Say Jamil Whoverheis gets waxed a day or two after he's been outed.

A day or two later they find the person that pulled the trigger and he leads them down a trail that shows he learned Jamil Whoverheis' real name from here.

Would that make you legally liable?

Say they're trying to off Jamil Whoverheis and they pop the wrong person with the same name.

The final question. How certain are you that the name you have is the right person? The names have shifted countless times. Unless you heard it directly from Jamil himself I'd take caution with it. Then even if I'd heard if from him I'd be doubtful.

Any way you go about it there are lots of risks and innocent lives may be at stake.

There's a potential downside to outing him. What purpose would it serve? About the best result I can imagine, and it's a stretch, would be that the outing itself becomes a subject of controversy, drawing attention once again to the overall issue, but at potentially significant cost to you and by extension to your allies. Is there some other justification you can think of?

Apparently, he's a bad actor. Apparently, his superiors and others already know who he is. I acknowledge that there could be a lot more to the story, however - more than we'll ever know or understand. Anyway, if you've been able to find out his real name, then I suspect it's also already known or available to anyone who has a significantly good or bad use for it.

Again, what purpose would outing him serve?

I don't agree with any of phin's reasoning above. At all.

But, here's how I come to the conclusion I would reach on the topic.

1)Do I believe that based on information that the AP has provided about their "ubersource" to date, would provide enough clues for that "lurking assassin" who wants to off "Jamil"?

Let's look at it. He was a police captain. How many of those are there? He previously worked in one district, now is assigned to another. Both named. His first name is Jamil. If we use simple logic...we now have to ask ...how many police captains, named Jamil, who previously worked in one district and now work in another...are there? I suspect the answer is....one.

Are we to assume that anyone who was already motivated to attack him, would have great difficulty in pinpointing him? My suspicion is that they already know who he is.

His real name adds nothing to the story, except the finality that the AP has been engaged in a coverup, that they have knowingly lied about who he was, about him using his real name, (and of course, it further brings into question the issues about the way he came by his knowledge, about the underlying stories they printed with his "ubersourcing" and their failure to retract or correct the record on all the false "facts" they have printed while using our "ubersource")

By "outing" his name...it blinds the real issues. It certainly turns up the heat, but sheds very little light on the subject. Any objective observer (please automatically remove every leftist from the remainder of this thought)can see clearly what issues remain, without the use of his real name.

Once the debate devolves into whether or not his real name should have been made public and whether or not he should have been "outed"...the whole spotlight shifts into an arena where the "truthiness" crowd can reframe the entire issue, deflect the light that is shining on them and has them scurrying back under the baseboards.

Why give them that ammunition? Those of us, for whom the truth matters...own the high road here. Let's hold it. The truth matters...and the road getting to it...matters as well.

As long as there's any chance whatsoever that AP simply made up a name that by pure coincidence bore a similarity to a real person, I wouldn't.

According to Haider Ajina (in his 40s, Iraq immigrant ~20 years ago, still has family there, proud US citizen, emails me sometimes but I'm quoting Gateway Pundit here) Iraqi boys named Jamil are almost as common as American boys named Sue. I figure it's 99.9% likely if AP was quoting Jamil Someone you have the right Jamil. But... what if some reporter made the name up thinking it would be like quoting "Mr. Susan Owens" and scored accidentally?

I excerpted and linked. That's Part 46 in my Jamilgate series.

I would say not to out him if what he were reporting were factually true, or even if there were a chance that he potentially had good cause the stories to be true. In that sense he really is just providing information and is not "involved".

However, if he reports stories that are patently false, then he is not reporting on events, he is trying to shape the events. He is not an observer, he is a participant, and all participants in this struggle need to be named.

Out his azz!

Changing names to protect the innocent is fine. Changing names to protect the guilty is less fine.

If he gets whacked, that just too bad.

Put me down for a "No" vote. It adds nothing to the story, and precious little to the facts. We already know what his name isn't, and that's the relevant part.

