I must agree, re the trackback above.

The one part that I left out of this post is that Major Schram's convoy was followed by a car with a Newsweek reporter in it. Once the action began, the reporter and his driver turned and got the hell out of there. If it wasn't for Mat's charge up into the ambushers, they never would have made it out of there alive.

Newsweek never ran a story about my good friend, Mat.

BlackFive

Well of course not, of it might leave a good impression of our servicemen, it is not allowed in print.

That would conflict with the Anti-American agenda. and distract from the mud the slime and the sneers they are sifting the planet for.

Wow... So that's why Blackfive started his blog.

Man, that's pathetic beyond words. Guy personally saves your life at the cost of his own, and it isn't even worth a story. Says a lot, none of it good.

But in a weird, backhanded sort of way, I guess we have Newsweek to thank for Blackfive.NET.

Fascinating background to Black5's blog origins. The more I understand about the media's editorial decisions, the more clear it is that the media is on the other side. Backblast from that stance is virtually inevitable.

If you are worried that Big Media will be chastened by the Newsweek scandal, today's Baltimore Sun editorial will set your mind at ease. It begins

IT IS unfortunate that Newsweek magazine has had to issue a retraction of a report published earlier this month that military investigators corroborated allegations that an interrogator at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay had flushed a copy of the Quran down a toilet. We still don't know if that actually happened. But given what we do know about prisoner intimidation and abuses at U.S. detention centers, such an act would hardly be surprising.

Ahh. 'Fake but accurate' lives! I feel better already.

Newsweak press credentials should be permanently revoked. Their reporters and other staff members should not be allowed to attend any press conference or any other event sponsored by a Federal agency.

Any reporter from another organization sharing information with Newsweak should also have their credentials revoked.

Any Federal employee at any level that provides information on any topic to a Newsweak reporter shall be suspended without pay for a three days, for the first offense, nine days for the second offense and fired for the third offense.

Newsweak should be held responsible for the deaths of those people and subpoenas issued seizing all files and computers at the corporate offices, reporter's homes and the homes of the corporate officers. (Let's see them get the next issue out without any computers.)

#5's comment certainly shows a keen understanding of the Bill of Rights and the freedoms for which we fight.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Uh, Tom, "Congress shall make no law." What Bob suggests, whether a good or a bad idea, does not involve congress making any law. Nor does it involve arresting Newsweek personnel or anyone who cooperates with them. The government has no right to legally muzzle the press, but it has no obligation to cooperate with any member of it either. I don't happen to agree with Bob, but what he proposes is not unconstitutional.

Should have read a little more closely. That last paragraph of #5 would clearly be unconstitutional. But even there, it would violate the amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, not the one for freedom of the press.

Bob has now posted this on (by my count) four different sites, and about eight different threads.

A colleague of mine in graduate school used to quote Willian Allen White on freedom of the press -- it was a rather poetic statement which I will try to reproduce from memory:

"If there is to be free government, then there must be free expression of the wisdom of the people -- and, alas, their folly with it. But, if there is free expression, folly will die of its own poison and the wisdom will remain. It is the history of the race and proof of man's kinship with God."

The editors and responsible reports of Newsweek have chosen which side they are on -- as we all must. Let us hope they reap the appropriate rewards in the marketplace of ideas and the judgement of history.

Sorry to waste bandwidth discussing such a silly proposal, but confiscating computers and other equipment required to produce a magazine would clearly violate freedom of the press. In a country ruled by law, equipment could only be confiscated after such a law had been passed (by Congress, the legislative body).
Holding the press legally responsible for the actions of lawless mobs after publication of stories (correct or incorrect) would essentially eliminate freedom of speech, since every publication would face the impossible task of predicting what actions fanatics might take in response to each story.
#5's response is educational in illustrating how partisan fervor and nationalism could quickly erode freedom.

Fred and Tom are both wrong, there is nothing “unconstitutional” per se about using subpoena power to obtain records for an investigation. So long as you convince a judge to sign off on it and the other party is unable to successfully have it squashed or modified (although IMO they probably would be able to challenge the seizure of computers unless you can show good cause), then it probably doesn’t run afoul of any constitutional protections. If we’re talking about a Congressional subpoena on the other hand, since the SCOTUS’ ruling in McGrain v. Daugherty back in 1927, the courts have tended to give Congress a pretty wide birth in its ability to use its subpoena power to obtain information. Given the facts of this case (e.g. allegations about the conduct of members of our military while on a mission, a pretty serious impact on our foreign relations, etc.), Congress might be able to justify issuing the subpoena of persons and records to investigate the matter.

Whether or not Newsweek and those individuals responsible could ultimately be held civilly and/or criminally responsible is another matter entirely though. Fred was correct in that there are no constitutional implications in refusing to cooperate with members of Newsweek or to boycott anyone who shares information with them.

