Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Barr on YouTube | Main | Burn, Baby, Burn - Rioting in China »

Saturday, June 28, 2008

Who Needs Spies When We Have the Media?

Another major leak. This time about covert operations within Iran. To everyone's favourite traitor, Sy Hersh - the same SOB who broke My Lai, Abu Ghraib, and exposed a great deal of Israel's nuclear program.

What is it that Gen. Sherman said? That he'd kill all of the reporters following his army but, if he did, we'd have news from Hell by breakfast? It was something like that.

Seymour Hersh is worse than a spy, though. At least spies serve something.

Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on June 28, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e55394b93e8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who Needs Spies When We Have the Media?:

Comments

Damn these reporters. If they wouldn't be around the Government could do what it needs to do and run their business. Right Adam?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-06-28 11:23:42 PM


God Damn those reporters who endanger national security, yes.

Should reporters have broken the story of the Manhattan Project? Of D-Day? Should they have printed newspapers detailing in advance the battle plans of the Union Army?

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-06-28 11:47:21 PM


If they had done any of those things, Adam, they would have been tried for treason and hung. But of course, since reporters are the foot soldiers of democracy (honest; they told us so themselves), I guess they're exempt.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-06-29 9:55:31 AM


Sometimes you push it a little too far Adam. My Lai was a story that had to be told.

What makes you think the military didn't spoon feed this story to Hersh? It's likely designed to make Iran nervous, or give US voters the impression there's a plan in the works that might be cancelled if Obama gets elected.

Posted by: dp | 2008-06-29 10:39:22 AM


Why did My Lai have to be told? After all, even after it was told, no one was really punished for the damn thing. All it did was cause immense propaganda damage to the American cause in Vietnam.

It ought to have been hushed up and the people involved dealt with off-the-books. Such things are necessary in war.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-06-29 10:48:40 AM


Such things are necessary in war.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 29-Jun-08 10:48:40 AM

If you mean some stories need to be hushed up, I'll agree with you to a certain extent.

If you think the murder of innocent women and children is necessary we'll have to part company.

You have to remember it was the military that had the brainwave to embed reporters with army units.

Posted by: dp | 2008-06-29 10:57:22 AM


God Damn those reporters who endanger national security, yes.

Should reporters have broken the story of the Manhattan Project? Of D-Day? Should they have printed newspapers detailing in advance the battle plans of the Union Army?

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 28-Jun-08 11:47:21 PM

I love how you (and by that mean apologists for agression wars) always retreat back to the safe territory of World War II where things seem to be so much more black and white.

The guy did not "sneak around" and steal these secrets and then publish it. Several Government Officials seem to have thought it was a good idea let the public know that they are set up for yet another war.

Of course you and your raging Military hard on finds this unacceptable, you want to see things go "boom" and preferably some body parts (of non-americans) sent flying through the air. But not everybody thinks like this.

Tell you something: Once you stick to your guns and come out and say that MacLean's shouldn't have printed Mark Steyn or rather should have rolled over in front of the HRC you can continue your diatribe about how the press is irresponsible for printing things.

You want a democracy? You need an informed public. You want a totalitarian military state (and don't deny it Adam, it's pretty clear that in your ideal world the Military would be running the show, of course protecting all of our Freedoms) you're right, the press and everbody else better hush up.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-06-29 11:03:32 AM


If you think the murder of innocent women and children is necessary we'll have to part company.

Posted by: dp | 29-Jun-08 10:57:22 AM

You're only picking up on Adam's "Whatever it takes" attitude now?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-06-29 11:04:24 AM


Indeed it is treason but the West has lost the will to deal with it.

For those unable to grasp it, the difference is when the "reporting" endangers the lives of citizens of their own country, be they civilian or military.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-06-29 11:15:42 AM


As we're talking about the US here, some "perspective" on the whole "treason" thing:

----------------------------

To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

However, Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating related offenses which undermine the government or the national security, (such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the 1917 Espionage Act) which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.

The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition. The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695.

In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions. Several men were convicted of treason in connection with the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion but were pardoned by President George Washington. The most famous treason trial, that of Aaron Burr in 1807 (See Burr conspiracy), resulted in acquittal. Politically motivated attempts to convict opponents of the Jeffersonian Embargo Acts and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 all failed. Most states have provisions in their constitutions or statutes similar to those in the U.S. Constitution. There have been only two successful prosecutions for treason on the state level, that of Thomas Dorr in Rhode Island and that of John Brown in Virginia.