The other thing that's been notable to me from all the Jamil-sourced stories I've read is the lack of direct quotations. We see the same thing in Hurst's "He Exists!" self-affirmation story--the spokeperson is siad to have "acknowledged" this or that, but is never directly quoted as having said so.

Given the doubt that Jamil actually said what has been attributed to him, and may just have danced around vaguely while being peppered with "Have you quit beating your wife?" style questions meant to frame him into a box that supported the reporter's "preferred narrative," I say give the outing a miss. Jamil "Hussein" may be just as much a victim of AP and their reporters as WE are. We don't know, so give him the benefit of the doubt.

...Jamil "Hussein" may be just as much a victim of AP and their reporters as WE are. We don't know, so give him the benefit of the doubt.

I can state categorically that Jamil Hussein is no victim... he is-or was-a quite willing contributor to AP's story.

Would you publish Malkin's home address if one of her books was total dissembling garbage?

Food for thought.

How do you out someone who doesn't exist?

No to outing to the public, in the interest of your reputation. If he died after the outing for any reason, you'd be blamed by the crazies. Outing him to journalists/bloggers in the field who want to interview him is another story. I say do that.

if they ask you.

Would you publish Malkin's home address if one of her books was total dissembling garbage?

Food for thought.

Actually, that is less "food for thought" than mental diarrhea, and is not even remotely an analogous comparison.

Those of you who posted Michelle's name were hoping to cause harm to her family, which is reprehensible. By comparison, the Iraqi Army and Police, along with the American forces which are Jamil's only "true threats," are already quite aware of his real name, as they gave it to me through official channels on January 8. If they wants to do something to him, they would have, or could still, regardless of what I might say.

Naming Jamil would do little more than erode AP's credability on this story a bit more, and that is already at a low ebb.

I can state categorically that Jamil Hussein is no victim... he is-or was-a quite willing contributor to AP's story.

I'll take your word for it, but it doesn't change my answer. Outing him by real name doesn't change any of the essentials. We already know he's not "Jamil Hussein." We already know that AP lied when they called him that, using a psuedonym in violation of their own posted "standards" (sorry, I gotta put the cynicism quote marks there) several dozen times. We already know that they lied to us when they "stood behind" their story. And so on.

Taking his "guilt" as a given, is it "fair game" to out him? Sure! He's news. He made himself news, so there's no "expectation of privacy" involved. Yes, it would undercut AP's credibility (if at all possible to do any better than the fine job they've done on themselves) to force them to admit Jamil Hussein is not even remotely named Hussein.

I don't believe that it's at all unethical to out him, I just don't know that I would. If he were outed and subsequently iced, the chatterheads would use that as justification for lying in the first place--even if he were shot by his wife for fooling around.

Those of you who posted Michelle's name were hoping to cause harm to her family, which is reprehensible. By comparison, the Iraqi Army and Police, along with the American forces which are Jamil's only "true threats," are already quite aware of his real name, as they gave it to me through official channels on January 8.

In fact, someone did attempt to post Michelle Malkin's address and phone number in our comments. We immediately removed the information and banned the person.

As for the rest of this statement, Baghdad has, as you know, active Shiite death squads. If you choose to broadcast the name of a prominent anti-Shiite media source -- whatever your shoddy, speculative research says about his veracity -- you're responsible for what happens to this man and his family.

Not somebody else, not 'liberals,' not the AP, not that guy over there or Hillary Clinton or 'the left,' but you.

Hmm....let's see. Outing him would most assuredly get you more traffic on this site and, on top of that, it would most assuredly get him killed and his family, too. GO FOR IT!!!

He said something that may have undermined support for the war?

So you are going to do your damndest to get him killed (and probably his family killed too)

Nice

Say one of us found out your schedule when you were in Iraq and posted it on a website, would we bear any responsibilty if you got "iced"?

This is not a game mate.

(Although how you can "out" someone who you have been claiming does not exist is a bit of a mystery.)

If you choose to broadcast the name of a prominent anti-Shiite media source -- whatever your shoddy, speculative research says about his veracity -- you're responsible for what happens to this man and his family.

