Don't Blame The Whistleblowers

[Rabbit1]

CBS) Weekly commentary by CBS Evening News anchor and Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer.

At my age, nothing much surprises me, but my jaw dropped when I read the FBI has been trying to go through the files of dead columnist Jack Anderson to see if he had any classified documents.

Mind you, Anderson was 83 when he died and did virtually no work for 15 years because of Parkinson's, but the FBI has been pressing his family to get at those files. The family said no.

Dare I state the obvious: that with Osama Bin Laden still on the loose, maybe there are more important things for the FBI to do.

And it happened the same week the CIA fired an agent for hanging out with Washington Post reporter Dana Priest, who just won a Pulitzer Prize for revealing the CIA is operating a secret prison system. The Justice Department will decide whether to bring charges.

Almost every day now brings news of another leak investigation, but it's not the leakers, it's what they're leaking that scares me.

After all, why should a democracy be operating secret prisons anyway? If the government hadn't told us they exist, can we ever be sure who might wind up inside them?

Isn't finding out stuff like that what reporters are supposed to do?

As for rifling through Jack Anderson's files, surely that will founder in its own silliness now that it's been exposed.

But you do have to wonder what some government zealot will try next, maybe reopening the hunt for the killer rabbit that once attacked Jimmy Carter's canoe? No one has seen the beast since Mr. Carter fought it off with an oar. Might still be out there and dangerous. If it still has teeth.

[Silke]

Oh my God, this is ridiculous...and scary. It's ridiculous in the way that all that time and effort could definitely be spent going after more pressing issues. And it's scary that there doesn't seem to be logic in what those intelligence agencies (intelligent, my arse, if you hear this) or federal investigators come up with. For all I know it could happen to all of us at some point if we open our mouths too much. And how does that fit into a system that has the right to freedom of speech as a central focus in its constitution? Not likely.

I'm not based in the US, but I have a pessimistic view that it might be the same in Europe. A friend of mine has been actively campaigning against a new law that allows for personal information being encoded on passports/IDs and he's been approached by well meaning people cautioning him to keep a lower profile for fear of raising too much interest in his person. It shouldn't be this way. I'd rather have a system that encourages people to think critically and make their views public, opening up discussions. But I guess governments and their executive organs shy away from this because they NEED secrets...it puts them in a position of power.

*raises a glass to all the hard working journalists in the world* here's to you, guys and gals! Please keep up the good work of dragging the truth out for everyone to see.

Silke

[Brosco]

mmmhhhhh as an ozzie, I gotta comment on Gitmo here - I know, slightly off topic, but along the same lines. Here the yanks have a 'detention cetre' where people have been held for years without a single charge being laid against them. I can understand that in the case of terrorism that 24 hours is not enough to extract the necessary information - but seriously, after .. eerrrr .. what now ... 3 or 4 years... that there is still more to find before charges are laid?

There is an ozzie still being held there. No doubt he was a foolish adventurer - but give me a break - he was never a threat to the usa, oz, or anyone else but himself.

And don't get me wrong, I am more angry with my own government for allowing this foolishness to continue than the yanks that are doing it. Just imagine for a moment if we in oz attempted to hold an american citizen without charge for several years as to the outcry there would be.

Brosco

[fantassy]

I believe the intent and the statute allows us to hold them for the duration of the "war." Something like a prisoner of war, but, since they were not wearing a uniform, they don't fall under the Geneva convention, so not official prisoners of war and no rights under the Geneva convention. They're better off than in the old days. When George Washington captured an "enemy combatant" who was not wearing a uniform, he shot em on the spot.

fantassy

[Brosco]

I believe the intent and the statute allows us to hold them for the duration of the "war." Something like a prisoner of war, but, since they were not wearing a uniform, they don't fall under the Geneva convention, so not official prisoners of war and no rights under the Geneva convention. They're better off than in the old days. When George Washington captured an "enemy combatant" who was not wearing a uniform, he shot em on the spot.

fantassy

Ok so they can be held for the duration of the 'war'. uuummm what war is that? The war in afghanistan? Well, unless I'm mistaken, that war is well and truly over but many at Gitmo were not even a part of it, captured in other countries based on other suspicions. Perhaps you mean the ongoing 'war on terrorism'? A 'war' that will never end. Do you suggest that someone may be held without charge or trial purely on the basis that he may be terrorist - forever??

