Thursday, October 17, 2013
The Anonymous Informer
Tell the president that the way to solve his problem is to find that one man who would turn out to be . . . possessed of . . . a passion for anonymity.
— Tom Jones, (private secretary to Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin) 1936
A number of readers have written asking if I would explain how the reader should deal with information the reader has received that the reader wants to share with the outside world but is prohibited from doing so for a variety of reasons. The question is asked because recipients of such information are often anxious to share their privileged information with members of the media in order to seem important or because they think the information they have is so important that they should share it. I cannot tell people what the preferred method of sharing such information is (Edgar Snowden is not a good example) but this column hopes to demonstrate, how the injunction has been avoided in different cases. The reader may file them away for future reference should he or she ever be told a secret that is simply too good to keep secret.
The first trick of the disclosure trade is to learn the proper use of the word “anonymous.” That word is essentially a “get out of jail free” card if the bearer of a secret discloses the secret to others. The following are some examples of really confidential information that was nonetheless disclosed by its possessor to a member of the media without fear of any untoward consequences by declaring himself or herself to be “anonymous” even though the person with whom “anonymous” is speaking knows exactly who anonymous is.
An associated press report dated October 6, 2013 concerned a successful raid in Libya by Navy SEALS that annoyed the Libyan government because it was successful as well as an unsuccessful raid by a Delta force in Somalia that didn’t annoy anyone since it was unsuccessful. The raid in Libya resulted in the capture of Abu Anas al-Libi a suspected Libyan al-Qaida figure. Since the raid was successful and since he is the Secretary of State, John Kerry spoke proudly and publicly of the raid saying the capture “makes clear that the United States of America will never stop in the effort to hold those accountable who conduct acts of terror.” A U.S. Defense Department spokesman said al-Libi was immediately taken out of the country. Neither man requested that he be described as being an anonymous source.
The Somalian raid was less successful. There was a fierce firefight as a result of which the Delta team had to retreat without accomplishing its objective. The circumstances of that attack were described by U.S. officials but they spoke anonymously because they were “not authorized to discuss the raid publicly.” By speaking anonymously what they said was not being discussed publicly even though what they said was widely reported in the media.
On October 9 there was a report about the status of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a deputy leader of the Afghan Taliban who had been in detention in Pakistan. A disagreement between the Taliban and Pakistan as to Baradar’s status arose. The Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, insisted Baradar remained in captivity and Pakistani officials insisted that Baradar was free but living under tight security so he could be protected. The Pakistani assurances came from officials “who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media about the issue.” The reader was left to decide Baradar’s status but could not rely on what was published because the sources were not permitted to speak.
Another way of disclosing confidential information is to explain that the disclosure is “off the record” thus rendering it slightly less interesting, but certainly not less reportable, than if it were on the record. On October 13 it was reported that four men were arrested by British security officials who, the report said, were planning an attack similar to that carried out at the Kenyan Westgate Mall. The official who was describing the planned attack spoke to the reporters “on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media on the record.” Since it was not on the record his comments were fine.
A final example of not disclosing while disclosing comes from an October 16 Associated Press description of the nuclear discussions being conducted in Geneva between Iran and the European Union. A woman privy to the discussions described the status of the talks but insisted on anonymity since she wasn’t authorized to “divulge details of the closed meeting. “ Another person, who was described as a former senior U.N. official, described what was being demanded of Iran by the six powers. He spoke to reporters “on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the talks.”
Armed with the foregoing, all readers need do if they would like to attain public anonymity and the perks that accompany it, is find some really good secret and a media person with whom to share it. Good luck with that.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
A Trio of Fools: Boehner, al-Maliki and Karzai
A savage-creating stubborn-pulling fellow. . . .
—Aristophanes, Frogs 405 B.C.
There are many unkind things one can say about John Boehner, all of them true, but there must be a limit. It is unfair to compare him to Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq or Hamid Kharzai of Afghanistan. Not that the comparison is not almost irresistibly tempting.
