CIA Misleads The Nation

                               “CIA MISLED THE NATION ABOUT FUTILE CRUELTY”

                Thus screamed the headline on the front page of today’s Star & Tribune newspaper- above the fold- in ‘Pearl Harbor Attacked!’ fashion. Notice the absence of any qualifier, modifier or caution. This is absolutism. No gray area here. No journalistic skepticism. No allegedly misled, allegedly futile, or alleged cruelty. Things aren’t usually so black and white at the esteemed bastion of journalistic integrity.

                We know the newspapers are always utterly transparent with their readers, just by a careful, skeptical reading of this vey headline, in fact. Surely nothing misleading ever appears in newsprint. (And even if it did, what are the consequences? Congressional hearings and dismissals?).

                This alleged ‘mother of all scandals’ kind of falls a bit flat to me. Torture is not something that should be countenanced lightly, if at all. On that we can all agree. We can certainly debate the issues raised by the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report. We do not want to be known as a nation that conducts or condones real torture.

                That said, we can’t strip away or banish or completely neuter a vital piece of our nation’s security apparatus. We have the aftermath of the Church Committee hearings of the 1970’s to remind us of that. The simple, hard truth is, all nations need some sort of clandestine service. The more nations know about each other and potential adversaries intentions the less likely one is to make a tragic miscalculation.

                This report was commissioned and led by Democrats. The CIA contested most of the report’s  findings, as one would expect. Former CIA officials who were actually involved in the program wrote that the Senate report, “represents the single worst example of congressional oversight in our many years of government service.” Todd Ebitz, a CIA spokesman, issued a statement late Tuesday saying the report was, “like doing a crossword puzzle on Tuesday with Wednesday’s answer key” and did not reflect “how counterterrorism operations work in the real world.” I don't know, I wasn't there.

                We have to define what is ‘cruel’ and ‘futile’ against thousands of dead men, women and children in attacks such as 9/11. And also at our embassies and in malls, on trains, etc., around the world.

                Remember that in the days and weeks after 9/11 we didn’t know what was coming. It is easy to criticize now that we think we are relatively safe. We literally thought there could be a dirty- or suitcase- bomb. Nuclear material was unaccounted for. Then there was the anthrax scare and the hideous thought of biological or chemical weapons being used against us.

                If solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, water-boarding and/or forcing a terrorist mastermind to listen to Barbara Streisand songs 24-hours a day were honestly thought necessary to protect thousands of innocent lives,  I’m okay with that.

                Moreover, the report states that a total of three detainees were water-boarded! There has been so much talk about the controversial procedure for years and so many demonstrations and portrayals on television that I was given the impression (misleading?) that we were randomly water-boarding anyone with an olive-complexion  and a beard.

A Rolling Stone Gathers No... Evidence?

                Rolling Stone magazine ran a story recently in which it reported that a female student was gang-raped at a University of Virginia fraternity. Then it apologized to its readers this past Friday, when it said of ‘Jackie’, the woman who claimed to have been gang-raped at a Phi Kappa Psi fraternity on campus, “Our trust in her was misplaced.”

                Remarkably, and in near ‘ Monty Pythonesque’ fashion, Rolling Stone  apologized again yesterday for the way it worded its Friday apology. Apparently the “Our trust in her was misplaced” line struck certain critics as blaming the victim. Therefore the updated apology removes that line. In an attempted act of magnanimity, the magazine is now blaming itself for any mistakes made. And well it should. To wit, the magazine said it should not have agreed to Jackie’s request not to contact the alleged assailants to get their side of the story.

                The magazine’s managing editor, who, judging  by previous quotes,  thinks that Rolling Stone should be afforded the same journalistic credibility as  the Wall Street Journal wrote, “These mistakes are on Rolling Stone, not on Jackie.” He continued, “We apologize to anyone who was affected by the story and we will continue to investigate the events of that evening.” Continue?

                Perhaps you should have investigated the events of that evening before publishing the story? Remember the Duke men's LaCrosse team ‘scandal’ of a few years back? Apparently, any female can go to a ‘news source’ and claim the vilest of assaults and be taken with complete credibility. Face value.

                We have had Presidents in recent years who have lied- under oath- about certain unfortunate ‘events’.

                When the sensational story broke, it rocked the campus, elevated the issue of sexual assault and led to protests, suspension of fraternity activities, and an emergency ‘Board of Visitors’ meeting.

                If Jackie’s allegations are true, the assailants should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. If they are not, perhaps Rolling Stone will apologize for apologizing for their apology. If the allegations prove false, the victims will be the accused and their broken reputations and lives.

                Would that potential miscarriage of justice cause similar protests or even an emergency Board of Visitors meeting?

                Maybe Rolling Stone magazine would apologize to them?

_________________________________________________________________________________

Monty Python announcement #1: “The BBC wishes to apologize for the last sketch. Everyone involved has been sacked.”

Monty Python announcement #2: “The BBC wishes to apologize for the previous apology. Everyone responsible for sacking those who have been sacked…have been sacked.”