Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America
by Thomas L. Friedman
Buy it
by Thomas L. Friedman
Buy it
06/23/2008
Scott Shane
A conversation with Scott Shane of The New York Times
Keywords:
A conversation with Scott Shane of The New York Times about his article Inside a 9/11 Mastermind's Interrogation.
DVD
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Audio
Audio available through Audible.com.
Audio available through Audible.com.
Transcripts
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Shane is a Lefty tool. Blame America first. In case anyone has forgotten, the guys being interrogated would be perfectly happy to nuke every last American into Heaven if they could. Oh, and Plame was outed by Richard Armitage, not the Administration, David. Oh, and Plame's husband, was found by the Senate investigation to have LIED about the results of his Niger visit. That in fact, he reported back that Iraqis has been to Niger to inquire about purchasing yellow cake. In the entire Plame affair the only proven LIARS are Valerie Plame and JoE Wilson. DId it ever occur to this knucklehead Shane, that maybe the interrogator had a cover story and maybe, in fact had a lot more experience in these matters that the "official" story. He was after all working for the CIA. The problem is that ideologues like Shane think that the CIA is ALWAYS incompetent, when in fact that simply cannot be the case. The fact of the matter is that the NYT has on repeated occassions violated National Security in its efforts to play Gotcha with an Administration that they hate. If only the Justice Dept. would take up a case of Treason or two.
It's important to discern purpose and consequence when considering the naming of any source. The purpose of leaking Valerie Plame's name was to take revenge on her husband for daring to speak the truth about Iraq's lack of WMD (specifically, yellow-cake in Niger). The purpose of naming the interrogator is to lend credibility to the story. The NYTimes was heavily criticized after the Judith Miller affair, because of her willingness to cite "anonymous sources". The calculation was probably that naming the source would not only raise the credibility of the report, but it would raise other important questions that have to be asked. If the methods used empower the enemy by granting them free recruits, or they give us bad information which leads to bad decisions (Iraq anyone?), then how is our national security ever to be strengthened? There is a useful purpose in naming the interrogator, I see no purpose in naming Valerie Plame that does not have evil motivation. Ana- that interrogator is not the person guaranteeing our liberty, he is putting it dangerously at risk on two fronts. Firstly, the techniques used get us bad, unreliable and junk intelligence. Bad intel costs lives, at a tactical level (the Economist magazine has followed up intelligence "gained" at Abu Ghraib that lead to ambushes which have killed over 100 coalition soldiers), and at a strategic level- the use of such techniques massively increases the volume of recruits willing to murder our citizens with suicide terrorism- Abu Ghraib and the deaths at Bagram have caused the deaths of our young men and women serving. On top of that, the CIA had close to zero experience being jailers and interrogators, but like all institutions, they try to protect themselves from tough questions. Secondly, we're a better country than that. Whoever the next president is, he will be one who recognizes that if we want to be proud of our country, then we should behave a certain way. If we trap ourselves into thinking that liberty is to be defended at any price, then that price might just be liberty itself. History is littered with examples of casual erosions leading to serious consequences- I am glad that we have bi-partisan consensus on this now.
Mr. Rose- I can't believe you faltered in not hammering Mr.Shane in a way that demonstrates his arrogance in thinking providing the identity of the interrogator was in any way shape or form aceptable. Here is someone who blasts the Administration for outing Valerie Plame, and when they go to do it its in the name of the right thing to do! Come on. This guy places someone who didn't want to speak with them, who they were asked not to release the name, and who now may be under threat of his life and places his families life- in jeopardy. Furthermore, in his article and in the NY Times editor's note, they make the faulty assumption that terrorists rationalize the good guys and the bad guys, or that because other people have gone public they felt it okay. This Interrogator had not gone public, in fact he went out of his way to say no to Mr. Shane, and had been backed up by the Cia itself. INstead, they assume that any terrorist- international or domestic alike, rationalize, the reality is they don't otherwise they wouldn't have blown up the WTC or attempted to blow up the pentagon! The whole point is that the interrogator is the one guy out there ensuring our way of freedom exists- the very same freedom that gives Scot Shane the ability to write the distorted truth ( from other's recollection not even the interrogator himself) without any reprocussion except from his peers and the American Public- people like you who should no better and hammer that into him- I think these days the media is so full of itself it has lost its way. I hope you all can live with yourselves if something ever happens to the interroagtor or the interrogator's family. Sleep well!
Charlie Rose was on the mark: "A remarkable article", to wit I must add by a remarkable journalist. Scott Shane is not an opinion columnist. He is an investigative reporter, a journalist widely read for his objective and balanced reporting. To the critics in this comment section seeking opinions right, center or left in support of their moral conundrum, they will not find them in Mr. Shane. They are going to get a straight scoop absent moral judgements that Mr. Shane wisely entrusts to readers. Thank you, Mr.Rose. A wise choice, indeed.
Not as bad an interview as I thought it would be, but watching the NYTimes hypocrisy is truly amazing. When the NYT leaks classified information, it is righteous, but if anyone else does it is immoral/illegal. Charlie, your refusal to call them on this is truly very very sad.
What a thoroughly depressing interview. You expect this kind of hackery from the fearful Bushies, but to listen to Mr. Shane carefully avoid moral judgment and clear language, and instead adopt the euphemisms of barbarism, shows just how debased mainstream media has become. I can only imagine how all this will sound in 20 years time; how people will wonder why the elites of our society so thoroughly abandoned simple decency, humanity and plain common sense.
Galen, don't hold back. Tell us what you REALLY think. Seems you've conflated the messenger with the message. Such intemperance! The CIA could use such qualities.
The moral hazard tipping-point is weighed against the cost of not discovering useful information. Given the general ineptitude of our efforts since 9/11, my money says we paid more in value than any alleged revelations gained - way too long after-the-fact. We are so morally bankrupt on so many other levels, I suppose it's moot anymore. We're has-beens as a world hegemony player, so humulity will doubtless come slowly.