Because of Mr. al-Maliki’s intransigence when negotiating with President Bush in 2008, Iraq and the United States were unable to enter into a status-of-forces agreement that the two countries had hoped to arrive at by July 31, 2008. Mr. al-Maliki refused to agree to the terms insisted upon by the United States the most important of which pertained to granting legal immunity to U.S. troops and Defense Department personnel from Iraqi prosecution for alleged crimes. Mr. al-Maliki and his government were under great pressure to reject any agreement that was perceived to infringe upon Iraqi sovereignty. On November 27, 2008 the Iraqi Parliament “ratified”: a Status of Forces Agreement with the United States that provided all U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30,2009 and all U.S. forces would be out of that country by December 31, 2011. In December 2011 U.S. forces withdrew. It all worked out as Mr. al-Maliki hoped but for one small detail. Iraqi forces cannot keep the peace. Since the agreement was signed and through September 2013, 10,864 Iraqis have been killed) and 10,394 Iraqis have been injured as a result of conflicts between Sunnis and Shiites. During the first six days of October, 135 Iraqis were killed including 12 school children whose elementary school was attacked. On the 7th day of October 59 people were killed. No one has died because of Mr. Boehner’s intransigence.
It is not fair to compare Mr. Boehner to Afghanistan’s President, Hamid Karzai. Just as Mr. Boehner and the administration have reached an impasse in their talks, so, too, have the United States and Afghanistan reached an impasse in their talks as to the future of U.S. forces in Afghanistan after 2013. Mr. Karzai wants U.S. forces out of the country in 2014 but wants the United States to guarantee the country’s security. If following the withdrawal of forces by the U.S. the Afghan forces are unable to control the violence or insurgents from Pakistan, Mr. Karzai wants a guarantee that the U.S. will return to help. Another sticking point is the U.S. insistence that it wants to continue to hunt down al-Qaida operatives in Afghanistan. Mr. Karzai doesn’t want U.S. troops hunting in Afghanistan unless specifically invited to do so by Afghanistan. He wants the U.S. to turn over information about al-Qaida operatives to the Afghan forces and let those forces deal with the problem. Those are the same forces that Mr. Karzai thinks will be unable to maintain peace and security in Afghanistan and, therefore, wants the U.S. to guarantee that it will return to help out if those fears are well founded.
Just as Mr. Boehner keeps going back to his Republican caucus to see what to do to resolve the impasse in the U.S. Mr. Karzai has announced that he will convene the Loya Jirga assembly of local representatives to see what he should do. Explaining his reasons Mr. Karzai sounds like Mr. Boehner talking about the Republicans in his caucus. Mr. Karzai said: “The people of Afghanistan are the rulers, the decisions of the country lie with the people of Afghanistan, so whatever the people of Afghanistan decide, the government will obey.” Mr. Karzai explains he will submit “all aspects” of the agreement to the assembly. Like Mr. Karzai, Mr. Boehner cannot make any decisions without consulting with his caucus. As Mr. Karzai explains when contemplating the possibility that NATO troops will all be withdrawn absent an agreement he said: “The agreement has to suit Afghanistan’s interests and purposes. If it doesn’t suit us and if it doesn’t suit them then naturally we will go separate ways.”
Mr. Boehner is also going his separate way. No one has died because of his actions. Of course more than 7,000 children enrolled in head start programs have no place to go, employees at those schools are left without incomes. If the shutdown lasts through November 87,000 children will be impacted. Michigan plans to eliminate cash and food aid to the poor. Nutrition aid programs for women and children in North Carolina have been closed. Those are just tiny examples of the effects of the shutdown. And, of course, none of that compares with the level of violence that will certainly hit Afghanistan if NATO forces pull out of that country without an agreement for its security in place. In the U.S. no one will be killed because of the shutdown. A few might starve but that’s a small price to pay for living in one of the best-run countries in the world. Just ask John Boehner.
Friday, October 4, 2013
Envision Evolution
Then as we linger at luncheon here,
O’er many a dainty dish,
Let us drink anew to the time when you
Were a tadpole and I was a fish.