After the American Civil War, no person involved with the Confederate States of America was tried for treason, though a number of leading Confederates (including Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee) were indicted. Those who had been indicted received a blanket amnesty issued by President Andrew Johnson as he left office in 1869.

Several people generally thought of as traitors in the United States, including Jonathan Pollard, the Walker Family, Robert Soblen, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, were not prosecuted for treason, but rather for espionage. John Walker Lindh, an American citizen who fought for the Taliban against the U.S.-supported Northern Alliance, was convicted of conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals rather than treason.

The Cold War saw frequent associations between treason and support for (or insufficient hostility toward) Communist-backed causes. The most memorable of these came from Senator Joseph McCarthy, who characterized the Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman administrations as "twenty years of treason." McCarthy also investigated various government agencies for Soviet spy rings; however, he acted as a political fact-finder rather than criminal prosecutor. Despite such rhetoric, the Cold War period saw few prosecutions for treason.

On October 11, 2006, a federal grand jury issued the first indictment for treason against the United States since 1952, charging Adam Yahiye Gadahn for videos in which he spoke supportively of al-Qaeda.

-----------------

Maybe he should be charged with Espionage? Though he wasn't the one crawling around dark buildings finding that info....

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-06-29 11:21:30 AM


Spare us the hair splitting. Whenever reported stories place the lives of fellow countrymen in danger, it is an act of treason.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-06-29 1:33:08 PM


Snowrunner, treason consists of aiding or offering comfort to an enemy state. Iran is not officially an enemy, but their government sure acts like it. And before you start playing moral relativity games, remember it's Iran who props up terrorist factions in the Middle East, and that it was Saddam who offered $25,000 to the family of every suicide bomber.

Your problem is you hold America to a higher standard than you hold other nations to. The other nations also seem to have this problem. The outrage in Islamic countries about what happened in Abu Ghraib is either manufactured or hypocritical, considering that such abuse is a fact of life in their police stations and prisons. You see, it's okay as long as it isn't an American that's doing it.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-06-29 1:51:26 PM


"Treason never doth prosper because, if treason prospers, none dare call it treason."

Hersh and others ought to have been dealt with properly during Vietnam. It would have avoided many tragedies since.

And, in any case, it's no longer "twenty years of treason." For the left, it's more than a century of treason at this point. The far left, which came to control the Democrat Party in the years after World War Two, hasn't been on America's side in any war going back more than a hundred years now, with the sole exception of the Second World War which they supported because we were fighting on the same side as the Communists.

They're on the wrong side of this war, they were on the wrong side of the Cold War too. Indeed, how long has it been since the left took our side in any dispute?

I remember 9-11, not the self-serving version put out by the mainstream media, but I remember the real left's reaction. They were getting ready to take the enemy's side while the towers were still burning. Some of them couldn't even shut up then. Most of them couldn't keep quiet for more than a month.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-06-29 2:57:54 PM


"The first casualty of war is truth."

When you have thousands of 19 year olds with big weapons in a strange land with no political understanding of what it's all about, you can expect lots of murder and mayhem.

To burden the American people with the details which only make Americans look like a villain (which it is NOT) is folly and it makes the entire west look bad including Canada who is America's best friend.

If America were a true villain, Canada would be America's Tibet.


Wise up Snow Blower.

Posted by: John V | 2008-06-29 3:19:27 PM


Adam, well said. May I only point out that actually the Left opposed WW II and did everything they could to undermine their own country and troops. They only changed sides once the Soviets entered the war. Their substance and intentions never changed.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-06-29 3:24:27 PM


Snowrunner,

Excellent response. One would think libertarians would be fans of the American, very limited definition of treason, as can be found in the Constitution.

Best,

Terrence

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-06-29 4:24:34 PM


Adam, well said. May I only point out that actually the Left opposed WW II and did everything they could to undermine their own country and troops.
Posted by: Alain | 29-Jun-08 3:24:27 PM

Chamberlain the British PM and a Conservative, opposed war with Germany as did Wilkie the 1940 Republican candidate. The French right saw the Soviet Union as the enemy and not Germany. Paul Reynaud was part of the Munich agreement with Chamberlain. The British Labour party joined Churchill in a coalition government and strongly supported the war before Russia was involved. To suggest that only the left was opposed to the war is wrong.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-06-29 6:29:32 PM


Spare us the hair splitting. Whenever reported stories place the lives of fellow countrymen in danger, it is an act of treason.

