January 31, 2008

Silence of the Media Lambs

A current employee of the Department of Homeland Security, who spoke to Pajamas Media on the condition of anonymity, had this to say: "It is mind-boggling. I've sent personal emails to my contacts at ABC, at CBS, at the New York Times, and the Washington Times. No one is even responding to my emails. They call me back about other things, but as far as Sibel [Edmonds] is concerned, anything touching on that subject gets overlooked, gets ignored."

"Why?" this reporter asked.

"Reporters are terrified of the State Secrets Privilege and being subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury. No one wants to wind up like Judy Miller in jail."

What are they covering up? If Annie Jacobsen is correct, nuclear treason at the State Department.


Posted by Confederate Yankee at January 31, 2008 12:12 PM

It is complete and utter insanity for her, or anyone else, to argue that the "media" are troubled about disclosing state secrets and/or subjecting themselves to government investigation. In point of fact, most of them would likely take it as a "badge of honor" to be accused by the current Justice Department of disclosing state secrets.

A more probable explanation for their seeming disinterest in the story is the likelihood that what has come out thus far, basically from the ever deranged British press, is a load of crap, with very little substance to it.

Posted by: Terry at January 31, 2008 12:49 PM

Terry, you can cast stones at the UK press all you want to, but Sibel Edmonds has been saying this for some time now, and we have yet to hear that her testimony has been proven to be "a load of crap".

Posted by: j at January 31, 2008 01:05 PM

Treason in the State Department? I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell ya!

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at January 31, 2008 01:28 PM

The source of this seems to be one person who listened to a set of conversations. In the intelligence community, that's not a lot to stand on. Stings, offensive counterintelligence operations and double agents, false flag provocations, and faux proliferations (passing on seemingly genuine, but actually bogus, equipment or information to track where it goes) are all possibilities.

Posted by: dawnfire82 at January 31, 2008 07:38 PM

Treason at State would be unremarkable, but the media's chance to further damage Bush during an election season would be irresistible. Plenty of reporter would willingly do a stretch to break a story like that and make their bones.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 31, 2008 08:06 PM

Fear of prosecution it is not a credible reason. Have we forgotten the leaked national security estimates (multiple), the real and fake secrets revealed, the terrorist surveillance program, etc. More likely is that the people involved in the treason are the same people feeding the secrets to the press. They are protecting their own.

Posted by: Rey at February 3, 2008 10:08 AM