Yglesias quotes the Washington Post saying, “the fact remains that no one can claim with certainty that his or her communications were monitored.”
Are they calling Lawrence Wright a liar?
Lawrence Wright is a reporter for the New Yorker Magazine, and an author of the bestselling book on Al Qaeda, The Looming Tower. He’s also one of the few people in America who can say definitively that he was targeted by the U.S. Government’s warrantless wiretappping program, first exposed on the front page of The New York Times.
He tells the story of how he knew his phone calls were listened to…and how he then went on to question the head of US intelligence, Mike McConnell, about it.
Lawrence Wright first wrote about his experiences in an article in The New Yorker, called “The Spymaster.”
15 comments
July 4, 2008 at 8:45 am
Michael
We know that there was surveillance going on since w came into office. The Total Information project run by poindexter was doing just that. Yglesias gets it exactly right by saying ” I have to wonder why so much of the elite press is so absolutely certain all this illegal surveillance was undertaken in good faith when, in fact, we have no idea what happened and the administration has been trying very hard to make sure we never do.” We know that the groups running the “wiretaps” have access to all phone and email transmissions and filters to pick out the key words. This will probably never be stopped no matter who is President.
July 4, 2008 at 9:04 am
matt w
But can he claim it with certainty? Can he rule out that he’s a brain in a vat?
…the Post should change its name to Pravda and have done with it.
In other news, something happened today, 86 years too late.
July 4, 2008 at 9:07 am
eric
But can he claim it with certainty? Can he rule out that he’s a brain in a vat?
That kind of behavior does not give philosophers a good reputation.
July 4, 2008 at 9:15 am
Ben Alpers
OT, but Jesse Helms has just passed away.
Surely there’s a post in there somewhere.
May I suggest a title: “Trent Lott still lives.”
July 4, 2008 at 9:16 am
Fontana Labs
The editorial Yglesias quoted is odd. “These lawsuits would just bring information into the public eye!” Didn’t these guys publish the Pentagon Papers, long ago?
July 4, 2008 at 9:17 am
eric
long ago?
History is so … quaint. You know, like the Geneva conventions. DeLong is right.
July 4, 2008 at 9:17 am
Ben Alpers
Sorry, matt w.
I missed your very delicate reference to Sen. Helms’ shuffling off this mortal coil.
July 4, 2008 at 9:33 am
Fontana Labs
Half-seriously, and to draw upon the wisdom of Zoolander once again, this kind of thing really does make me feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
July 4, 2008 at 9:42 am
eric
I have to assume that WaPo backs the bill for more or less the same reason Obama backs it (if Balkin is right): they assume they’re on the inside and themselves immune to any possible abuses.
I’m not sure why any Americans ever believe this, but it seems that many often do, even though there is no inside, where people are immune to abuses. I’m sure there’s some sort of socio- psychological explanation that applies here, where a professedly egalitarian country craves the illusion of an inner court, but I’m too tired to make the case.
July 4, 2008 at 10:20 am
SomeCallMeTim
The editorial Yglesias quoted is odd. “These lawsuits would just bring information into the public eye!” Didn’t these guys publish the Pentagon Papers, long ago?
Different time, different editorial page. I think it’s broadly understood that WaPo’s editorial page is as neocon as the NY Sun, and the neocons have a decidedly different position on Executive authority (or authority, generally) than most of us do. I suspect most of the neocons think that Elsberg was a traitor, and that the staff of the NYT and WaPo should have been prosecuted for treason. It would be neat if someone could force Hiatt or the editorial page to take a position on that; would he be able to square the circle, or would he give the game up and characterize what has previously been understood to one of the paper’s proudest moments as a grave sin?
At a minimum, it would be good if WaPo made clear that the editorial page speaks for the editorial staff, rather than for the paper as a whole.
July 4, 2008 at 10:35 am
Ben Alpers
I’m sure there’s some sort of socio- psychological explanation that applies here, where a professedly egalitarian country craves the illusion of an inner court, but I’m too tired to make the case.
My guess is that many DC powerbrokers, who are committed to the existence or at least illusion of an “inner court,” feel not that they are immune from surveillance, but rather that they are “hard” and “sophisticated” enough to understand that these dangerous times call for an authoritarian state (though they would probably not use that term) that puts us all–including themselves–under surveillance.
July 4, 2008 at 12:36 pm
The Velvet Howler › Blog Archive › Known Unknowns
[...] Matthew Yglesias asks Kevin Drum how he knows that the Bush administration isn’t using their domestic wiretapping program in a manner any different from that of the Nixon administration. Not surprisingly, there’s evidence that this has happened. (Via Edge of the American West.) [...]
July 4, 2008 at 8:45 pm
mrh
Does anyone know if theres a way to get a free version of that TAL? I subscribe to the podcast but somehow missed that episode, and Lawrence Wright is the father of a friend of mine. I’ve slept on his couch!
July 4, 2008 at 8:52 pm
mrh
Wait, never mind. I’m willing to pay 95 cents at iTunes. Carry on.
July 4, 2008 at 10:42 pm
urbino
If anyone missed this Wright article in the New Yorker, you should unmiss it.