Not somebody else, not 'liberals,' not the AP, not that guy over there or Hillary Clinton or 'the left,' but you.

Wait a minute... you don't buy the AP's still official line that Jamil Hussein is Jamil Hussein?

Why, I thought that the Iraqi Police, Interior Ministry, Iraqi Army, Iraqi Defense Minstry, firefighters, hospitals, morgues, Heath Ministry, CentCom PAO, American CPATT employees, and U.S. Army units were all lying, and that only the AP, Sadly, No! and Jamil Hussein were speaking "truth to power!"

Clearly any name I have is false, isn't it?

For if the name I have in my possession is his real name, then AP was lying then, and is still lying now, about Jamil Hussein being Jamil Hussein.

That then obviously makes any and all claims made by AP in this story completely suspect. Especially those elements that have been conclusively debunked, such as the claims 18 people died in an "inferno" at a mosque that never burned at all, that all four mosques were "destroyed" or "burned and blew up." You know, not just the one you harp on, that was abandoned to begin with.

It's all or nothing.

Either releasing the full name I have means nothing because the Associated Press stories and denials are all accurate and truthful, or the entire episode is exactly as I have described it: overexaggerations mixed with outright falsehoods, unsupported by any evidence on this earthly plane.

Choose your poison wisely.

Either releasing the full name I have means nothing because the Associated Press stories and denials are all accurate and truthful, or the entire episode is exactly as I have described it: overexaggerations mixed with outright falsehoods, unsupported by any evidence on this earthly plane.

You're missing the obvious. Outing anyone as AP's source is a dangerous thing to do - whether this guy's an angel telling truths or a mass-murdering liar - because Iraq is a screwed-up place.

Outing him has nothing to do with the truth value of AP reporting and everything to do with your pride.

I realize I need to use smaller words for you guys:

Either releasing the name I have will do nothing, because the AP is right and his name is Jamil Hussein;

-or-

I'm right, and the name in my posession actually does identify the man behind pseudonym, and relasing the name would threaten AP's source... which means categorically that AP is lying.

You're not getting the point.

Associating any Iraqi name with any foreign group operating in Iraq is DUMB.

Your either/or has multiple results, not two, and some of them might be fatal.

And you'd be wrong there as well, Bubba. This particular Jamil has a name so singular it was in and of itself a topic of note in one discussion I had.

Which brings us back around to this:
Either releasing the name I have will do nothing, because the AP is right and his name is Jamil Hussein;

-or-

I'm right, and the name in my posession actually does identify the man behind pseudonym, and relasing the name would threaten AP's source... which means categorically that AP is lying.

And yes, it really is just that simple.

"This particular Jamil has a name so singular it was in and of itself a topic of note in one discussion I had."

Keep dropping those hints mate, we all know what you are about to do.

Sir, you're down a rabbit hole. I'm not being sarcastic now; I'm being completely serious and polite.

It's entirely likely that 'Jamil Hussein' is a pseudonym. Take a look now at what you're claiming:

1) There are AP reports using this source that recount violent incidents in Baghdad.

2) These reports are often contradicted by official reports.

3) In many cases, these competing reports can't both be accurate.

5) 'Jamil Hussein' is therefore a terrorist sympathizer knowingly used by AP to spread lies about how Baghdad is supposedly beset by violence.

To begin at the very beginning, I'd look at #2 quite a bit more seriously if I were investigating this story. Example: That mosque that was officially undamaged, which in fact turned out to have been firebombed and raked with gunfire.

To my knowledge, that was the ONLY THING ever physically examined in these 'Jamilgate' investigations. It doesn't look very good, frankly.

Either releasing the name I have will do nothing, because the AP is right and his name is Jamil Hussein;

-or-

I'm right, and the name in my posession actually does identify the man behind pseudonym, and relasing the name would threaten AP's source... which means categorically that AP is lying.

And yes, it really is just that simple.

And you're sufficiently certain of that to consider risking a man's life.