Posted by: Alain | 29-Jun-08 1:33:08 PM

Ah yes, the usual line on here: "FREEDOM" Oh, wait, you mean we can't just get our way because that person over there doesn't agree with me? Well, damn HIS Freedoms, throw him in jail or kill him, only then we can truly be free.

Keep it coming Alain (et. al.) you prove time and time again that the one thing you really aren't for is Freedom, you are more into a Police State that enforces your believes and philosophies and where there is no dissenting opinion.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-06-29 11:40:50 PM


Snowrunner, treason consists of aiding or offering comfort to an enemy state. Iran is not officially an enemy, but their government sure acts like it. And before you start playing moral relativity games, remember it's Iran who props up terrorist factions in the Middle East, and that it was Saddam who offered $25,000 to the family of every suicide bomber.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 29-Jun-08 1:51:26 PM

Shane, neither Iran nor Saddam has done anything that directly constitutes an attack on the United States. Unless you consider Israel a State of the Union, in which case of course you're right. You may want to sent a letter to the Knesset and ask them if they consider themselves a state of the Union and if so if their agreement to give in to Hezbollah's demands constitutes treason as well.

Please let us know.

---------------------

Your problem is you hold America to a higher standard than you hold other nations to. The other nations also seem to have this problem. The outrage in Islamic countries about what happened in Abu Ghraib is either manufactured or hypocritical, considering that such abuse is a fact of life in their police stations and prisons. You see, it's okay as long as it isn't an American that's doing it.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 29-Jun-08 1:51:26 PM

The Foudning Fathers of the US have set these standards, they are the ones (and the ones who came after them) who set up the rules by which they wanted their country to play, and to an extend how the rest of the Western World wants to play.

To point at places that do not have the same moral values or legal framework as we do and then justify us abandoning our own system of checks and balances because THEY don't have it is not the way to preserve our way of life.

By dumbing down citizen, by abandoning core tenents of our legal system (e.g. Gitmo), by breaking contracts that we have brokered ourselves (e.g. Child Soldiers), by shouting down anybody who doesn't agree with us (and by us I mean current administrations) we are not preserving our way of life and our history, we give them up wholesale.

You want the terrorists to win? Then follow Adams and Alain's advice, because in short order we will have turned in the countries like Iran where only opinion that is supportive of the Government is allowed, where only news is allowed to be printed that the Government approves of. But I am sure they let you keep a nice "I am free" sticker that you can put on your bumper.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-06-29 11:49:10 PM


Hersh and others ought to have been dealt with properly during Vietnam. It would have avoided many tragedies since.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 29-Jun-08 2:57:54 PM

Yes Adam, who needs Freedom of the Press or an informed public if a Military Junta could be so much more effective in "dealing" with all the undesirables.

-------------------------

And, in any case, it's no longer "twenty years of treason." For the left, it's more than a century of treason at this point. The far left, which came to control the Democrat Party in the years after World War Two, hasn't been on America's side in any war going back more than a hundred years now, with the sole exception of the Second World War which they supported because we were fighting on the same side as the Communists.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 29-Jun-08 2:57:54 PM

Wow Adam. Your learnings of History are astonishing.... Go, watch "Patton" one more time to REALLY understand how this whole thing went down, follow it up with "The Longst Day" and I am sure you can come back and tell us one more time how everything went wrong because of THEM!

-----------------------------

They're on the wrong side of this war, they were on the wrong side of the Cold War too. Indeed, how long has it been since the left took our side in any dispute?

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 29-Jun-08 2:57:54 PM

Ah yes, the cold war....

I'd like to point out this little nugget:

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10089/10089.ch01.php

Let me summarize it: Yeah, we were duped, hook line and sinker. But hey, it gave you all these wonderful military toys that you seem to get all hot and bothered over, so I guess for you it was / is still a win.

-------------------------------
I remember 9-11, not the self-serving version put out by the mainstream media, but I remember the real left's reaction. They were getting ready to take the enemy's side while the towers were still burning. Some of them couldn't even shut up then. Most of them couldn't keep quiet for more than a month.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 29-Jun-08 2:57:54 PM

Yes, because Democracy has proven to work best if there is no opposition and nobody questions the Government. After all, the President knows best.

How dare anybody question the greatest nation on earth, if it goes after Adam: NOBODY. At least not for long.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-06-29 11:54:37 PM


To burden the American people with the details which only make Americans look like a villain (which it is NOT) is folly and it makes the entire west look bad including Canada who is America's best friend.

If America were a true villain, Canada would be America's Tibet.


