazy, of course. Being a journalist doesn’t immunize anyone from the consequences of criminal laws. The “shield” is an extremely narrow qualified privilege, and the nature of the privilege is the ability to protect the identity of a confidential source by being exempted from testifying about that particular subject. As a qualified privilege, it can be overcome — ask Judith Miller, or rather, the D.C. Circuit judges who affirmed her contempt sentence to jail — upon a proper showing by the government (basically that the info is really important and there’s no other way to get it). So nothing in the reporter’s shield law says if the reporter breaks a criminal statute, he gets a free pass because he’s a reporter.

   Leaking this kind of national security information is certainly a dischargeable offense for any law enforcement officer, and I would be very surprised if it weren’t also a violation of the federal criminal laws. If Obama were serious about national security, he would set about exhausting all other potential sources in order to identify and prosecute the leakers. If no other sources could accomplish that, then it would be time to put the journalist who was tipped to the real hideout location on the witness stand to identify his source, the presumed leaker.

   But that would make all the Lefties’ heads explode, and Obama isn’t serious about national security. Much less is this administration likely to ask, as a serious and non-rhetorical question: At what point does a reporter’s collusion with and facilitation of a lawbreaking traitor itself become a criminal conspiracy?

   Beldar (f412ff) — 5/6/2010 @ 11:02 pm

   
   

3. You missed the part where the finder tried to return the phone and Apple claimed it was not theirs, I suppose, and that later when Apple asked for it back, it was returned. All of which happened before the raid.

   Don’t get me started about the Mighty O.

   htom (412a17) — 5/6/2010 @ 11:13 pm

   
   

4. htom, I dunno if the blogger who ended up with the iPhone is or isn’t guilty. But I do know that he’s not immunized by the shield law. Reporters who break the law should be prosecuted and punished for that, that’s my point.

   Beldar (f412ff) — 5/6/2010 @ 11:17 pm

   
   

5. Beldar makes a good point. As for this case, I hope it wasn’t a law enforcement leaker. It probably was but I’m holding out hope it was someone else.

   DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/6/2010 @ 11:41 pm

   
   

6. Relax guys, it’s just the Boomers. They can’t help it.

   glenn (0af9f1) — 5/7/2010 @ 6:30 am

   
   

7. The implication is that the government was sacrificing law enforcement goals for favorable publicity.

   Maybe there is another objective that the government wanted to continue its “Lone Wolf” description so that this publicity was to alert the co-conspirators to flee and destroy evidence.

   Remember, Obama is tougher with his domestic opposition than our foreign enemies.

   Arizona Bob (e8af2b) — 5/7/2010 @ 7:35 am

   
   

8. Check out this laughable con from the linked article, it follows the sentence describing Shahzad’s recent gun purchase and how the cops had to change their approach to prepare for a possible shootout:

   “But Shahzad surprised them (the NY cops and the FBI) by leaving the apartment. He went to a local supermarket and they lost track of him. NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly told NPR on Wednesday that they lost him for about three hours.” Say what?

   That cock and bull story pegs my BS meter. I’m not prepared to accept that explanation or anything close to it at face value, and certainly not as presented in passing without so much as an additional sentence or two detailing how an Islamic terrorist could so conveniently slip away from both the NYPD and the FBI.

   If the authorities “lost track of him” it’s because they wanted to lose track of him.

   ropelight (2b194e) — 5/7/2010 @ 8:00 am

   
   

9. Someone should ask those patriotic NYT reporters who just can’t help leaking our security details every two years or so. They’ll know what to do.

   Dmac (21311c) — 5/7/2010 @ 12:47 pm

   
   

10. Well, James Risen might not be saying anything in public since he seems to be facing a subpoena to tell who he got some info from that he put into his latest book
    (but was not published in the NYT).
    He could be facing serious jail time; or, it could just be a “Judith Miller Vacation”.

    AD - RtR/OS! (044556) — 5/7/2010 @ 1:09 pm

    
    

11. If none other than Mr. Miranda Rights for Terrorists is now going after him, then I think he’s going to jail this time.

    Dmac (21311c) — 5/7/2010 @ 1:29 pm