David Brooks' column today perfectly illustrates what lies at the core of our political discourse: namely, self-loving tribalistic blindness laced with a pathological refusal to accept responsibility for one's actions. Brooks claims there is a unique evil that one finds in the "fringes of the Muslim world":
Most people select stories that lead toward cooperation and goodness. But over the past few decades a malevolent narrative has emerged.
That narrative has emerged on the fringes of the Muslim world. It is a narrative that sees human history as a war between Islam on the one side and Christianity and Judaism on the other. This narrative causes its adherents to shrink their circle of concern. They don’t see others as fully human. They come to believe others can be blamelessly murdered and that, in fact, it is admirable to do so.
This narrative is embraced by a small minority. But it has caused incredible amounts of suffering within the Muslim world, in Israel, in the U.S. and elsewhere. With their suicide bombings and terrorist acts, adherents to this narrative have made themselves central to global politics. They are the ones who go into crowded rooms, shout “Allahu akbar,” or “God is great,” and then start murdering.
But Brooks himself was a vehement, vicious advocate for the attack on Iraq, which caused this:
The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq has resulted in the deaths of many Iraqi civilians . . . Many international organizations, governments and non-governmental organizations have counted excess civilian casualties using such methods; however all have reported different numbers. Reports range from 128,000 to 1,033,000.
That's at least 128,000 innocent human beings -- at least -- whose lives were eradicated by the war Brooks repeatedly cheered on. It also resulted in this: "More than 4 million Iraqis have now been displaced by violence in the country." But Brooks accuses Islamic fanatics -- but not himself -- of "causing incredible amounts of suffering."
Brooks also justified the Israeli attack on Gaza, including its worst excesses -- a war that wiped out the lives of 1,400 Palestinians (including 252 children under the age of 16) and that entailed "the shooting of [Gazan] civilians with white flags, the firing of white phosphorus shells and charges that Israeli soldiers used Palestinian men as human shields," all of which, according to a U.N. investigation, were "the result of deliberate guidance issued to soldiers." He also cheered on the Israeli bombing campaign of Lebanon and derided those calling for a cease-fire, even as the war wiped out more than 1,000 Lebanese people, at least 300 of whom were women and children, during which "Israeli warplanes also targeted many moving vehicles that turned out to be carrying only civilians trying to flee the conflict." And Brooks is now demanding escalation of the war in yet another Muslim country, this one in Afghanistan -- making it the fourth separate war on Muslims he's cheered on in the last six years alone.
So here's a person who is constantly advocating and justifying the killing, bombing, and slaughtering of Muslims, including well over 100,000 innocent civilians. And yet today he writes a column saying: Look over there at those radical Muslims; can you believe how degraded and inhumane they are? In fact, he says, "they" -- those Muslims over there -- "don’t see others as fully human. They come to believe others can be blamelessly murdered and that, in fact, it is admirable to do so." That's from the same person who cheerleads for the endless deaths of Muslims and destruction of the Muslim world while thinking that it makes him strong, resolute, Churchillian, righteous and noble -- exactly that which he accuses "fringe Muslims" of doing. And even as he blames the U.S. for "absolving" radical Muslims for the "evil" of their choices, Brooks will never make the connection between what he does and its results because he believes he is free from accountability and that his righteousness justifies the killings he desires -- again, exactly that which he says today is the hallmark of Islamic monsters ("They come to believe others can be blamelessly murdered and that, in fact, it is admirable to do so").
The tribalistic narcissism and depraved refusal to accept responsibility for the consequences of one's actions on vivid display here is hardly unique to Brooks. The very same people who express such moral outrage and self-righteous horror over events like the Fort Hood shootings themselves have immense amounts of innocent human blood on their hands, but they simply avert their eyes from what they have caused or believe that they are too inherently Good to be responsible, let alone culpable, for what they unleash.
Last Friday, the House Judiciary Committee, by a vote of 18-12, approved a bill entitled The State Secret Protection Act of 2009, which, if enacted, would be the first law ever to regulate and limit the President's ability to use the "state secrets privilege" to compel the dismissal of lawsuits that allege lawbreaking by executive branch officials. The bill was first introduced in 2007 in response to the Bush administration's radical abuse and expansion of the privilege, and was re-introduced earlier this year in response to the Obama administration's identical abuses.