I haven't been following this story closely enough to have an opinion about what's going on, but the fact remains that, based on what you've posted here, you are willing to consider risking a man's life because you're certain that you're right, and that there is no conceivable third alternative that you haven't thought of yet.

This. Is. Not. A. Game.

Dear Confederate Yankee,

Please just don't do this. You are aware of of much more than I am regarding this person; however, there seem to be only 2 outcomes: either nothing happens, or something bad happens. If you're hoping for a third possiblity--fame, shaming the AP, or something else...well, please just don't do it. Have a conscience.

This particular Jamil has a name so singular it was in and of itself a topic of note in one discussion I had.

My argument is that releasing names is bad - for reasons which should be obvious - and you tell me it's good because this guy's name is unique?

Really: you have not thought this through, and I can see I'm not going to have any effect. Maybe me posting is winding you up, so I'll stop.

As you can see from what the moonbats are saying, the stories and the spotlight will move directly off of the countless fabrications and exaggerations associated with one particular story and straight to the mean terrible person who outed this poor, noble, misunderstood, courageous individual.

I vote not to out him. I think he has way too much to offer still, and we wouldn't want anything to happen to him.

Since Jamil Whatever is known, both to Iraqi and US officials, maybe they could put someone like Michelle or Bryan in touch with him for an interview or two. I imagine there are a number of us who would be happy to help out if he needs some expenses paid or a speakers fee or whatever. I would really like to know more about each of the stories he quoted on, how did he come by them, how did he become such a prolific source for the AP, whether as a Captain he was able to earn a little xtra on the side doing the reporting gig, whether he received any coaching.....the list is endless. He has always seemd so eager to be quoted before, why wouldn't he again?

Is it at all possible that he would like to clear his conscience or tell his side of the story?

Would be interesting to have those in touch with him ask if he would like to speak his piece. If he says (again) that he is not the source, then we would just have to believe him and call all of the stories associated with him untrue.

Maybe he will speak and give us some closure to this. In any event, CY, don't let this drop!! There must be others like Jamil out there!!

Keep dropping those hints mate, we all know what you are about to do.

Nope. Never did, and obviously, still don't.

Take a look now at what you're claiming:

1) There are AP reports using this source that recount violent incidents in Baghdad.

2) These reports are often contradicted by official reports.

3) In many cases, these competing reports can't both be accurate.

5) 'Jamil Hussein' is therefore a terrorist sympathizer knowingly used by AP to spread lies about how Baghdad is supposedly beset by violence.

Wow. Can't count, and can't even get the basic arguments correct. you're quite bad at this. As for the offical report, it provided exactly what Malkin posted here.

To my knowledge, that was the ONLY THING ever physically examined in these 'Jamilgate' investigations. It doesn't look very good, frankly.

And here we run into our greatest limitation: your knowledge. Your basic incuriousness. You desire to pursue snark, but never actually take the time to contact those who might have the actual answers.

We've talked to Associated Press staffers, a CPATT team member working with the Iraqi police and Interior Ministries, and MNF-I. Malkin has worked with these people, plus made a trip to the area, and talked to U.S. soldiers on the ground who were there that day, and collected video, still photos from the day after, and eyewitness accounts. See Dubya at Junkyard Blog actually plotted every attack alleged by Hussein on a map, showing he was in no position to have direct knowledge on the supermajority of them.

You? Your knowledge isn't much, and you'e expressed no real desire to have any. To date, you exist only to criticize what you are too lazy, or disinterested enough, to actually go out and research yourself.

It doesn't look very good, frankly.

We've talked to Associated Press staffers, a CPATT team member working with the Iraqi police and Interior Ministries, and MNF-I. Malkin has worked with these people, plus made a trip to the area, and talked to U.S. soldiers on the ground who were there that day, and collected video, still photos from the day after, and eyewitness accounts. See Dubya at Junkyard Blog actually plotted every attack alleged by Hussein on a map, showing he was in no position to have direct knowledge on the supermajority of them.

