I'm back/Murphy update

The FBI now routinely investigates anti-war protestors who have no history of criminal behavior, something the FBI hasn't done since the dark years of J Edgar Hoover. Bush and Cheney both routinely bar people from their "public" appearances who support the opposition party, another practice that hasn't been seen in the US in modern times (though it is routine in China). In this context, the behavior that was alleged by Murphy is not far-fetched. One doesn't need to be blinded by hatred or bias to see the pattern here. I'm glad Murphy's story is false, but that doesn't change what this administration really is.

I would hope that you would agree, that while it is not "an act of malicious irrationality" to consider the possibility, you have a forum whereby suggesting it without thoroughly considering its truthfulness may have been a bit irresponsible. And no, saying "if its true" three times does not provide anyone with a free pass. The implication of your statements was clear. You even suggested congressional hearings...if it was true.

This bit of argument from Taranto seems spot-on to me: If the Bush administration were trying to stifle dissent, Murphy's experience would be typical, and Bush's harshest critics would be offering their own stories of airport-security woe--or they would be silenced. Instead, they rush to affirm Murphy's interpretation of his own experience. It is what they want to believe, even though it runs counter to their own experience. However, this is weak:
First, federal terrorist watch lists are compiled not by political appointees but by career professionals at the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, who, according to Hawley, would balk at any effort to list people for political reasons. "Trust us! We're professionals!" Well, trust but verify, right?

Rod,
I certainly don't agree with neocon hack Taranto's allegation that it was "malicious irrationality" to raise the question. But I was a bit surprised by how gullible you sounded about a story that from the beginning struck such a loud, false note.
In the current state of public discourse, it's dangerously easy to move from assessing Team Bush (correctly, IMHO) as a bunch of incompetent clowns with loopy foreign policy notions to assessing them as a gang of crooks who will stop at nothing to achieve evil. Something for all rational critics of GWB to be wary of.

I don't think Mr. Taranto's explanation conclusive. But suppose, for the sake of the argument, that it were. I still have to say that I, for one, was very far from wanting this story to be true. I would have been more than happy to dismiss it out of hand as unworthy of serious discussion, as Pete does. But the day had long passed when that was possible for me. As with the more lurid tales of Clinton's perjury and other enormities--as with the successively worsening reports of the Catholic bishops' handling of the Great Horror--I finally reached the point where I could no longer say "Oh, come on, that's crazy--that simply COULDN'T have happened." And for someone like me--someone with a deeply ingrained disposition to trust the basic institutions of society--that realization was depressing indeed.

Let me come to Rod's defense. I think a lot of people took this story seriously at first because of Walter Murphy's accomplished career, which is a pretty reasonable thing to do. The notion that it is only lefty bloggers who did so -- or even only bloggers who oppose the Iraq war -- is nonsense. See, for example, Tigerhawk, who respects Prof. Murphy based on personal experience with him during college in the early '80s:
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2007/04/abusing-no-fly-list.html Tigerhawk handled it just like Rod, beginning his post as follows: "This story, if true, is outrageous."

Simon wrote, "directing the bureaucracy to implement a partisan agenda absolutely guarantees [media leaks]." Um, no. We didn't know about the partisan hackery at the DOJ until the administration took the egregious step of simultaneously firing a bunch of the insufficiently partisan, and if Republicans still controlled Congress we *still* wouldn't know about it.

Well, as ScurvyOaks said, it was Murphy's professional standing that made the story more credible, at least to me. If that had happened to Michael Moore, I wouldn't have believed it.
And you may all call me Rod. I don't stand on formality around here.