Wise up Snow Blower.

Posted by: John V | 29-Jun-08 3:19:27 PM

Gee, the burden of a Democracy... Citizens actually involved in running their country. What's the world only coming to? I mean... In the GOOD old days, we didn't have to deal with that. We just had a King or Emperor and he knew what was good for us, and we happily followed him. Clearly, these founding Fathers were the work of the Devil, they should have never been allowed to get rid of the King!

As for Canada being America's Tibet: We are, you may want to check on who own's most of the companies, who employs most Canadians and who sends "suggestions" about our law making to Ottawa (hint, it's not the Canadian Citizen), just have a look at the proposed new Copyright law.

Try again John.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-06-29 11:57:58 PM


I believe it was a republican named Eisenhower who warned of the dangers of the military industrial complex. That's who's really been running the show for the last 40 years or so. All the rest is just spin.

Posted by: dp | 2008-06-30 7:06:18 AM


Q: Who needs Google when you have ignorant bloggers?

A: Everyone.

ABC reported this over a year ago.

http://english.people.com.cn/200705/24/eng20070524_377319.html

The only new information that you aren't pointing out is that the Democratic controled congress authorized it.

Posted by: Barry | 2008-06-30 7:46:42 AM


Seymour Hersh is a hero and is telling the truth about Western aggression against Iran.

There are a bunch of criminals ruling in Washington D.C. and if they start bombing Iranians, they will be guilty of murder.

The Vietnam war was mass-murder also and was based on lies, same type of criminals in power.

There's a good documentary about McNamara called "Fog of War".

The Cold War was a also a trigger just to frighten people and inflict mass murder on a moment's notice.

One of these "traitors" to the British regime was portrayed in Braveheart where William Wallace was drawn and quartered. His guts were pulled out and burned in front of his eyes because he was a good man and believed in freedom for his people. Right and wrong goes beyond "treason".

War brings slavery to the state - World war I brought the income tax and world war II brought payroll deductions - and the stupid "war on terror" is programmed to last indefinitely - and we have to give up our liberties with the anti-terrorism bill while these war-mongers get rich with their propaganda and staged provocations against Iran. Blood is all over their hands.

Posted by: Alan Mercer | 2008-06-30 8:02:30 AM


Clearly your and idiot.

Posted by: Dr. Allen Brock | 2008-06-30 4:15:33 PM


Clearly your and idiot.

Posted by: Dr. Allen Brock | 30-Jun-08 4:15:33 PM

Clearly the term "Dr." is being used loosely.

Posted by: dp | 2008-06-30 4:34:30 PM


Do you enjoy cashing your cheques from the Mullahs, Alan? You sound like a propagandist in the pay of the Iranian regime.

We don't have any quarrel with most of the people of Iran. After all, we had friendly relations with them under the Shah. It was fools like you who allowed him to fall and be replaced by a government which has impovrished and oppressed their own people and displayed implacable hostility towards the West.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-07-01 12:08:25 AM


Sy Hersh is what the Communists call an "Agent of Influence".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_of_influence

Agents of influence are not technically spies, although they are as destructive or more destructive than spies.

Agents of influence are, however, traitors in the basic sense of the word.

The Communists, and their clients, have used agents of influence in the West ever since the Bolshevik consolidation of the October Revolution.

Agents of Influence are a one-way-ratchet against Western civilization.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-07-01 12:30:12 AM


Agents of Influence and How the Cold War Never Ended:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s780388.htm

http://www.cronaca.com/archives/000574.html

http://www.spymuseum.org/programs/educate/loe.php

http://books.google.com/books?id=QqxCCrTNesQC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=spies+agents+of+influence&source=web&ots=SsKLKAGQUK&sig=GMdbLF1bXlzpeLqPPDIw_yxqwBM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA50,M1

http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=450

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2005/0106.html

Posted by: Speller | 2008-07-01 1:31:29 AM


Agents of Influence and How the Cold War Never Ended:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s780388.htm

http://www.cronaca.com/archives/000574.html

http://www.spymuseum.org/programs/educate/loe.php

Posted by: Speller | 2008-07-01 1:32:36 AM


Agents of Influence and How the Cold War Never Ended:

http://books.google.com/books?id=QqxCCrTNesQC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=spies+agents+of+influence&source=web&ots=SsKLKAGQUK&sig=GMdbLF1bXlzpeLqPPDIw_yxqwBM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA50,M1

http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=450

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2005/0106.html

Posted by: Speller | 2008-07-01 1:33:41 AM


Hey Speller, maybe read your links first before you post them as "proof"?

