Noel, the link is bad, with a .jpg extension.

I have a new found love for Judith Miller. Sure this wasn't meant for Olberman.com?

"Bush administration claims everything must be hushed for national security." --JM

I know how to win wars!

Malzberg doesn't make any sense by saying that no people have been executed in error. The sheer number of people who have been released due to advances in DNA make it a statistical CERTAINTY that before such advances, people were killed in error. Only a weak mind totally enmeshed in a rigid political ideology could fail to grasp that concept.  It's very easy to piss and moan about the press violating national security or whatever when an administration that you agree with is in power. But consider the staggering number of crimes committed by Clinton et al, these would never have come to light, without some basic freedoms being accorded the Press!  The way the MSM covered for Clinton and the fact that the wisps of information that crept out, usually did so by an alternative means, Drudge etc, should show you that! Look how long they refused to report on Monica!  Now imagine that Clinton could have just pulled out the old "national security" card and thrown Drudge in jail! No one would ever know about White Water, File Gate, Travel Gate, Gennifer Flowers, Jaunita Broderick or Paula Jones, much less Monica!

Can anyone who's been AWAKE as the press just plain REFUSES to report on John Edwards baby drama, say that this wouldn't be a GULAG if one of these left wing loons were in POWER and had the ability to strike back at press they didn't like ???? ( run on sentence alert!)

 The freedoms that you begrudge the New York Slimes would be the only thing standing between us and the next STALIN. These things aren't perfect and they sting when you believe you're in the right but woe unto you who does away with these protections. The NEXT administration won't be so honorable if Bambi wins. 

First, I love the Yankee pronunciation of human as "Youman". Now to the story.

Miller is probably accurate in describing the Bush administration's excessive use of executive privilege and tendency to exaggerate claims of something being a national security risk. Yes, it is a different world and Miller does not deny that.

But Miller is quite sober is her accounts and her rebuttal. Unlike most of the ranters on the left she accomplishes the task, in this interview, of engaging Malzberg with equal footing. When asked for an example for exaggeration or excessive use of executive privilege she gave the warrantless wiretaps vs the normal course of the FISA Court, particularly in surveillance of private citizens, when rarely has that court ever turned down requests for warrants.

I view this, not in nefarious terms, but in terms of naivety regarding the weaknesses of the Bush administration. Bush's pursuits of threats to our national security are far superior to anything on Clinton's list of priorities. Unfortunately Bush's strength in understanding this value was not undergirded by a sophisticated and comprehensive understanding of Executive boundaries. To him (amazingly much like liberals on many occasions) the end justifies the means, especially here because the case is so critical. Bush allowed an oversimplification of the process to dominate some of his policies and procedures in attempting to address and combat national threats domestically.

Malzberg doesn't do himself or conservatism any favors by declaring, "Well I don't know of anyone's civil liberties who have been fringed upon" in trying to respond to Miller.

First, Malzberg is basing his rebuttal, not on principle but his own personal knowledge of every single person in the United States and whether HE KNOWS if their civil liberties have been infringed upon.

Secondly, even if that hasn't occurred that isn't the argument. The argument should be made in principle.

Conservatives, true conservatives don't argue from personal positions but positions of principle. And herein lays the current weakness of conservatives all around. Personal arguments are usually made by LIBERALS...LEFTISTS. In this case it is MILLER that sounds like the conservative, arguing from principle and the prescriptive consequences of certain actions and policies and MALZBERG who is arguing like a liberal, from a personal viewpoint and not in principle.

Malzberg also asserts that if anyone's civil liberties have been violated, "they would have come forward". If unconstitutional and unwarranted surveillance by the government is going on against you, i.e. your phone being tapped your emails intercepted and so on...YOU ONLY KNOW IT after the fact and the government doesn't release such information UNLESS they act upon it. Still, your civil liberties may have been violated so his argument fails completely here. This is not how a conservative should argue the case at all.

The answer to terrorism IS war. Next Please!