Blind Presidents Make Terrible Spies

It is of late a rare and thrilling pleasure to give the New York Times credit for providing a small ray of clarity regarding the Constitutional perfidy of the Gonzales Justice Department. Adam Liptak reports on comments by Mark Corallo, former spokesperson for Attorney General John Ashcroft, that Gonzales, in issuing subpeonas to the San Francisco Chronicle demanding sources for a story on steroid use in baseball, had not merely "acted improperly," as Liptak puts it, but had committed "the most reckless abuse of power I have seen in years."

Additional kudos go to Liptak for characterizing Gonzales' threats "that the Justice Department may move beyond subpoenas for journalists' sources, and pursue the criminal prosecution of reporters under espionage laws for publishing classified information" as parallel in importance to the legal community's reaction to it:

Mr. Corallo said the department's attitude toward news organizations "is starting to look like a policy shift, a policy shift for the worse."

Specialists in journalism and First Amendment law said that Mr. Corallo's statement was itself significant evidence of a shift.

"This illustrates in an unmistakable fashion," said Mark Feldstein, director of the journalism program at George Washington University, "that the Gonzales Justice Department has moved so far away from the mainstream of established legal opinion and case law when it comes to press freedom that even judicial conservatives are disturbed by it."

Who exactly is Mark Corallo? Some wooly-headed ACLU groupie? Considering that Corallos' PR firm represents Karl Rove and that Corallo served as the press secretary for the RNC during the 2000 campaign, probably not. More likely one of those crazy "United States Constitution" groupies.

Via a previous story regarding the House Intelligence Committee's hearing on security leaks to reporters, the Times asserts that it had published the December 2005 story on the NSA wiretapping program only "after thorough reporting and careful consultation with the Bush administration." Assuming this is accurate (and ignoring the moral implications of doing anything in "careful consultation" with the Bush administration), we have to wonder: did BushCo make clear in their talks with the Times that they would prosecute if the story was published? If they had, the Times would have had an entire year to prepare, and would likely not appear as blindsided by Gonzales' attacks as the rest of us. If, on the other hand, there was no such threat made, what made the Bushies so suddenly angry after the story was published? It wasn't, after all, a surprise. They had a full year to scoop the Times and get their own version of the story out. Is it because BushCo was actually surprised by the national outcry of rage? We knew they were tone deaf, but that kind of cluelessness constitutes an affliction of the soul.

Why pick a fight over steroids in baseball, rather than prosecute the wiretapping and secret prisons stories directly? Because they think they can make a stronger case when less explosive content is involved, and because they know San Francisco's Ninth Circuit will affirm the reporters' rights, meaning Gonzales can argue the case soon before Bush's brand new, ready-and-willing Supreme Court.