On the other hand, this link sort of fits:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s780388.htm

Trouble was Chris Mitchell never proved Clark got the gong. His great scoop was buried in other News Ltd publications, ridiculed by opposition journalists and bagged by the Press Council.

The newspaper had too little evidence to assert that Professor Clark was awarded the Order of Lenin – rather there is much evidence to the contrary. That being so, the Press Council finds that the Courier Mail was not justified in publishing its key assertion and the conclusions which flowed so strongly from it.
Australian Press Council, November 1996

[...]

Media Watch already knew from a senior source at the Australian that Mitchell believes we run a network of paid spies in newspapers including his own. The FOI letter particularly asked for information on payments to:

"employees of non-ABC media organisations"
FOI Letter to the ABC from The Australian, 3 January 2003


Journalists at The Australian must be thrilled to know their editor in chief has such faith in their integrity. Chris this is another one of your dud spy stories. Media Watch does not pay for information. We don’t have agents on the payroll at The Australian or anywhere else. We get out stories from our viewers and from journalists who are happy to tell us what’s going on. Of course we do pay a few people, Chris, and you’re about to see all their names - in the credits.

-----------------

Speller, this is another one of your dud links that prove the opposit of what you try to prove.

Happy Canada Day, let go of the keyboard for a bit.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-01 1:43:45 AM


Snowrunner,
The purpose of my links was to illustrate the concept of "Agent of Influence".

All my links did that more than adequately.
Winning or not winning the Order of Lenin is irrelevant.

What have you got to say about the other links?

Posted by: Speller | 2008-07-01 2:06:07 AM


All my links did that more than adequately.
Winning or not winning the Order of Lenin is irrelevant.

What have you got to say about the other links?

Posted by: Speller | 1-Jul-08 2:06:07 AM

So linking to someone who seems to see Ghosts and writes about them is proof how an "Agent of Influence" works? Interesting line of thinking.

As for the other links: After reading the first one I didn't bother.

BTW, in the West we call this "Marketing", you my have heard of it.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-01 2:13:21 AM


The word Ghost doesn't appear in any of my writing nor in my links.

As usual, Snowrunner, you are full of shit.

Those who are interested in growing wise will click the links, read, and learn what Snowrunner has spurned due to his blind bias.

My posts with links @
Tuesday, July 01, 2008 at 01:32 AM
&
Tuesday, July 01, 2008 at 01:33 AM


From the link that Snowrunner did click but didn't read or comprehend*:

"Just as the former Soviet Union was successful in recruiting agents of influence in British newspapers,
so The Australian will shortly reveal that it similarly sought assistance from past journalists in some of this country’s press, particularly the Fairfax and David Syme broadsheets."
The Australian, 14 December, 2002

*being charitable and chalking up Snowrunner's glaring omission to lazy stupidity rather than Snowrunner being a Communist

Posted by: Speller | 2008-07-01 2:30:54 AM


Snowrunner wrote: "Ah yes, the usual line on here: "FREEDOM" Oh, wait, you mean we can't just get our way because that person over there doesn't agree with me? Well, damn HIS Freedoms, throw him in jail or kill him, only then we can truly be free."

I believe Iraqis and Afghanis now have MORE freedom, not less, since the US took action, Snowrunner. Certainly they're no longer fed feet-first into industrial shredders. In case you haven't noticed, things are looking up in Iraq, and while Afghanistan's future is uncertain, there is still hope. Neither would be true if you had had your way. So spare us the moral outrage. No one does it well; liberals do it worse.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-01 10:33:01 AM


Your petulance and prejudice are really something, Snowrunner. If I didn't know better I'd say you were a Commercial-Drive washout with a bandana in his hair and a shirt pocket fulla marijuana doobies. The self-righteous scrape you exude is quite distinctive of the lifelong malcontent and inveterate loser. You liberals invest way too much of your emotional identity in your beliefs. Now then.

1. “Shane, neither Iran nor Saddam has done anything that directly constitutes an attack on the United States.” – Iran is loudly preparing for war with the United States and Europe.

2. “Unless you consider Israel a State of the Union, in which case of course you're right.” – Israel is an ally. You stand by your allies.

3. “To point at places that do not have the same moral values or legal framework as we do and then justify us abandoning our own system of checks and balances because THEY don't have it is not the way to preserve our way of life.” – Apart from imprisoning terrorists in better conditions than they would receive at home, what checks and balances are lost?