The lead House sponsor of the bill is Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, the Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. He's my guest today on Salon Radio to discuss why these limits are so imperative, how the Obama DOJ has been abusing the privilege, and why internal, voluntary DOJ safeguards are inadequate. When the Judiciary Committee approved the bill on Friday, Nadler said: "The state secrets doctrine, as it has been reinvented in the last few years, is the greatest threat to liberty in this country. It must be limited and controlled." In the interview, he explains his rationale behind that striking claim, and he also explained this about the dangerous reinvention of the privilege over the last several years:
JN: The Bush administration made two changes, both of which have been embraced by the Obama administration. One, it started using this doctrine, which was used very sparingly before, all the time. And secondly, it invented, not only to say, you can't see a document, but it invented the use of saying, you can't have a lawsuit, of coming into court right on the pleadings, right after the initial filing of the initial complaint, to say, stop the lawsuit, because, not that you can't see a document, but the very consideration of the lawsuit, the very consideration of the case, will endanger state secrets, and dismiss the case right off the bat.
And that hides everything. If you dismiss the case right off the bat, then you can't use the case to find out what's going on, to prove that the government is violating rights, is engaging in torture, or is wiretapping without a warrant or whatever. That's what I meant by reinventing. It was never used until the Bush administration to dismiss a case right upfront.
GG: And you feel that it's fair to say, as I think you just did say, that in cases involving rendition, brought by victims of torture, people alleging they were subjected to illegal warrantless eavesdropping, that the Obama administration has been using this privilege in exactly the same way, meaning in this way that's reinvented, by saying not just these specific documents are subject to the state secrets privilege, but the subject matter itself is?
JN: Yes. They said that in court on a number of occasions, and they've in a number of cases, the al-Haramain case, in another case the Jeppesen case, they've taken exactly the same position, saying that you can't consider the case, as the Bush administration did, and they've argued in courts, in appellate courts, they've sought review, to defend that position.
Indeed they have. And that's why this legislation is as imperative as ever. Nadler characterizes the threats posed by these abuses as far more odious even than those posed by the excesses of the Patriot Act. But as he put it in the interview: "One of the basic problems is that I have to think that the administration is not going to support the bill, and it's going to be very difficult to pass it." I'll be writing much more about ways to apply pressure to induce enactment of this legislation. If nothing else, it's refreshing to see Democratic members of the House fulfilling their duty to act independently of the executive branch and try to impose limits to curb presidential abuses of power, even when the President is a member of their political party.
The discussion is roughly 10 minutes in length and can be heard by clicking PLAY on the recorder below (as always, the podcast can be downloaded as an MP3 here, or iTunes here). A transcript is here.
(updated below)
The incomparably pernicious Joe Lieberman said yesterday on Fox News that he intends to launch an investigation into "the motives of [Nidal] Hasan in carrying out this brutal mass murder, if a terrorist attack, the worst terrorist attack since 9/11." Hasan's attack was carried out on a military base, with his clear target being American soldiers, not civilians. No matter one's views on how unjustified and evil this attack was, can an attack on soldiers -- particularly ones in the process of deploying for a war -- fall within any legitimate definition of "terrorism," which generally refers to deliberate attacks on civilians?
The obvious problem with answering that question is that, as even the U.S. State Department recognizes, "no one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance" -- despite the centrality of that term in our political discourse. In its 2001 publication, Patterns of Global Terrorism, the State Department did define "terrorism" to mean "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets," and in turn defined "noncombatant targets" to include "military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty." Only by accepting that definition (or one similar to it) could the attack on Fort Hood possibly be defined as "terrorism."
But if one accepts that broadened definition of "terrorism" -- that it includes violence that targets not only civilians but also combatants who are unarmed or not engaged in combat at the time of the attack -- it seems impossible to exclude from that term many of the acts in which the U.S. and our allies routinely engage. Indeed, a large part of our "war" strategy is to kill people we deem to be "terrorists" or "combatants" without regard to whether they're armed or engaged in hostilities at the moment we kill them. Isn't that exactly what we do when we use drone attacks in Pakistan? Indeed, we currently have a "hit list" of individuals we intend to murder in Afghanistan on sight based on our suspicion that they're involved in the drug trade and thus help fund the Taliban. During its war in Gaza, Israel targeted police stations and, with one strike, killed 40 police trainees while in a parade, and then justified that by claiming police recruits were legitimate targets -- even though they weren't engaged in hostilities at the time -- because of their nexus to Hamas (even though the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem said the targeted recruits "were being trained in first aid, human rights and maintaining public order").