Sir, I said that the only thing physically examined was the mosque. You counter by listing some things that are not physical evidence (e.g. 'talking to a CPATT team member' is not physical evidence), and by mentioning the video and photos that show the 'undamaged' mosque with scorch marks coming out of the windows, bullet holes everywhere, and (in the video) a giant hole blown in the dome.

I'd be wondering, if I were you, what the rest of the 'undamaged' mosques look like. That would be an important point of information as to whether AP is in fact inventing burned mosques, wouldn't you think?

Sir, I said that the only thing physically examined was the mosque.

Sadly, no. You are wrong. Again.

As has been written about exhaustively, Iraqi Police, Iraqi Army, local firefighters, and U.S. Army units have physically visited the mosques, including the abandoned Nidaa Allah you are so obsessed with. The mosques were initially visited within one hour of the attacks being reported.

As previously stated, your knowledge isn't much, and you'e expressed no real desire to have any. To date, you exist only to criticize what you are too lazy, or disinterested enough, to actually go out and research yourself.

Had you done that basic research, you would have not have made the daft claim you just did.

I will make a correction however, and agree with you that I was wrong to use the word "undamaged" to describe the mosques in a previous post.

They were quite obviously damaged, just not "destroyed" or the synonymous "burned and blew up" as the AP reports over-exaggerated, and there are pictures showing conclusively that while two of the mosques sustained some fire damage, one of the "destroyed" mosques—the one where the AP published an unsubstantiated claim by an al Qaeda-affiliated group that an "inferno" killed 18 people, including women and children—that no fire occurred at all. It was an entirely false claim, one of several demonstrably false or over-exaggerated that AP's Director of Media Relations refuses to address, correct, or retract.

I'll make corrections. Too bad the "professionals" seem unwilling to do the same.

"So you are going to do your damndest to get him killed (and probably his family killed too)"

Not to point out the obvious, but did the stringer who went by the pseudonym Jamil Hussein think of the damage or reparations that his reports would cause? I mean, he was accusing like it was fact that the Iraqi Army and US forces stood by while militia slaughtered civilians - what danger does that pose to the IA and US forces when people *will* take that propaganda and use it as truth in an already volatile environment?

Jamil and the AP obviously didn't care for the safety of others by irresponsible reporting. If he's in danger of being "outed", then the AP should fly him out of there since they are both the ones who put him in that position.

The truth shall set you free.

One thing that might help you make this difficult decision is to consider how the consequences would impact you if irresponsible bloggers were actually ever held accountable for "outing" people. Say for instance that your decision resulted in the deaths of Hussein and any collateral individuals who might happen to be in the way when he is done in--which it mostly likely will, as you well know. Could you be legally tagged as an accessory to the crime? You most certainly would be morally culpable, but what does that matter? As long as you can sit in the safety of your living room and direct assasinations from long distance, you should be at least physically safe.

What a dilemma for you. Make a meaningless point about a minor issue and possibly contribute to the assasination of someone who doesn't agree with you vs. getting over it and addressing some of the real problems we have in this country. What to do? Given the current legal climate where bloggers and reporters are not held accountable for their heinous acts, I'd say you are perfectly safe in your plan to "out"--at least from human judgement.

The "conversation" that erupts every time yet ANOTHER leftist media outfit gets caught passing off tripe as truth...is the whole reason behind this exercise of whether the character PLAYING Jamil should be identified in the credits of this broad farce brought to you...by the AP.

And the simpleton apologists who just can't seem to get their arms around this basic axiom...the truth matters.

For anyone with two firing synapses, the mere idea that the AP would try to foist upon the reading public a caricature of truth, through a caricature of a source, to tell us grand exaggerations and wholly fabricated whisper campaigns and urban legends...and that we find that unacceptable...is beyond the pale.

NOBODY was doused in kerosene and lit on fire, then watched by coalition forces while they squirmed on the ground in agony, then shot in the head-execution style, then taken to a morgue in a hospital, while these evil-doers rampaged through the civilian neighborhood homes burning them to the ground and killing women and children.