4. “You want the terrorists to win? Then follow Adams and Alain's advice, because in short order we will have turned in the countries like Iran where only opinion that is supportive of the Government is allowed, where only news is allowed to be printed that the Government approves of.” – I have seen NO indication that America has taken even one step in that direction. The fact that certain networks and papers support the administration is not proof of government censorship; it’s proof of DIVERGENT OPINION. You’d be perfectly happy if LIBERALS had total control over the media—until recently it was practically a lock anyway. In Canada, it pretty much still is.

5. “Let me summarize it: Yeah, we were duped, hook line and sinker. But hey, it gave you all these wonderful military toys that you seem to get all hot and bothered over, so I guess for you it was / is still a win.” – A single opinion piece from a Californian university professor does not a prima facie case make. And in this sentence your petulance, your bitterness, your self-serving mockery is at its sniveling best.

6. “Yes, because Democracy has proven to work best if there is no opposition and nobody questions the Government. After all, the President knows best.” – No government was ever improved by mob rule. Constructive opposition comes from informed discussion, not street protests or mouthy reporters trying to sell more copy.

7. “Gee, the burden of a Democracy... Citizens actually involved in running their country. What's the world only coming to?” – Democracy consists of casting ballots and holding representatives accountable. Street protests and media blitzes are profoundly UN-democratic, as you have a mob of a few hotheads trying to sway the will of a democratically-elected government.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-01 10:48:05 AM


DP wrote: "I believe it was a republican named Eisenhower who warned of the dangers of the military industrial complex. That's who's really been running the show for the last 40 years or so. All the rest is just spin."

Well, all those black helicopters have to get built somehow.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-01 10:48:35 AM


The word Ghost doesn't appear in any of my writing nor in my links.

Posted by: Speller | 1-Jul-08 2:30:54 AM

I was refering to the guy in the abc.net.au article you posted who seems to see Communists everywhere, not to mention spies. But as you never read the article it's just fitting that you didn't get that.

------------

As usual, Snowrunner, you are full of shit.

Posted by: Speller | 1-Jul-08 2:30:54 AM

As usual Speller, I appreciate the fact that you stick to the discussion topic and avoid name calling and personal insults. It shows how much of a grown up you are.

------------------

Those who are interested in growing wise will click the links, read, and learn what Snowrunner has spurned due to his blind bias.

Posted by: Speller | 1-Jul-08 2:30:54 AM

Blind Bias? You don't even read your own links. You just type keywords into google and then re-post these links. That's not research that's at best laziness.

-----------------

From the link that Snowrunner did click but didn't read or comprehend*:

Posted by: Speller | 1-Jul-08 2:30:54 AM

After reading the first link I stopped clicking, it was pretty clear that you didn't read your own links either.

---------------

"Just as the former Soviet Union was successful in recruiting agents of influence in British newspapers,
so The Australian will shortly reveal that it similarly sought assistance from past journalists in some of this country’s press, particularly the Fairfax and David Syme broadsheets."
The Australian, 14 December, 2002

*being charitable and chalking up Snowrunner's glaring omission to lazy stupidity rather than Snowrunner being a Communist

Posted by: Speller | 1-Jul-08 2:30:54 AM

Ummm, right. You DID read the first link in full right? Including the conclusion both by the Press Board in Australia as well as the answer by ABC to this? Yeah, the guy made assertions about the "Ghosts" he saw, and yet it seems when others looked for his "proof" it disappeared.

Grow up Speller. I know you don't like to admit that you made a mistake, but even you have to conceed someetime.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-01 3:06:28 PM


>"As usual Speller, I appreciate the fact that you stick to the discussion topic and avoid name calling and personal insults. It shows how much of a grown up you are."

All of my links discuss the concept of "Agent of Influence", even the second link out ot seven.

You still haven't commented on the other 6 links and you're still full of shit, Snowrunner.

Too lazy to click them and read, too blind to care.

For the edification of those willing to learn here are the linls again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_of_influence

http://www.cronaca.com/archives/000574.html

http://www.spymuseum.org/programs/educate/loe.php

Posted by: Speller | 2008-07-01 3:17:56 PM


"Conceed someetime"? And you accuse others of laziness. And it's hard to take seriously your claim that others need to "grow up" when your own posts look like they were written by a petulant adolescent.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-01 3:28:15 PM


Your petulance and prejudice are really something, Snowrunner.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 1-Jul-08 10:48:05 AM

My Prejudice? You may want to read again the original posting not to mention some commentators, they seem to be pretty prejudiced about a lot of things. Guess the only one allowed to have these kinds of prejudices are the ones you agree with Shane?