Is there any legitimate definition of "terrorism" that allows the Fort Hood attack to qualify but not those above-referenced attacks? The U.S., of course, maintains that it is incapable of engaging in "terrorism," by definition, because "terrorism" is something only "subnational groups or clandestine agents" can do, but leaving that absurdly self-serving and incoherent exclusion aside, how can the Fort Hood attacks targeted at soldiers be "terrorism" but not our own acts?
Just to provide what ought to (but won't) be an unnecessary caveat: whether the U.S. is noble, righteous and good, and radical Muslims are rotted and evil, is completely irrelevant to the issue here. The laws of war and definitions of terrorism apply -- as is true, by definition, for all things that we call "laws" and "definitions" -- equally to everyone, regardless of how good or bad someone is. Nor do any of these issues have anything to do with whether an act is justifiable; many things that are wrong and evil -- indeed most -- are not "terrorism."
Isn't it fairly clear that the term "terrorism" is being applied to what Hasan did due to his religion rather than the acts themselves? Put another way, as ThinkProgress' Matt Duss put it: "the definition of terrorism is not 'any violence by any Muslim anywhere at any time for any reason'." But that -- along with the repellent claim that saying "Allahu Akbar" is "suggestive of terrorism," rather than suggestive of someone who is Muslim (obviously the same thing in the minds of the people claiming that) -- is exactly what seems to be driving discussions of this attack. It's likely that there will always be a lack of clarity about exactly what motivated Hasan -- some combination of mental instability, religious fervor and political conviction -- but, regardless of motive, the only way to define an attack on soldiers as an act of "terrorism" is to indict ourselves in the same way.
UPDATE: I don't quite know how to explain this, but National Review's Jonah Goldberg actually constructed a cogent argument today, arguing that Hasan's attack cannot be classified as "terrorism" because terrorism is "an attack on civilians intended to strike fear in the non-military population" and "Hasan didn't attack civilians, he attacked uniformed members of the U.S. Army in advance of their deployment to the frontlines." In a subsequent post, responding to angry reader emails, he even explained that it's difficult to classify Hasan's attack as "terrorism" without doing the same with regard to our drone attacks in Pakistan. More bizarrely still, National Review's Cliff May then chimed in to agree that "a terrorist is someone who intentionally targets non-combatants with violence for political purposes. The shooter at Fort Hood, by contrast, was targeting uniformed combatants. In that sense, he was not a terrorist."
That even the fanatical play-acting-tough-guy-warriors at National Review are more restrained and thoughtful on this topic than Joe Lieberman reflects just how radical and unhinged the Connecticut Senator is when it comes to anything Muslim.
The Washington Post's David Ignatius today notes the irony that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is being criticized by his country's "hard-liners" for supporting a deal with the U.S. over nuclear issues:
The prospect of a deal with the Great Satan produced a political frisson in Tehran. . . . Critics chided Ahmadinejad for giving away the nuclear store. . . . Khamenei joined in the attacks last week, warning that negotiating with America would be "naive and perverted." The leader was implicitly criticizing Ahmadinejad, who had characterized the Geneva deal as an Iranian victory. . . .
But reading the Iranian press, you get the sense that for Iran's ruling elite, engagement with America remains a bridge too far. "America is still the Great Satan. Negotiations are meaningless," thundered the hard-line weekly Ya-Lesarat.
That, of course, is exactly what American neocons have long been screaming about negotiations with Iran -- that they're crazed, untrustworthy Persian Hitlers who shouldn't be negotiated with and that Obama is being "naive" or worse by trying. It's so striking how identical is the mentality of America's "hard-line" right-wing extremists and those in Iran.