THIS is the story "sourced" by faux-Jam...outside his district...while he notched his 61st "credit" as the "ubersource".

It DIDN'T HAPPEN. He is NOT "Jamil Hussein". The truth matters. I know this is an incredible waste of time on kneejerk (accent on the second syllable) apologists for leftist lying rags, because the point of contention is never about any of the details, nor about the journalistic ethics (an oxymoron, if ever there was one in the leftists Ministry of Media propaganda farm)...the point of contention is at the core.

For them, the truth doesn't matter. Only their "message" matters. And if lies serve them better, then they will embrace any lie. They have no honor, they have no dignity, they have no loyalty, they have no principles...except those that serve "the message". So, reason and dialogue are impossible. (see, ie comments by them above)

By SHOWING that faux-Jam was a caricature...not a real person...it eliminates one element of the silly, inane apologist argument.

But, here's the rub. It won't convince them of the point that the truth matters...because, the truth doesn't matter to them. So, in the final analysis, it won't serve the purpose intended.

It will only serve to get them to reframe the issues, create strawmen, point fingers and cloud over the seminal point. They don't get it, because they don't want to get it. And you can't have an honorable discussion with people who have no honor.

So, here's the premise. FAUX-JAM is and was a composite character used to spread whisper campaigns and urban legends to further enhance the "message" that Iraq was beyond saving. The AP created this "ubersource" by planting stories in their reports using him as the "official" who was speaking with "knowledge". They did this knowingly and willingly and breached every ethical standard in journalism known today. They then covered up the episode with a pack of lies about his "real" existence and name, in order to hide their wilful breaches.

The apologists have not a single comeback for this that is either sensible, rational or real. They don't care...their handlers lie...and they will lie to provide social cover for the lying message developers. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid kids...over here...the truth matters.

Don't out him, CY...it won't do what needs to be done and will only give them fodder for producing more tripe for truth.

As if YOU would know who he "really" is. Wait...I thought he didn't even exist. Now, somehow, YOU know his "true identity"? How? Are you a journalist? Someone to be trusted with confidential information? Someone who somehow knows something no one else does? Uh-huh. That's what I thought.

What on earth do you think you're doing?

CY (and everyone), an analogy:
The AP is a tire store, Jamil is a jealous man who is having an affair with your best friends wife, Iraq. The tire store convinces the adulterous man to slash the very expensive tires on your best friends car (the mosques, etc.). The tire store doesn't know any of the people involved, and only cares about maximizing it's profits. The jealous adulteror doesn't care about tire profits, he just hates the husband and wants to do anything he can to bring him down. If you find out who personally slashed the tires, and the involvement of the tire store, and tell your best friend the cheated upon spouse who then beats the crap out of the boyfriend and sues the tire store, is that your fault? Both the AP and "Jamil" imho acted with malice aforethought, especially in the case of "Jamil", and inserted themselves into the conflict as direct actors. As such, I think it is in the public's interest to know WHO is doing WHAT regarding this issue. If "Jamil" would truly be placed in jeopardy by the public revealing of his name, then he can request political asylum here in the U.S. and go on the talk-show circuit. I say out his butt!

Well, that's illustrative of something.

The person using the Jamil Hussein pseudonym is clearly an enemy propagandist supported by a gullible AP. The idea you would be "outing" him is nonsense; you would simply be identifying one of the enemy - because he is our enemy, AP's attempts to gloss over their own egregious complicity in treason with this lame "protect our source" veneer notwithstanding. Back when this nation still had backbone and a clear moral perspective, it was called "aiding and abetting the enemy", and would be a hanging offense. I'd shed no tears for the enemy dead, CY, whether pseudonymed Jamil or otherwise.

And a nation serious about it's security in a time of war would be taking a good hard look at the AP editors who signed off on publishing this enemy propaganda, as well as the NYT's breaches of national security.

what is so hard to understand about this? even if you are right and "Jamil Hussein" is not his real name, and even if for some reason using a pseudonym in a deathzone means he is lying about everything, does that mean he deserves to die? even if his stories were lies, his stories were anti-shiite. he lives in a region populated with shiite death squads. you do the math buddy.