-----------------

If I didn't know better I'd say you were a Commercial-Drive washout with a bandana in his hair and a shirt pocket fulla marijuana doobies. The self-righteous scrape you exude is quite distinctive of the lifelong malcontent and inveterate loser. You liberals invest way too much of your emotional identity in your beliefs. Now then.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 1-Jul-08 10:48:05 AM

Ohhhh, name calling. This makes all your following arguments so much more relevant Shane. Way to go. Show those pussies you mean business.

-------------------------

1. “Shane, neither Iran nor Saddam has done anything that directly constitutes an attack on the United States.” – Iran is loudly preparing for war with the United States and Europe.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 1-Jul-08 10:48:05 AM

Ahha. So the US can make threats towards a nation, but if said nation doesn't roll over and give in they are the ones calling for war? Guess that makes sense in the World of Adam and it seems yours.

----------------

2. “Unless you consider Israel a State of the Union, in which case of course you're right.” – Israel is an ally. You stand by your allies.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 1-Jul-08 10:48:05 AM

Yes, Germany stood by the Austrians too, and thank God they did. Imagine there would have been no WWI, wonder how bad things could have gotten THEN. (I know i you are in capabal of detecting sarcasm, so I point it out, especially for you: This was a sarcastic remark to show the absurdity of your statement).

And btw, the constitution does not cover "Treason against allies" it clearly defines treason as an act comitted against the United States. So on that count the whole original posting of Adam applies not even when applying your logic.

----------------------

3. “To point at places that do not have the same moral values or legal framework as we do and then justify us abandoning our own system of checks and balances because THEY don't have it is not the way to preserve our way of life.” – Apart from imprisoning terrorists in better conditions than they would receive at home, what checks and balances are lost?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 1-Jul-08 10:48:05 AM

How about reading Adam's diatribes or Alan's? They clearly advocate that certain people (e.g. the ones who don't agree with Government policy and thus in their mind are traitors) have no rights. I would say that is a pretty great step in that direction.

The creation of places like Gitmo where the US administration has pretty much removed any legal protection from the inmates, and has actually gone as far as claiming that international contracts (e.g. the Geneva Convention) don't count is another.

I know Shane, for you that's nothing, after all they have better food now etc. etc. and why care? They are people you don't like anyway.

---------------------

4. “You want the terrorists to win? Then follow Adams and Alain's advice, because in short order we will have turned in the countries like Iran where only opinion that is supportive of the Government is allowed, where only news is allowed to be printed that the Government approves of.” – I have seen NO indication that America has taken even one step in that direction. The fact that certain networks and papers support the administration is not proof of government censorship; it’s proof of DIVERGENT OPINION. You’d be perfectly happy if LIBERALS had total control over the media—until recently it was practically a lock anyway. In Canada, it pretty much still is.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 1-Jul-08 10:48:05 AM

Knock knock anybody in there? READ my posting again, I was clearly refering to Adam's and Alan's posting and their vision of a future of America (and Canada and the West as whole I assume) and what their world would look like. Can you see the difference? Can you understand the argument or do I have to try again with shorter sentences?

-------------
5. “Let me summarize it: Yeah, we were duped, hook line and sinker. But hey, it gave you all these wonderful military toys that you seem to get all hot and bothered over, so I guess for you it was / is still a win.” – A single opinion piece from a Californian university professor does not a prima facie case make. And in this sentence your petulance, your bitterness, your self-serving mockery is at its sniveling best.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 1-Jul-08 10:48:05 AM

Yes Shane, dismiss what doesn't fit in your worldview. I can understand you don't want to even entertain the idea that we were all conned into something that didn't exist.

-----------------

6. “Yes, because Democracy has proven to work best if there is no opposition and nobody questions the Government. After all, the President knows best.” – No government was ever improved by mob rule. Constructive opposition comes from informed discussion, not street protests or mouthy reporters trying to sell more copy.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 1-Jul-08 10:48:05 AM

Meep. Failed again Shane. The entire argument by Adam (and Alan and others on here) is that the public should NOT know these things.

Heck, John V. even spelled it out:

To burden the American people with the details which only make Americans look like a villain (which it is NOT) is folly and it makes the entire west look bad including Canada who is America's best friend.