Ignatius also claims, correctly, that the Iranian regime relies on anti-Americanism to sustain its legitimacy because the constant demonization of a foreign enemy unites the population behind the government. Of course, the continuous demonization of foreign enemies has also long been the favorite tool of America's political leaders for the same reasons. That's because exploiting foreign threats for domestic political gain is a virtually universal tool of governments. That, of course, is exactly why the belligerence and threats towards Iran long advocated by America's Right has as its prime beneficiary the very Iranian mullahs they claim to oppose.
Tom Friedman today has some very harsh words for both the Israelis and Palestinians, both of whom -- he claims -- are not serious about reaching a peace agreement. As a result, these are the principles which Friedman -- rather surprisingly -- advocates the U.S. should follow:
Let’s just get out of the picture. Let all these leaders stand in front of their own people and tell them the truth: "My fellow citizens: Nothing is happening; nothing is going to happen. It’s just you and me and the problem we own."
Indeed, it's time for us to dust off James Baker’s line: "When you’re serious, give us a call: 202-456-1414. Ask for Barack. Otherwise, stay out of our lives. We have our own country to fix." . . .
If the status quo is this tolerable for the parties, then I say, let them enjoy it. I just don’t want to subsidize it or anesthetize it anymore. We need to fix America. If and when they get serious, they’ll find us.
The only specific course of action Friedman explicitly advocates to fulfill those principles is that the U.S. cease its efforts to forge a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and stop trying to pressure them into concessions, instead leaving each side to stew in the status quo -- in other words, do exactly that which the Netanyahu government would like most. That would be a perfectly fine suggestion if not for the fact that the U.S. is heavily invested in the outcome of that process and its interests substantially and directly impacted by what happens. That's because we single-handedly enable Israeli behavior with our massive amounts of military aid, diplomatic protection, and weapons supplying, which means Israeli behavior is rationally perceived by much of the Muslim world as being one and the same as American behavior. Muslim anger towards Israel will inevitably translate into Muslim anger towards the U.S. for as long as we continue to flood Israel with aid and cover.
Friedman doesn't explicitly advocate this, of course, but isn't the logical outcome of his prescription -- that we "just get out of the picture" and tell them to "stay out of our lives" and no longer "subsidize it" -- the cessation of all of that massive aid and assistance to Israel? How are we remotely "getting out of the picture" and telling these governments "to stay out of our lives" and no longer "subsidizing" the conflict if we remain the single largest financial and military enabler of Israeli actions as long as they continue on their current path? While Friedman isn't willing to follow his surprisingly blunt premises to their logical conclusions, Time's Joe Klein is willing do so, as this is what he wrote earlier this week about what the Obama administration should do in the face of Israeli recalcitrance:
It should start by putting a hold on all economic and military aid to Israel; the aid should not be discontinued, just held, for a nice long review until the Netanyahu government comes to understand that Jerusalem must be the capital of both Israel and Palestine, and that if you actually want peace, you don't build illegal settlement colonies in the Palestinian capital.
When is the last time there were serious discussions like this in the establishment media about cutting off aid to Israel if they refused to cease taking actions that harmed American interests? That was probably 1992, when then-Secretary of State Jim Baker repeatedly tried to link continued American aid and loan guarantees to Israeli cessation of settlement expansions and increased good faith in negotiating a peace agreement with the Palestinians -- which caused a major political backlash in the U.S., fueled by what then-NYT-reporter Tom Friedman described as "a number of pro-Israeli Senators." It's amazing how little has changed vis-a-vis American debates over Israel in the 17 years since then.
In countless ways, our foreign policy has long and directly violated George Washington's 1796 warning that "nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded"; that "the nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave"; and that "a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils." The typical justification for violating those warnings is that our interests are served by maintaining and steadfastly supporting permanent alliances of this sort.
Yet here is one such nation that receives more American support than any other, stubbornly refusing to cease conduct which our government officially proclaims to be deeply harmful to our interests, and the notion of using our vast leverage to make them change behavior is decreed to be one of the most impenetrable taboos (even the Executive Director of the ostensibly orthodoxy-fighting J Street recently demanded that such a step not even be entertained). For so long, it's been an unchallengeable given that we are required to continue to lavish Israel with aid and diplomatic protection even if they do things that our own government believes (or at least claims to believe) is directly harming the United States. Perhaps Friedman's implicit (if unintended) call for that to change -- and Klein's explicit call that it change -- signals a long-overdue erosion of that taboo.