I have a home in Brazil consequently I watch Brazilian politics and politics in South America in general.
In response to your following point Rod, let me offer something I stole from a Brazilian blog site. I think this guys make a point worth considering as we go off on George Bush all the time. Maybe in our myopia we miss something others see.
"it's not an act of malicious irrationality to view this administration as at least capable of abusing civil liberties and/or improperly politicizing the functions of government"
"A previous article asked to show "Just one non anti-American Brasilian" OK here I am! Those of us who crticize a type of person we so desperatly need are ignorant or just blinded by jealosy. Wouldn't it be nice to have a leader who did not worry so much about getting re-elected, but someone willing to stick to their principles and values. How long has it been Brasil? How long will it be? I wish to God Mr. Bush was Brasilian. Then maybe we would have someone with the courage to take back our citys from drug dealers and gangsters, some one willing to fight corruption and put important business behing bars. Would it not be nice if we had a program like "Leave No Child Behind" and could guarentee every child in Brasil a good education. I would love to have some one who cared nothing about the rest of the world, but only Brasil. Is their a leader in our future who can make it safe to walk our streets at night, end child prostituion, and police and political corruption? Would it not be nice, to have someone leading our country who says what he means, and does what he says even if it is unpopular. Do you really think that Mr. Bush would let a bunch of wood choppers in the Amazon hold the country hostage by holding up traffic by blocking a highway for weeks? Or squatters take land that has belonged to familes for hundreds of years? Wouldn't it be nice to have a justice system that actually handed out justice? Well my brothers and sisters...Brasil can use a little more George Bush!"
I leave it as he wrote it. Maybe we are taking much for granted here in our cozy places.

I am happy to have had my suspicions on the Murphy matter dismissed... Amen, but seriously, it's not an act of malicious irrationality to view this administration as at least capable of abusing civil liberties and/or improperly politicizing the functions of government. ...and Amen.

Rod & ScurvyOaks, C'mon -- using Murphy's "professional standing" just doesn't cut it. This story never passed the smell test for any number of reasons, regardless of what you think about Bush.

Ben, I agree that the story didn't seem very plausible once I thought about it for a while. But my first reaction was to take it seriously based on knowing Murphy. I took Constitutional Interpretation from him at Princeton in the fall of 1983. He struck me as one of the smartest and toughest sumbitches you could ever want to meet. Hence my initial, erroneous read.

Ben points out that two out of eight fired USA's may have deserved it, and thinks that proves all eight were canned for good reason. If so, then maybe Ben can explain why AG Gonzalez keeps contradicting himself when trying to explain it. Simon, on the other hand, does not even attempt to deny that the firings were motivated by partisanship. But were the firings legal? Maybe. Nonetheless, this is a shining example of why the Bush Administration cannot be trusted, and why many of us were quick to believe Murphy's story.

Joel, Gonzales' story keeps changing because he is incompetent and in way over his head. If you paid attention, most conservatives were not thrilled when Bush nominated him for A.G. in the first place. "Were the firings legal?" Yes, definately, as a matter of black-letter law. Bush could fire them for wearing boxers and it would not be illegal. As I said before, your opinion of the Bush administration should in no way let you off the hook for believing an obviously b.s. story. I thought Clinton was a scumbag, but I wouldn't have believed anyone who claimed Willie was cavorting with sheep in the Oval Office.

There is a difference between "healthy skepticism" and unhealthy paranoia. Considering the number of peace marches and anti-Bush statements we've had to endure in this country, how "healthy" was it to believe that the federal government has time to put people on the freaking no-fly list just for attending a march or criticizing the administration?
Honestly, now? We'd have to employ half the population of China just to maintain the list. Silly. Just silly.

Simon, I don't think they're particularly smart, but the government is certainly capable of carrying out a short-term cover-up, and that's all that a politician really needs. But the administration is certainly aware of Washington's leakiness, which is why we've had 6 years of mau-mauing the press by the most secretive White House since Nixon's. (A fellow from Judicial Watch -- no lefty -- once told me that.)

The real problem is that most people really can't get their minds around conditional statements (like "if it's true.") We don't educate young people to deal with "ifs." As a former English teacher, I find this utterly dismaying.

trotsky, we disagree about the competence of the government to pull off any kind of significant cover up.
But I didn't mean to put any words in your mouth, nor to suggest that you had bought into this silly story. I was just refering to the general trend of the discussion, which seemed headed toward a "Fake but true" argument that I wanted out of. Apologies if my post came across as a slight directed at you.