—Langdon Smith, Evolution
Evolution is back! And as in years gone by, it has surfaced in Texas, the state with a governor and many denizens who offer proof that not everyone evolves. In recent years evolution has taken center stage in that state on more than one occasion. Recall Christine Castillo Comer.
Christine was the director of science for the Texas Education Agency. One day in 2007 she got an announcement that Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, would be giving a talk in Austin. Her talk was sponsored by the National Center for Science Education, an organization that thinks evolution happened in the past and is continuing, people like Texas’s Governor Perry notwithstanding. Christine sent notice of the talk to an “online community”. When her boss found out she told Christine to retract the email even though that didn’t make the lecture disappear. Her boss demanded the retraction because, as she explained to Christine, evolution is a “subject on which the agency must remain neutral.” Christine was also fired because, as her boss explained, her conduct was egregious. And who can forget Don McLeroy.
Dr. McLeroy, a dentist, was the chair of the Texas Board of Education when it was considering standards for scientific textbooks. As the board was concluding its examination of evolution and global warming during its final meetings on March 25-27, 2009, it said that when studying evolution the students must examine “all sides of scientific evidence” including the part that says the earth is only 6000 years old, give or take a couple hundred. The Discovery Institute that promotes “Intelligent Design” called the decision a “huge victory for those who favor teaching the scientific evidence for and against evolution.” Dr. McLeroy was jubilant. In an interview with Mariah Blake of the Washington Monthly he said in a folksy way: “Wooey. We won the Grand Slam, and the Super Bowl. . . .Our science standards are light years ahead of any other state when it comes to challenging evolution.” (It is not known how long Dr. McLeroy’s light years are but that probably doesn’t matter. ) Dr. McLeroy also took delight in the addition to the text books of the requirement that students must “’analyze and evaluate different views on the existence of global warming.” He explained that: “Conservatives like me think the evidence [on global warming] is a bunch of hooey.” Now evolution is with us again as Texas is completing the review of textbooks for high school students.
And the winners yet again are evolution and global warming. Some of the members of the review panel were nominated by the state board of education, others by parents and educators and the state’s education commissioner. People interested in serving could nominate themselves. The panel comprised 28 members six of whom are not big fans of evolution. Their inclusion on the panel brought joy to the hearts of those who run the “Creation Science Hall of Fame. ”
The Creation Science Hall of Fame’s home page states that its purpose is, in part, “to build a family of Creationists on the foundation of the Bible by honoring those who honored God’s Word as literally written in Genesis.” Given that mission it is no surprise that on its home page it published a news flash that said: The Creation Science Hall of Fame recognizes the following Creationists on the Texas Panel for Biology Textbooks: Daniel Romo, David Zeiger, Ide Trotter, Raymond Bohlin, Richard White, and Walter Bradley. We here at the CSHF are proud of Creationists who are not afraid to stand up for the Truth.” (Although these men have been recognized none of them has yet been inducted into the Creation Science Hall of Fame. If and when the honor is bestowed upon them they will join such notable inductees as Leonardo da Vinci, Sir Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Guglielmo Marconi, and Wernher von Braun, to name just a few of the inductees, all of whom are believed to have been inducted posthumously.) Among those recognized, Mr. Trotter is a retired chemical engineer who has served as a spokesperson for a creationist group. Messrs. Bradley and Bohlin are fellows with the Discovery Institute, the home of the “intelligent design” creationism movement that greeted the work of a similar committee in 2009 with such enthusiasm.
We don’t yet know what standards will finally be approved by the State Board of Education at the only public hearing that will take place in November. With Governor Perry at the helm of the state for another year, however, those fighting evolution will have a strong ally in that office. As he said when running for president in response to a question about evolution: “[I]t’s a theory that’s out there and it’s got some gaps in it (referring perhaps to himself). In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools-because I figure you’re smart enough to figure out which one is right.”
The governor is apparently not as smart as the students since he has not yet reached a decision on this perplexing question, or, if he has reached a decision, is unable to remember what it was.