UPDATE -- RESPONSE TO RIGHT-WING BLOG HYSTERIA: Some borderline-illiteracy and extreme amounts of narcissism made this post last night the focus of the right-wing-blogosphere's screeching-outrage scandal du jour. All sorts of them are claiming that I unfairly "smeared" "Allahpundit" and Patterico by using ellipses in this post to make it appear that their commentary on the unfolding Fort Hood shooting was less skeptical than it really was.
As I made as clear as the English language permits, my post had nothing to do with criticizing Allahpundit's commentary on the shooting, because -- as I said -- that's a topic too inconsequential to warrant taking my readers' time with. Instead, I simply used what I said was his "very thorough" compilation of major media reports in order to examine and critique media coverage of that event, not Allahpundit's reaction to those reports, and -- in the first paragraph -- I explained how and why I came across his post. That's why I wrote this:
Upon reading that, I went to Hot Air to read what [Allahpundit] had written, and it's actually quite revealing -- not in terms of what it reveals about Hot Air (that topic wouldn't warrant a post) but, rather, what it reveals about major media coverage of these sorts of events. Allahpundit's post consists of a very thorough, contemporaneous, and -- at times -- appropriately skeptical chronicling of what major media outlets were reporting about the Fort Hood attack, combined with his passing along of much unverified gossip and chatter from Twitter, most of which turned out to be false. It's worth focusing on what the major media did last night, and one can use the Hot Air compilation to examine that. . . . Here are excerpts from Allahpundit's compilation, virtually all of which -- except where indicated -- came from large news outlets:
Is there any way to make that clearer within the confines of the English language? My topic was what and how the major media was reporting on this event, not what Allahpundit was or wasn't saying about those reports. I didn't write a critical word about Allahpundit -- let alone about Patterico -- both of whom are now screaming that I "smeared" them. In fact, to the extent I commented on Allahpundit's commentary at all, it was to state that "at times" he was "appropriately skeptical." The idea that I would explicitly praise him at the start of the post for being "appropriately skeptical" while simultaneously using ellipses with the intent to conceal his skepticism is so self-evidently dumb that it's hard to believe anyone who can turn on a computer would express that thought.
There were times Allahpundit made clear that one should take certain reports he passing along with a grain of salt -- just as I explicitly said he did -- but there were other times when he passed on inaccurate media claims without any such provisos ("Whether there are two shooters or three seems to be in dispute at the moment, but there’s certainly more than one"). But the level of Allahpundit's skepticism while he watches TV isn't of the slightest interest to me nor, I presume, to my readers, which is why that wasn't what I was writing about. I made clear that he was sometimes skeptical, but used ellispses to eliminate most of his reactions and commentary because his reactions were irrelevant to my post. Eliminating quotations that are extraneous and irrelevant to the topic at hand is why ellipses exist.
The entire post was a discussion of the journalistic responsibility of major media outlets reporting on events like this -- not about what right-wing bloggers who copy down what they are hearing on TV should or shouldn't do (the post's title: "A media orgy of rumors, speculation and falsehoods"). I simply used Allahpundit's thorough stenographic recording of what he was hearing as a means of examining and critiquing what major media outlets reported. I made explicitly clear that I wasn't writing about right-wing bloggers -- both because I presume my readers at this point don't care nearly enough about them to justify taking their time with posts about them and because writing about right-wing bloggers inevitably leads to these sorts of petty and worthless outbursts of accusatory, self-absorbed petulance ("he's smearing us!!!!") that then force one to waste more reader time by responding.
That said, passing on unfounded and baseless rumors can be damaging, irresponsible and misleading -- even if one points out that such rumors should be taken with "a grain of salt." That Allahpundit at times (though not always) included such caveats doesn't negate the fact that the media's initial reporting of this event -- as reflected by Hot Air's dutiful passing on of their reports -- would have left one more uninformed and misled than informed. That -- and not the behavior of right-wing blogs -- was the topic of the post. It takes some toxic combination of reading comprehension failures combined with an "everything-is-about-me" narcissistic complex to read my analysis of media reporting on Fort Hood and conclude: "Oh my God, he's smearing us right-wing bloggers by telling his readers that we didn't provide enough caution when passing on what we heard from the media." That's particularly true when, to the extent I mentioned right-wing blogger reaction at all, it was to state explicitly that they were "appropriately skeptical" at times of what they were hearing -- the very point they're now screeching I "dishonestly" tried to hide.