So much for 'free' america ... its only free if you agree with them.

Brosco

[Rabbit1]

I love decussions like this where no one is losing their temper---and everyone has a right to speak what they feel ---no name calling ---no flaming ---I was concerned when we first put this forum up that it would turn into a flame forum where adults did not act like adults and did not want anyone else to have an opinion other than their own----Thanks everyone for proving me wrong---that this is truely an adult site and we all can act like adults.

[fantassy]

Perhaps you mean the ongoing 'war on terrorism'? A 'war' that will never end. Do you suggest that someone may be held without charge or trial purely on the basis that he may be terrorist - forever??

So much for 'free' america ... its only free if you agree with them.

Brosco

Well, I agree that is where the GITMO justification breaks down. George W. would say it is the war on terror, and you're right that it will never end.

HOWEVER, you certainly have no cause to complain about a "free America." A certain American has been extremely generous and totally free with you.

fantassy

[Silke]

IMHO it's about setting an example for those countries you want to "win over", too. Even if there's a lot of freedom in the US - and there is, no doubt about that...to win the heart of an enemy you have to set an example that is better than what is going on right now. The whole idea of keeping people locked up without a charge, depriving them of their civil rights for a basically unlimited amount of time, makes the idea of a society based on freedom somewhat ridiculous... It's not a good role model.

I know you can find examples everywhere that might be a lot worse, but you'll have a hard time waving a freedom flag in people's faces when facts like that leak through.

Silke

[Brosco]

HOWEVER, you certainly have no cause to complain about a "free America." A certain American has been extremely generous and totally free with you.

smiles.. I love americans... especially one in particular, just that I get confused how such wonderful ppl could vote for such an idiot of a prez

[Brosco]

I know you can find examples everywhere that might be a lot worse, but you'll have a hard time waving a freedom flag in people's faces when facts like that leak through.

You are right of course - there are far worse examples around. But as you say, a country that is supposedly setting the standard must live by the standards themselves - even be better than the standards they want to impose on others.

Gitmo is hardly a standard that they would approve other countries of implementing.

Brosco

[AirKnight1]

I do think the GITMO guards have a new "adopt a prisioner" program. For all those who feel so strongly that terrorists should be set free to kill again, you may offer your home as halfway house. Assuming you live through a year with the friendly misunderstood terrorist of your choice, you will recieve and "I Heart Osama" t-shirt and the heart felt thanks of homicide bombers every where. Any takers?

AK

[Aesop]

I do think the GITMO guards have a new "adopt a prisioner" program. For all those who feel so strongly that terrorists should be set free to kill again, you may offer your home as halfway house. Assuming you live through a year with the friendly misunderstood terrorist of your choice, you will recieve and "I Heart Osama" t-shirt and the heart felt thanks of homicide bombers every where. Any takers?

AK

While I understand the sentiment of what you said, the problem is there is no trial, no due process. Guilty until proven innocent isn't the philosophy of this country's founders or rules of government. I'm a proud American citizen living under a regime that has decided the Bill of Rights is only so much paper and I find it deplorable that we are allowing this to happen.

[Rabbit1]

Rights is the question ---who has them---what makes them more important that someone elses rights----who is to decide----who do we trust

do I believe in the war we are in ---well as a parent with two sons who were there---and one is burried and the other is in the hospital

yes I believe we should fight terrorism in their back yard not ours---if innocent people are going to get hurt--and they will in any war---then I would rather it be theirs than ours.

do I like the way the war is run ---nope ---you can not have a political war---my war proved that---there can be no rules in war---how come the military has not disarmed all citizens there---when you have people walking down the street with AKs in their hand ---kind of hard to know their intent

What a bout Gitmo---well having been a POW for a brief time in 1968--I can tell you they have it better at Gitmo---does that make everything alright --War is still going on ---if they are POWs--then yes