The Sheila Variations

Red:

That is not a great post. Steve Silver has no clue what he is talking about.

It is risky to express strong opinions when you don't have the facts - it's very easy to look like an idiot. Steve Silver seriously does not have the facts.

I sometimes reflect that the difference between a good analyst and a poor one is the unquantifiable ability to sense when you're missing something, and tread carefully until you identify what the missing piece of the puzzle means. It is an especially poor analyst who does not recognize he his missing the majority of the pieces of the puzzle.

Also military members cannot sue the military for defamation.

So we disagree. I don't even know what else to say. You don't bring up the points you have problems with - maybe they are self-evident to you. But they are not to me.

I can't stand Michelle Malkin, and I liked what Steve had to say.

It's not that the issues in question are self evident, just that they're not available on the internet.

My only point is that people are entitled to their opinions, but if those opinions are formed without benefit of most of the relevant information, they are in danger of being seriously wrong. Insight is the ability to realize you're missing something and factor in those possibilities. Steve Silver's comments lack that insight.

I have no real opinion one way or the other about Michelle Malkin, but I read her article about this and she has more facts on this case than Steve Silver. According to CNN, the commander at Guantanamo publicly stated that the espionage charges against Yee were dropped because, in order to prove them, the government would have to release sensitive information at trial, and protection of that information was more important than convicting Yee of espionage.

Steve Silver says "we have no reason to believe he's not innocent" and "Yee got wronged". Perhaps if he actually knew what was in the information that the General at Guantanamo said was more important than convicting Yee of espionage, he might not say that?

Ah, always nice to see my writing skills/integrity debated in someone else's comments (thanks, Sheila, for taking the right side :)).

The point of my argument was not so much to argue for Yee's innocence as to call Michelle Malkin to the carpet for being a borderline-racist partisan hack. It may be true that they let Yee off on a technicality - though it doesn't sound like Ashcroft to let an accused spy go free, no matter what the technicality- and what ever happened to those military tribunals we heard so much about?

Ultimately, our justice system is based on innocent-until-proven-guilty, and until he's convicted Yee remains just that. That's why I qualified the statement with "assuming that he's innocent."

Two rebuttals: If Malkin is aware of the information that you claim to have (and I'd imagine she is), why not share it in the column? That way her column might actually come close to convincing.

And even if Malkin knew, with 100% certainty, that Yee were innocent, would it keep her from writing that same column? Knowing her writing, I doubt that it would. Malkin's point, independent of Yee's innocence or guilt, is that we shouldn't trust Muslims.

Stephen: I am not questioning your writing skills, or integrity, only your wisdom in making bold assertions without all the facts.

Not being charged because the prosecution declines to reveal information considered exceptionally sensitive for other ongoing investigations (according to MG Miller at Guantanamo, reported by CNN) is not "getting off on a technicality".

Michelle Malkin has no access to the inside information related to this case (as far as I know, but then again I don't know - maybe she does?) but the publicly available information suggests there is a lot more to the situation than you imply in your criticism of her.

If you knew that Yee was guilty, would you have the same criticism of Malkin? You base your criticism on the idea that Yee is innocent. If he is not innocent, does that mean Malkin is right?

I just posted the following comment on Silver's site:

"Are we reading the same column? The phrase 'the left' doesn't appear in Malkin's piece. She doesn't accuse Yee of 'guilt by association,' nor does she 'decid[e] his ordeal has no validity.' Nowhere does she mention 'certain radical anti-war activists.' Rather than '[refuse] to apologize to Yee,' she conditions her apology on a comparable apology from defenders of Mike Hawash. In other words, just about everything you write about Malkin's piece is wrong. Even your brief biography is wrong: Malkin isn't an Asian immigrant, she's the daughter of Asian immigrants.

"This post of yours is the shoddiest piece of analysis I've encountered in a long time."

I maintain, with Steve, that Michelle Malkin is a partisan hack and I take everything she says with a pound of salt.

CW-

If Malkin were to write the same column after Yee had been convicted, then I would most likely agree with it. But he HASN'T been convicted, he's been exonerated, and Malkin makes no attempt to argue with the exoneration. If she had tried to put some of that evidence forward, she may have had a point.

If there IS a lot more information, she should use it; without it, there's a huge hole in her argument.