* * * * *
Last night, right-wing blogger (and law professor) Glenn Reynolds promoted this media analysis from right-wing blogger (and Los Angeles Assistant District Attorney) Patterico regarding coverage of the Fort Hood shootings. Patterico wrote: "Whenever there is breaking news, it’s good to keep a few things in mind: . . . Always follow Allahpundit" -- referring to one of the two bloggers at Michelle Malkin's Hot Air site.
Upon reading that, I went to Hot Air to read what he had written, and it's actually quite revealing -- not in terms of what it reveals about Hot Air (that topic wouldn't warrant a post) but, rather, what it reveals about major media coverage of these sorts of events. Allahpundit's post consists of a very thorough, contemporaneous, and -- at times -- appropriately skeptical chronicling of what major media outlets were reporting about the Fort Hood attack, combined with his passing along of much unverified gossip and chatter from Twitter, most of which turned out to be false.
It's worth focusing on what the major media did last night, and one can use the Hot Air compilation to examine that. I understand that in the early stages of significant and complex news stories, it's to be expected that journalists will have incomplete and even inaccurate information. It's unreasonable to expect them to avoid errors entirely. The inherently confusing nature of a mass shooting like this, combined with the need to rely on second-hand or otherwise unreliable sources (including, sometimes, official ones), will mean that even conscientious reporters end up with inaccurate information in cases like this. That's all understandable and inevitable.
But shouldn't there be some standards governing what gets reported and what is held back? Particularly in a case like this -- which, for obvious reasons, has the potential to be quite inflammatory on a number of levels -- having the major media "report" completely false assertions as fact can be quite harmful. It's often the case that perceptions and judgments about stories like this solidify in the first few hours after one hears about it. The impact of subsequent corrections and clarifications pale in comparison to the impressions that are first formed. Despite that, one false and contradictory claim after the next was disseminated last night by the establishment media with regard to the core facts of the attack. Here are excerpts from Allahpundit's compilation, virtually all of which -- except where indicated -- came from large news outlets:
Number of shooters
The fact that at least three gunmen are involved already has Shuster and Miklaszewski mentioning similarities to the Fort Dix Six plot on MSNBC . . . two of the gunmen are still at large and one has fired shots at the SWAT team on the scene . . . . New details from CNN: One gunman "neutralized," one "cornered," no word on the third. . . . Whether there are two shooters or three seems to be in dispute at the moment, but there’s certainly more than one: The second shooting on the base evidently occurred at a theater. . . . Fox News says there are reports that the men were dressed in fatigues. . . . MSNBC TV says two shooters are in custody now. . . . it sounds like both shooters are military . . . According to MSNBC, there were three shooters. . . In case you're wondering whether the other two soldiers in custody were actual accomplices or just being questioned because they knew Hasan, Rick Perry just said at the presser he’s holding that all three were shooters. . . . Hearing rumblings on Twitter right now that Perry was wrong and that the two other "suspects" have now been released. Was Hasan, in fact, a lone gunman? . . . . According to the general conducting the briefing going on right now, he appears to be a lone gunman.
The fate of the shooter
One of the shooters is dead. . . One is dead, two more are in custody. Has there ever been a case of "battle stress" that involved a conspiracy by multiple people? . . . So poor and fragmented have the early media reports about this been that only now, after 9 p.m. ET, do we learn that … Hasan’s still alive. He’s in stable condition.
The weapons used
M-16s involved: . . . From the local Fox affiliate, how it all went down. Evidently McClatchy’s report of M-16s was wrong:
The shooter's background
According to Brian Ross at ABC, Hasan was a convert to Islam. . . . Contra Brian Ross, the AP says it’s unclear what Hasan’s religion was or whether he was a convert. . . . Apparently, one of Hasan’s cousins just told Shep that he’s always been Muslim, not a recent convert. . . .
