Harper's Libels the U.S. Army With An Anonymous Smear
We've covered the story of Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi stringer for the Associated Press who was on cozy terms with terrorists, most recently here. Hussein was arrested in the company of terrorists and has now been charged with giving material support to terrorist groups. An investigating judge in Baghdad has the case and will decide whether there are sufficient grounds for prosecution. If so, he will refer the case to be heard by a three-judge court.
The Associated Press has backed Hussein unreservedly, and other media organizations have joined in calling for his release, even though 1) they don't know what the evidence against Hussein is, and 2) his own photographs, as we have pointed out more than once, demonstrate that he is, at a minimum, on friendly terms with terrorists and is viewed by them as a sympathetic conduit for their propaganda.
On Sunday, Harper's published the most over-the-top defense of Hussein yet, by one Scott Horton. Horton argues that Bilal Hussein is the John Peter Zenger of Iraq, and that the Iraqi government's prosecution of Hussein (actually, in Horton's telling, Iraq has nothing to do with it, and the prosecution is entirely the work of the U.S. military) is analogous to the British prosecution of Zenger in 1735. I'm not making this up; Horton writes that "Iraq’s equivalent of the Zenger case is being conducted now...."
This is too stupid to waste a lot of time on. Zenger was prosecuted for libel because his newspaper published statements critical of the colonial governor, like the following:
The Assembly ought to despise the smiles or frowns of a governor; that he thinks the law is at an end; that we see men's deeds destroyed, judges arbitrarily displaced, new courts erected without consent of the legislature; that it seems that trials by jury are taken away when a governor pleases; and that none can call anything his own longer than those in the administration will condescend to let him do it.
This is what in contemporary terms would be called "political argument." Worse, Zenger's prosecutors did not bother to contest the truth of what was written in Zenger's paper. From a legal standpoint, the main significance of the Zenger case was that it established that truth is a defense to a claim of libel.
So, is Bilal Hussein charged with writing something critical, but true, about the government of Iraq? No. He is charged with giving material aid and comfort to mass murderers. That subtle distinction escaped Mr. Horton.
Horton's real point, however, is not to push the Zenger analogy. Rather, he is a conduit for anonymous slanders of the American military. In the time-honored tradition of yellow journalism, Horton puts his own prejudices into the mouth of an anonymous source:
I have just been given an update on the handling of the Bilal Hussein case from a Pentagon source who claimed to have been briefed on the proceedings.
Got that? Horton purports to have an anonymous source inside the Pentagon, and his anonymous source "claimed to have been briefed" on the Hussein case. With that less than reassuring preamble, Horton plunges headlong into a vicious but entirely unsubstantiated libel of the U.S. military. A few samples:
The Pentagon isn’t concerned about evidence or legal arguments.
Yes, I'm sure this is just what Pentagon bigwigs said when they "briefed" Horton's "source."
The Pentagon media strategy involves leaking information as it finds convenient to “friendly new media” (this I take to be wingnut bloggers), but restricting the flow of information to traditional media.
Do you believe that Pentagon briefers said any such thing? I don't. For what it's worth, no one at the Pentagon has communicated with us, or, to my knowledge, any other "new media" outlet about the Hussein case. No "new media" source has broken any news on the case. Rather, we and others have commented on what has been available in the public record and have critiqued statements by the Associated Press and others. The U. S. military has been almost entirely silent on the case.
The U.S. military has assigned a team of five to act effectively as prosecutors in the case. The team is headed by a JAG Captain named Kelvey (or perhaps Calvey). (Says the source: “We recognize, of course, that the U.S. has no authority to prosecute a case in an Iraqi court. That’s one of the reasons that a gag order was essential.”)
Again, I don't believe that any Pentagon briefer said any such thing. This looks like another obvious lie.
The Pentagon was particularly concerned about the prospect of Bilal Hussein getting effective defense from his lawyer, former federal prosecutor Paul Gardephe. The judge was told to refuse to allow Bilal Hussein’s U.S. lawyer to participate in the case. The judge accepted this advice. Consequently, the U.S. military has a five-man team to press its case, but Bilal Hussein’s lawyer is silenced and not permitted to participate–and all of this has occurred as a result of U.S. Government intervention with the court.
Again, it is silly to suppose that this axe-grinding account comes from a DOD briefing. I don't have any knowledge of the Iraqi criminal justice system, but, for what it's worth, the current proceeding sounds like the equivalent of a grand jury, only performed by a judge. In our system, defense lawyers are not permitted to appear before a grand jury and have little or no role at that stage. If the same thing is true in Iraq, it is hardly a scandal.
The Pentagon is convinced that regardless of the evidence presented and the arguments made, Bilal Hussein will be convicted based on its influence wielding and pressure tactics.
No sentient being could believe that this comes from a Defense Department briefing, dutifully reported to Horton by his anonymous "source."
Horton's entire column is along the same lines. It's as incredible an attempt at libel as I've ever seen. No one with any common sense could believe a word of it. That qualification, though, excludes Editor and Publisher, which yesterday republished Horton's libel admiringly, under the headline "Harper's Probes Case of Jailed AP Photog in Iraq." Some "probe!" Editor and Publisher begins by saying that Horton is "the latest to look at the purported evidence" against Hussein, but that is false. Horton never discusses the evidence, of which he is, as far as his article discloses, entirely ignorant. Beyond that, E & P's crack "staff," which is credited with its piece, fails to mention that Horton's column is based entirely on an anonymous and highly dubious "source," and simply quotes Horton's hit-job with evident approval.
Of course, no one expects the left-wing E & P to do any critical thinking, let alone investigation. But it would have taken very little research for them to discover that Scott Horton was, until January, a partner in the law firm that represents Bilal Hussein--a fact that Horton did not find it necessary to disclose to his readers. There is indeed a story here, and one that relates directly to journalism--the kind of thing in which E & P might be expected to take an interest. But political loyalty trumps journalistic standards at E & P.
To sum up: Scott Horton claims to have an anonymous "source" inside the Pentagon, who relayed to him the contents of a DOD briefing on the Hussein case. I think this is plainly false. I believe that Horton has a source, but is it a source inside the Pentagon, or inside Hussein's defense team, headed by Horton's former law partner? If Horton has a "source" inside the Pentagon, who is it? Is this purported source someone with knowledge of the Hussein case, as Horton claims, or is it just another left-winger regurgitating anti-American talking points?
These questions are easily answerable. All Scott Horton has to do is identify his alleged source inside the Pentagon, and give us the details on the "briefing" that his column supposedly summarized. Unless and until this happens, it is reasonable to conclude that Horton, or his source, is lying.
UPDATE: Chris Muir weighs in; click to enlarge:
To comment on this post, go here.