Thorley,

We aren't in disagreement. If the government could show (or at least persuade) a judge that Newsweek's computers are or contain evidence that they broke some (constitutional) law, then they would have engaged in due process and not be in violation of the constitution. If they kicked down Newsweek's door and packed off the computers willy nilly, they would be in violation of the constitution but, as I said, in violation of the fourth amendment, not the first. I do agree with
Tom that the whole thing's a silly idea, but I think the difference between my and Tom's reaction to it is instructive. Tom's side of the political spectrum has a tendency to broaden the constitution to include whatever they like (abortion e.g.) and exclude whatever they don't ("under God" in the pledge of allegiance e.g.).

Fred,
The elastic Constitution is by no means confined to the liberal side of the aisle.

Witness the "State's Rights Federalists" of the GOP intervening in the Schiavo case, challenging state laws on marriage, California's air pollution laws, and many other inconsistent interpretations depending on Karl Rove's calculations of political advantage.
Personally, my views on the Constitution do not get wider or narrower based on the context. Free speech is an inherent part of democracy.
The statement in #5 "(Let's see them get the next issue out without any computers.)" is a clear intent to restrict speech and not just to investigate any hypothetical and ridiculous "crime" which Newsweek supposedly committed. If "bad reporting" becomes a crime, then Fox News will soon cease operations.

The bottom line in all this is that the Bush administration by bending the Geneva Convention, operating secret and unsupervised(by Red Cross, etc.) detention facilities around the world, allowing torture not only to occur but to be documented, has handed an incredible public relations opportunity to Islamic fundamentalists. Given that Newsweek made and retracted errors, killing the messenger will not kill the message.

The fundamental truth of democracy is that the free flow of information serves to expose and correct government crimes and mistakes. That the Bush administration's fetish for secrecy is blowing up in their face time after time is just one more proof of the superiority of open society.

Tom,

1. I agree with you that Bob's proposal is a bad idea. I just don't agree that it's unconstitutional as written.

2. We could argue all week about whether the federal govt has a constitutional right to protect innocent life and what the definition of that term is, but I doubt the marshals here would let us. We just have to agree to disagree on that one.

3. I think 9/11 demonstrated pretty clearly that islamofascists didn't and don't need "torture" at Abu Ghraib as an excuse for violence. I agree that shutting down Newsweek would be a worse problem than the one Bob thinks it would solve. Having said that though, a compelling case could be made that given the savagery and ignorance of large portions of the ME's population, and given recent history (Salman Rushdie, Theo Van Gogh, the "beauty pageant" riots in Nigeria; and BTW the Rushdie and Nigeria affairs happened long before Abu Ghraib) Newsweek either knew or should have known the consequences of its story.

A few hypertechnical points:

1) no need for a judge to sign a subpoena, or to show cause of any kind, a grand jury will do the trick.

2) A subpoena would not result in the "seizure" of any computers or files. A subpoena is an order to someone, directing him to produce the relevant information or objects. So Newsweek could make photocopies or hand over CD-ROMS.

3)A warrant (which would require a judge's signiture and would require a showing of probable cause) would be required for physical seizure. There is zero chance that any judge in the Unite States would issue such a warrant, even if it could be shown that the articles were the direct and proximate cause of the riots. Why? They occurred outside the jurisdiction of the United States and are thus, from the perspective of US law, not crimes.

4) There is a decent chance that Newsweek would get this subpoena quashed (although I like Thornley's version: "squashed," it's more poetic) on First Amendment "chilling effect" grounds unless someone can show that an actual crime, cognizable under US law, has occurred, and that Newsweek's files contain evidence pertaining to that crime. Issuing subpoenas with the intent to interfere with speech because you don't like what a publication wrote most certainly has First Amendment implications, even if refusing to speak to them doesn't.

Fred,
I would certainly agree with you on #3. Plenty of examples of Islamic fundamentalist violence with or without "cause". Some kinds of ignorance are even self-limiting, such as the Nigerian crusade against vaccination.
However, charges in side-panel note in Newsweek would not likely have gained such traction if they had not been preceded by so many other accounts of abuse.
The war against fundamentalism is fought in the media probably more than on the battlefield (we cannot kill 1 billion Muslims, but we can change their minds for better or worse).
Bush and company have mismanaged the media war just as much as Iraq.
Their incompetence includes Abu Ghraib,naming operations "Crusader", and allowing freaks like Gen. Boykin to spout stuff like the following.
"Boykin said the enemy in the war on terrorism as Satan, that God had put President George W. Bush in the White House and called one Muslim Somali warlord an idol-worshipper."

I realize Bush's actions are beyond criticism on this blog, but history will judge this administration as a peculiar combination of incompetence, cronyism, and ideological blindness.
It is always easier to criticize the mistakes of others than to acknowledge and correct our own errors.