This individual needs to be exposed. That does not mean that he or his family deserve any physical attacks on them. Give them a chance to avoid this by announceing that you will "out" him at a specific time far enough away that he can seek protection from whoever sponsers him and then expose him at the announced time. Give him a couple of days.
I wouldn't worry about Bubba or Sadly. If "Jamil" died of an existing condition, they'd blame you anyway. "Jamil" and AP need to held to the same standards as any source, no protection if the information is false.

The idea you would be "outing" him is nonsense; you would simply be identifying one of the enemy - because he is our enemy,

Joe, OK, so what purpose does putting his name on a blog serve? So one of us can go to Iraq and catch him? CY has already said the military and Iraqi authorities know his name, so what is the point in putting it on a blog?

CY, seriously: is this just about being right? Or traffic? What if you aren't right? Posting a correction after the guy is dead isn't going to change the facts on the ground. And what if you are? You think that's going to stop the babbling idiots at the lefty blogs (and the AP) from going after you and other pro-military/conservative blogs? I wouldn't count on it.

I hate to say it, but this story has gone too far. It's not worth adding to the problems over there. Let the military and/or Iraqi authorities handle the issue, if there is one, because THEY are the ones who have to deal with the sectarian violence.

/My two cents, FWIW.

Would your purpose in revealing his real name be to destroy his utility as a conduit of anti-US, poorly sourced stories to AP? If so, would revealing his identity accomplish this? Would it accomplish it only if he were killed as a result?

If that isn't your purpose, I don't see what it might be short of vindication in the anti-AP argument (in which I side with you). Don't let THAT determine your actions. That would be stooping to the level of MSM releases of classified data because they have a one-sided feud going with W. (That's meant as an analogy, not a close parallel.)

If the first case is so, and you're reasonably certain no real threat to life and limb exists to the man involved... I think I would expose him were I in your shoes. Revealing someone in this situation, someone who SOUGHT the limelight, albeit through alias (else why use a byline tied to his "identity?"), does not make you complicit in any act that follows unless you have reason to believe that WOULD follow. We are not responsible for the actions of others unless we are in a command position with regard to those others.

If you suspect a real threat to him would exist, you would accrue some culpability (at least moral) in that you knowingly allowed a situation to come about (that you might have prevented) in which he could be harmed. Call it negligence in the best case.

I advise that you not post the real name of the person cited by AP as "Jamil Hussein" unless this person gives you permission to do so or you have good reason to believe that their life or the lives of their family would not be endangered. I think it is fair to ask people what they think you should do, and why. I also think that is fair to infer, from AP's lack of response, that they have conceded the point that their source was given a psuedonym and that this was a violation of good journalistic practices -- i.e., they should have called him an unnamed source, given what information they could about him and mentioned any potential sources of bias that this source might have had, at a bare minimum. They also most likely erred in relying on him as the sole source for numerous facts they reported and should have done additional fact-finding before publishing these stories.

Tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

BTW, AP is not supposed to use pseudonyms.

Here's a question for y'all.

(First let me state, I haven't followed Jamilgate near one iota since it's began.)

Who, outside of the blogosphere, even remembers a thing about Jamil Hussein, let alone, cares? So what is outing him going to truly accomplish in the long run?

If you really beleieve that this "Jamil Hussein" person, whoever he is or isn't, is an enemy of the US, and you have some relevant information about him, then report it confidentially to the authorities (the DoD or whatever). In fact, why the hell haven't you already done so? What possible purpose would be served by revealing this information to the public, and therefore to those who might want to kill him?

Personaly, I'd argue FOR outing the real Jamil Husein.

After all, we are being told that we should accept him as a credible source -- but the AP is going out of its way to hide his identity to keep us from judging for ourselves.

Frankly, I' tired of being told by the media that we should trust them -- especially when they insist that we are obliged to question the government and doubt everything it says. I believe teh MSM deserves the same treatment.