In the eyes of the law, Yee is innocent. And as I said before, if the current military, justice, and homeland security apparatus really truly believed Yee was a spy, wouldn't they find a way to put him away? (Military tribunal, "enemy combatant" status, etc.)

Michael-

I shouldn't have had "the left" in quotes, and should've remembered that Malkin's parents were the immigrants. Aside from that, I stand by what I wrote.

I never said Malkin used the phrase "guilt by association," merely that she engaged in it, by tying Yee to anti-war activists and China. And Malkin never said herself that she had no sympathy for Yee's ordeal (and I never said she did)- she merely demonstrated it, by neglecting to even include an "I'm sorry he was incarcerated, but..." caveat.

Malkin doesn't like Yee's defenders (hell, neither do I), so she makes it about them, even though a man who may very well have been innocent was smeared by his government as a spy and a terrorist. Whether Hawash's defenders apologize or not is totally irrelevent and has nothing to do with Yee; Malkin assumed (probably wrongly) Yee's guilt, so therefore she owes him an apology.

CW,

Steve may be being a little overly harsh, but I don't like the excuse the commander at Guantanamo is making, regarding "sensitive information". I don't like statements like "he's guilty, but we don't want to prosecute". Put him in a military tribunal, isn't that what these have been established for?

BTW...how open are court martial records to the public? It isn't like he was going to be tried in civilian court.

[I've just left this comment on Stephen Silver's page.]

Stephen,

First, I find it ironic (gentle word) that after writing, "Ah, always nice to see my writing skills/integrity debated in someone else's comments," you reply to me in someone else's comments before doing so in your own.

Second, I'm always skeptical when a critic rephrases an argument he disagrees with, as you do throughout your response. The more honorable and, frankly, courageous way, which you avoid, is to quote directly, then rebut. You quote only twice in your post: "the left" and "excesses." Neither term -- neither! -- appears in Malkin's piece. Let me make this plain: Unlike "CW," who replied to you at Sheila's site, I am questioning your integrity. I've doubted it before, but never so strongly.

Third, Malkin doesn't "[tie] Yee to anti-war activists and China." The "Arab-American and Asian-American activists" (she never uses the term "anti-war") and China have aligned themselves with Yee's cause. Malkin doesn't do the "tying," nor does Yee.

Fourth, I could go on -- really, I could -- but it isn't worth it. Sheila's a very sharp reader, but in this case she's let her distaste for Malkin (whom she "can't stand") lead her to praise a very poor bit of criticism.

I wasn't going to follow up on this any more, but Bill McCabe raises a couple of interesting points.

The deal is that Yee has not been "exonerated", the charges were dropped because the military determined that the prosecution was not worth the cost to national security. There's a big difference. You're only "innocent until proven guilty" when you've been charged with something.

Unlike all of the enemy combatants incarcerated at Guantanamo, Capt Yee is an American citizen and entitled to the protection of our laws. Unlike Jose Padilla, who is an American citizen held as an enemy combatant after he was caught overtly attempting to make war on the United States, Capt Yee is a member of the US military suspected of aiding the enemy.

His status is very different, and his case is very different, from either the enemy combatants at Guantanamo, or a Jose Padilla. He has the right to discovery, and discovery rules in courts martial are similar to those in civilian court. In order to make the case against him, the government would be compelled to turn over a great deal of terrorist intelligence to Yee and his lawyers.

Here's a hypothetical situation: Suppose Yee is guilty and was passing information to al Qaeda, and if he went to trial, the government would be compelled to give Yee, and by extension al Qaeda, very sensitive reports that identify members of al Qaeda who are cooperating with the United States to avert major terrorist attacks around the world. You are the military official in charge of deciding whether to try Yee. You know that you can convict him with the evidence you have, but if you choose that route, your sources in al Qaeda will be revealed, and almost certainly killed, the information they provide will be lost. Terrorist attacks will occur that might have been prevented with their information.

What do you do? Prosecute Yee to prove you are right, or let him go, keep a close watch on him, and preserve the ability to thwart future terrorist attacks?

Wouldn't his lawyer be a member of the JAG? Or are private counsel allowed into military courts? If they are JAG, I don't think they'd be very likely to leak confidential intelligence to terrorists.

Defendants in courts-martial are allowed to retain private counsel at their own expense, in addition to their JAG defense counsel, if they choose.

Yes he had military lawyers at one point but I think he retained civilian counsel as well.