To quote my hometown paper (the Daily Camera)
"No one has stepped forward to declare that the Quran incident is a fiction. More generally, no one can pretend any longer that the U.S. military imply would not engage in abuse and torture — not after the conviction of several participants in the Abu Ghraib atrocities, at least two dozen deaths attributed to torture, and plain evidence that the White House condones tactics prohibited by the Geneva Conventions when dealing with "unlawful combatants."

After all that, do Bush administration officials and their allies really believe that a magazine has damaged America's standing in the world? The Newsweek report could provoke such fierce reaction only because the past actions of the United States had made the allegations credible.

The American government diminishes this country's standing in the world, and its capacity to wage war against terrorism, when it resorts to physical and mental cruelty against detainees. That's an outrage. Don't blame the media for trying, however imperfectly, to shine a light on it. "

Tom,

No one has denied the incident because it's under investigaton. We may find that it did, in fact, occur. For my part, I don't care; damaging a book, even a holy book, just isn't that terrible a thing to do. Soldiers have done much worse in this war. But given the entirely predictible negative outcome of the allegation, I rather think Newsweek should have kept quiet even if they had ironclad proof.

As for "condon[ing] tactics prohibited by the Geneva Convention" well, duh. Given that the Conventions prohibit interrogating POWs beyond asking name, rank, DOB, and serial number, I certainly hope we are are "violating" them. Not that I condone torture, just that I expect terrorists to be treated worse than soldiers, and asked for more than basic ID.

As for US action making Newsweek credible in the Arab world: the Arab world also appears to believe that Jews mix Gentile blood into their Purim pastries. I don't think it matters much what we actually do; they'll think the worst of us anyway. You can't reasonably pin anti-Americanism on Bush. Certainly in my travels, most of which occurred while Clinton was in office, I encountered a ton of it.

Rob,

Those interred in Gitmo aren't POWs. Which means the USA doesn't have to observe those limitations.

Terrorists are treated worse than soldiers because they DO NOT HAVE the legal protections of soldiers. Nor should they, if one values the role of the conventions in preserving miltary/civilian distinctions and thus providing some protection for populations.

I agree 100%, joe. Sorry if that was unclear.

Tom: confiscating computers and other equipment required to produce a magazine would clearly violate freedom of the press.

Of course we've already been accused of treason (treason!) for suggesting that Newsweek bears any responsibility in this matter, so if this be treason, we should make the most of it. I say defenestrate their Haagen-Dazs vending machine.

Tom,

I still think the whole Abu Ghraib thing is way overblown. Arab propaganda outlets hypocritically scream about it (compare it to how Arab govts treat their prisoners) and the Western press wet their pants over it. But I believe the average Arab probably feels more contempt for our breast-beating over it, interpreting that as a sign of weakness, than he's bothered by the events themselves. As for Bush's supposed incompetence, sure he made mistakes. So did FDR, so did Woodrow Wilson, not to mention LBJ. No war ever goes perfectly. The question is, is the war necessary? I believe it is. And I also believe that whatever mistakes he's made, Bush hasn't made the fatal mistake the Democrats would have made, cutting and running.

I think Sully's recent comments about Glenn really apply to you too, Joe. Sucks, but it's true. I still remember your little post "let's get serious about torture..." well, you didn't. Quite a bit more uproar over the whole Newsweek spat around these quarters it turns out.

SAO - this the same Andrew Sullivan who thinks wrapping people in the Israeli flag qualifies as torture?

Tell you what. I'll go do pennance now by wrapping myself in the Israeli flag in order to share the experience, just so you can never doubt my seriousness.

SAO, As far as I know prosecutions and investigations are continuing for the prisoner mistreatment and torture incidents. If there's any evidence that the investigators aren't being agressive enough or that there's a coverup, anyone is welcome to publicize it.

Sullivan has been getting his information from OFFICIAL reports! How can he make the case that there's a coverup?!?!? His complaint boils down to the fact that people aren't as outraged as he is. If the wheels of justice are turning, as it seems they are, then the system is working. What is there to be outraged about?

If there's evidence of official malfeasance, then let's see it. Otherwise, this is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

I'm not talking about a coverup, or "namby pamby" stuff. I'm talking about dozens (probably hundreds) of innocent people being tortured to death in our prisons. Joe knows that but he's much too interested in obsfucating to own up to it.

Truth is he didn't have jack shit to say about Abu Ghraib or torture in general and has demonstrated a LOT more offense at the whole Newsweek escapade. Meanwhile he has the gall to run little posts about "teaching children peace."

Yeah right.

I'm not talking about a coverup, or "namby pamby" stuff. I'm talking about dozens (probably hundreds) of innocent people being tortured to death in our prisons.

Joe knows that but he's much too interested in obsfucating to own up to it.

Truth is he didn't have jack shit to say about Abu Ghraib or torture in general and has demonstrated a LOT more offense at the whole Newsweek escapade. Meanwhile he has the gall to run little posts about "teaching children peace."

Would you be happy if the Abu Ghraib photos were posted here everyday, ad nauseam? Is that what you want?

Dude, start your own blog!