Howling Dog Graphic
Point. Click. Search.

Contents: Archives:

Search this weblog
Search WWW
Howler Graphic
by Bob Somerby
E-mail This Page
Socrates Reads Graphic
A companion site.

Site maintained by Allegro Web Communications, comments to Marc.

Howler Banner Graphic
Caveat lector

EXTREMELY EASY TO BE HARD! The “liberal” Post keeps finding slick ways to make the accused come out guilty:


EASY TO BE HARD: Is Sami Al-Arian guilty as charged? At THE HOWLER, we have no way of knowing. Last week, a federal grand jury charged the University of South Florida prof with a long string of serious crimes. On Monday, a Washington Post editorial summed up the federal charges:

THE WASHINGTON POST: [T]he government is alleging far more than that Mr. Al-Arian was a terrorist fundraiser or a political sympathizer with Islamic resistance to Israeli policies. It contends, with considerable supporting detail, that he was a top official of Islamic Jihad. According to the indictment, he managed its money, held the wills of would-be suicide bombers, disseminated statements claiming responsibility for attacks, helped formulate policy on behalf of the organization, and was in regular covert contact with its general secretary, spiritual leader and other operatives.
“If these allegations prove true,” the Post said, “Mr. Al-Arian…will rank among the more important terrorists ever arrested and prosecuted in this country.”

But the Post’s editorial is a very strange document. Yes, the paper notes that Al-Arian and his fellow indictees have only been charged, not convicted. “They are innocent until proven guilty,” the Post says. But the newspaper takes the occasion of this indictment to lodge an odd set of charges against people who defended Al-Arian against other actions in the past.

In late 2001, USF announced that it planned to fire Al-Arian in the wake of his appearance on The O’Reilly Factor. At the time, of course, Al-Arian hadn’t even been charged with the crimes he is accused of today. But the Post is angry with people who defended Al-Arian against that threatened firing. “[E]ven as the feds disclosed their continuing investigation related to Mr. Al-Arian,” the Post says, “many were quick to label the case a post-Sept. 11 witch hunt.” The Post spells out its indictment:
THE WASHINGTON POST: They were reacting partly to the university’s poor handling of the matter; it initially blamed the disruptive atmosphere created by his presence, not his alleged terrorist links. But Mr. Al-Arian’s defenders also ignored the possibility that their man was actually a terrorist. The faculty union filed a grievance alleging discrimination, among other things. Georgetown University Islam scholar John L. Esposito canceled a scheduled speech at USF, saying it was impossible for him to appear “at a university that so clearly violates the academic freedom of one of its professors.” The American Association of University Professors threatened to censure USF if it fired Al-Arian, after its investigating committee found the charges “insubstantial” and determined that “grave issues of academic freedom and due process” were at stake.
According to the Post, these malefactors “were too reflexive in their disbelief that an urbane, politically active professor—one who had been to the White House and who regularly talked to journalists—could be a genuine terrorist, and in their automatic assumption that he must be a victim of university railroading and FBI abuses.”

What a strange editorial! We’re all used to jump-the-gun screeds in which the accused is simply presumed to be guilty. But here, the Post goes back in time to criticize those who didn’t presume Al-Arian guilty even before he stood accused. The Post acknowledges that USF showed poor judgment in trying to fire Al-Arian. But it uses the prof’s indictment as an excuse to slam those who noted this at the time.

In 2001, did Al-Arian’s supporters “ignore the possibility that their man was actually a terrorist?” Were they supposed to assume that this was the case? The Post provides no particulars about this matter—no evidence, for example, that Esposito was wrong in his criticism of USF’s action. In the face of unwise action by USF, what should Esposito have done? The Post is quick to slime and smear, and slow to present a real argument.

Is truth the first casualty of war? Actually, no—good judgment is. This editorial instructs Post readers to presume guilt in these cases—even before the accused has been charged! War has the Post’s ed board deeply stirred. But so things have gone, through the ages.

The Daily update

VERY EASY TO BE HARD: Meanwhile, Howard Kurtz keeps convicting Clinton of crimes even after he has been exonerated. In Kurtz’s Monday on-line chat, this strange Q-and-A occurred:

QUESTION: Honest, I swear I’m not a Clinton partisan (I voted for the guy but did not really like or trust him) but it does seem like Washington reporters were meaner and much quicker to pounce on anything compared to President Bush. How has Bush managed to bring the White House press corps to heel?

KURTZ: Whether the press was fair to Clinton or not—and he certainly believes it was not—the man gave his detractors plenty of red meat in the form of Lewinsky, Paula Jones, a major fundraising scandal, Whitewater, Travelgate, etc. Bush has had no comparable scandal involving his personal conduct, though there have been the usual questions about favors for campaign contributors. He also, quite obviously, benefited from a rally-round-the-president effect after 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan.

Both Q and A reflect the lynch-mob atmosphere surrounding Bill Clinton. The questioner knows that, even in defending Clinton, he has to say how much he dislikes him. And Kurtz quickly mentions Whitewater and Travelgate, despite the fact—well, let’s just let a later Q-and-A make the central point for us:
QUESTION: Whoa! Regarding your answer just now to [the question about] the Clinton press coverage—isn’t that exactly the point? You mentioned “Whitewater,” “Travelgate” and “fundraising,” all exhaustively covered and investigated, with no charges of any kind against the Clintons…

KURTZ: I’m afraid I disagree. Yes, Whitewater resulted in no charges against the Clintons (though other folks, like Arkansas’s governor, were convicted) and the coverage was, in my view, overblown. But the administration did a lot of sleazy things in its ’96 fundraising…

Pathetic—completely pathetic. The fact that Jim Guy Tucker was convicted of a crime is still being used by this well-informed man as an excuse for trashing “the Clintons.” See the logic? “Other folks” were convicted of crimes. So it’s OK to blame Bill and Hill!

Clinton has long been exonerated of wrongdoing in Whitewater. That makes Whitewater an astounding indictment of the Washington press corps—the beat which Kurtz is supposed to cover. Kurtz’s reaction? He says the Whitewater coverage was “overblown”—but keeps listing it as a Vile Clinton Crime. So it goes as the corps’ chief courtier keep hiding his colleagues’ misconduct.