I’m hearing on Twitter that Fox interviewed one of his neighbors within the last half-hour or so and that the neighbor claims Hasan was handing out Korans just this morning. Does anyone have video? . . . . "Brenda Price of KUSJ reported to Greta at 10:33: 'also, the latest I am hearing, this morning, apparently according to his neighbors, he was walking around kind of giving out his possessions, giving away his furniture, handing out the Koran…'" . . .: Evidently CNN is airing surveillance footage from a convenience store camera taken this just morning showing Hasan in a traditional Muslim cap and robe. . . "A former neighbor of Hasan’s in Silver Spring, Md. told Fox News he lived there for two years with his brother and had the word ‘Allah’ on the door."
Miscellaneous claims
Good lord — there’s a report from BNO News on Twitter that new shooting is being heard on the base. . . . For what it’s worth, an eyewitness report of Arabic being shouted during the attack: . . .Federal law enforcement officials say the suspected Fort Hood, Texas, shooter had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats. . . . The $64,000 questions: What was he doing at Fort Hood among the population if he thought suicide bombers were heroes?
Isn't it clear that anyone following all of that as it unfolded would have been more misinformed than informed?
The New York Times' Robert Mackey did an equally comprehensive job of live-blogging the media reports, and his contemporaneous compilation reflects many of these same glaring errors in the coverage: "CNN reports that two military sources say that the second gunman at Fort Hood is 'cornered' . . . Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison told Fox 4 News in Texas that one shooter was in custody and 'another is still at large' . . . CNN’s Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr reports that 12 people have been killed and up to 30 wounded. One of the dead is said to have been one of the gunmen. . . . Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, just revealed that earlier reports that the suspected gunman, Major Nidal Hasan, had been killed were incorrect. Major Hasan was wounded but remains alive."
Perhaps most irresponsible of all is the unverified claim that Hasan had written on the Internet in defense of suicide attacks by Muslims, even though the origins of those writings are entirely unverified. Similarly, certain news organizations -- like NPR -- used anonymous sources to disseminate inflammatory claims about Hasan's prior troubles allegedly grounded in activism on behalf of Islam. Much of this may turn out to be true once verified, or it may not be, but all of the conflicting, unverified claims flying around last night enabled many people to exploit the "facts" they selected in order to create whatever storyline that suited them and their political preconceptions -- and many, of course, took vigorous advantage of that opportunity.
I'm obviously ambivalent about the issues of media responsibility raised by all of this. It's difficult to know exactly how the competing interests should be balanced -- between disclosing what one has heard in an evolving news story and ensuring some minimal level of reliability and accuracy. But whatever else is true, news outlets -- driven by competitive pressures in the age of instant "reporting" -- don't really seem to recognize the need for this balance at all. They're willing to pass on anything they hear without regard to reliability -- to the point where I automatically and studiously ignore the first day or so of news coverage on these events because, given how these things are "reported," it's simply impossible to know what is true and what isn't. In fact, following initial media coverage on these stories is more likely to leave one misled and confused than informed. Conversely, the best way to stay informed is to ignore it all -- or at least treat it all with extreme skepticism -- for at least a day.
The problem, though, is that huge numbers of people aren't ignoring it. They're paying close attention -- and they're paying the closest attention, and forming their long-term views, in the initial stages of the reporting. Many people will lose their interest once the drama dissolves -- i.e., once the actual facts emerge. Put another way, a large segment of conventional wisdom solidifies based on misleading and patently false claims coming from major media outlets. I don't know exactly how to define what the balance should be, but particularly for politically explosive stories like this one, it seems clear that media outlets ought to exercise far more restraint and fact-checking rigor than they do. As it is, it's an orgy of rumor-mongering, speculation and falsehoods that play a very significant role in shaping public perceptions and enabling all sorts of ill-intentioned exploitation.
I was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. I am the author of two New York Times Bestselling books: "How Would a Patriot Act?" (May, 2006), a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, and "A Tragic Legacy" (June, 2007), which examines the Bush legacy. My most recent book, "Great American Hypocrites", examines the manipulative electoral tactics used by the GOP and propagated by the establishment press, and was released in April, 2008, by Random House/Crown.
Twitter: @glenngreenwald
E-mail: GGreenwald@salon.com
Obama, 9/11, and the Perceived Threat from al Qaeda 
The Trial of John Yoo