Posted by: John V | 29-Jun-08 3:19:27 PM

This isn't about mob rule, this is about some people on here (including you) not wanting the masses to get involved in something because "they don't need to know". This isn't a democracy this is a totalitarian state, but this isn't really too surprising, as often in history people are sailing under a false flag to dupe everybody else about their real intentions.

--------------

7. “Gee, the burden of a Democracy... Citizens actually involved in running their country. What's the world only coming to?” – Democracy consists of casting ballots and holding representatives accountable. Street protests and media blitzes are profoundly UN-democratic, as you have a mob of a few hotheads trying to sway the will of a democratically-elected government.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 1-Jul-08 10:48:05 AM

So in your world shane. the east Germans shoudl have never gone onto the street and protested, neither the Hungarians or any other country where the masses of people went onto the street and brought down their Government. some of them "democracies" some not?

What is MORE democratic than having the majority of people going onto the street and ousting the rulers they don't agree with?

Democracy works when everybody plays by the same rules, the moment the ones in power break the rules / ignore them / change them Democracy has failed. And yes, you seem to believe that once you live in a Democracy nothing can go wrong.... How wrong you are and maybe one day you will realize that too.

I leave you with two quotes, feel free to try and figure out where they are from:

"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."

"Nor was it uninteresting to the world that an experiment should be fairly and fully made, whether freedom of discussion, unaided by power, is not sufficient for the propagation and protection of truth—whether a government conducting itself in the true spirit of its constitution, with zeal and purity, and doing no act which it would be unwilling the whole world should witness, can be written down by falsehood and defamation.

[...]

No inference is here intended that the laws provided by the States against false and defamatory publications should not be enforced; he who has time renders a service to public morals and public tranquillity in reforming these abuses by the salutary coercions of the law; but the experiment is noted to prove that, since truth and reason have maintained their ground against false opinions in league with false facts, the press, confined to truth, needs no other legal restraint; the public judgment will correct false reasoning and opinions on a full hearing of all parties; and no other definite line can be drawn between the inestimable liberty of the press and its demoralizing licentiousness. If there be still improprieties which this rule would not restrain, its supplement must be sought in the censorship of public opinion."

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-01 3:33:27 PM


"Conceed someetime"? And you accuse others of laziness. And it's hard to take seriously your claim that others need to "grow up" when your own posts look like they were written by a petulant adolescent.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 1-Jul-08 3:28:15 PM

I didn't call on him the need to grow up. If you read that into my words then I guess that reflects more on how you perceive Spellers comments.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-01 3:34:43 PM


Agents of Influence:

http://books.google.com/books?id=QqxCCrTNesQC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=spies+agents+of+influence&source=web&ots=SsKLKAGQUK&sig=GMdbLF1bXlzpeLqPPDIw_yxqwBM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA50,M1

http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=450

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2005/0106.html


And finally the link that Snowrunner pretends contains references to "Ghosts" in order to derail the discussion that Sy Hersh may be an Agent of Influence rather than a spy:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s780388.htm

Note: the last link, which was ealier the second i made above regarding Agents of influence is for purposes of illustrating the concept "Agent of Influence" as a recognized form of helping enemy States without actually be a paid spy, a distinction that Media Watch is unable to make and Snowrunner is too lazy to investigate.


Posted by: Speller | 2008-07-01 3:38:38 PM


Note: the last link, which was ealier the second i made above regarding Agents of influence is for purposes of illustrating the concept "Agent of Influence" as a recognized form of helping enemy States without actually be a paid spy, a distinction that Media Watch is unable to make and Snowrunner is too lazy to investigate.

Posted by: Speller | 1-Jul-08 3:38:38 PM

I am fully aware what the term means, I just think, to use youre favourite phrase here, you are full of Shit when you accuse someone like Hersh as being an Agent of influence.

By your logic anybody who pisses against the Governments leg is an "Agent of Influence". Are you sure you did not get your training at the KP or the Chinese Government? You seem to employ the same tactics they are using to discredit anybody you doesn't agree with you.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-01 3:41:22 PM


>"These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of "high-value targets" in Bush's war on terrorism, who may be captured or killed, according to the article."
~wrote Hersh

This is clear evidence of Hersh acting as an Agent of Influence.

The Al Quds operatives that Hersh refers to were in fact captured In Iraq, not captured elsewhere and taken to Iraq.
It isn't unusual to interrogate the Al Quds operatives in Iraq where the were captured.

Sy Hersh is making propaganda for an enemy and is therefore an Agent of Influence.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-07-01 3:51:07 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.