Why does a proposed federal shield law that would protect reporters from giving up their sources hate America? Because it would protect the terrorists, that’s why. That’s the interpretation, at least, of Rachel Brand, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy.
The proposed bill, the Free Flow of Information Act, would protect anyone involved in “gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.” Now, the proposed law, I’m willing to admit, might currently be a little vague—probably to avoid the specter of the government deciding who is, or isn’t a journalist—in who is protected, but Brand’s stance is a classic example of Bush administration fear-mongering. In her testimony before a House Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Brand argued that the national security risk of passing the shield law is too great, and that the law might even protect “a terrorist operative who videotaped a message from a terrorist leader threatening attacks on Americans.”
That a judge wouldn’t see the difference between a terrorist sympathizer and a reporter on the job is an insult, but considering the source, is hardly surprising.


Whenever one reads one of Paul McLeary's single-sourced, three-paragraph swipes at the Bush administration.... One can be assured of two things...
First of all.... One can bet on the fact that McLeary has quoted out of context.. It's a trademark tactic of his...
Secondly... One can rest assured that McLeary has jumped to conclusions in a ridiculous Chicken Little exaggeration of the facts by twisting words around..
True to form... McLeary does not disappoint in his latest little hissy-fit....
He quotes Rachel Brand as follows:
...........................
Oh WAIT!... McLeary doesn't quote her at all... Instead he gives us his "interpretation" of Ms. Brand's statement.. Assuring us that his "interpretation" is not only accurate, but also clearly another "example" of Chimpy Bushitler's "fear mongering", of course...
McLeary has, as usual, deliberately ignored the context of Brand's statement. He could easily have provided the quote necessary to provide this context to readers... But he has purposely neglected to do so.. So, as usual, I'll have to do it for him...
"The definition is just so broad that it really includes anyone who wants to post something to the Web," Rachel Brand, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing here. She also argued it would protect "a terrorist operative who videotaped a message from a terrorist leader threatening attacks on Americans."
But more nefarious shenanigans are afoot in McLearyland than mere omission...
McLeary just can't leave his distortion alone... It's not merely enough to replace a necessary quote with an "interpretation"... He actually has to alter text and substitute words to make his nonsensical claim ring true...
He wrote:
"In her testimony before a House Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Brand argued that the national security risk of passing the shield law is too great"
Now HERE folks is what the article REALLY stated:
"The latest draft of the Free Flow of Information Act would pose a grave threat to national security and federal criminal investigations by protecting far too large a segment of the population, a U.S. Department of Justice official told Congress."
WHOA THERE!....
Does anyone except Paul McLeary see anything in Rachel Brand's statement that voices a general opposition to a federal shield law?...
If so... Lay off the crack pipe!.....
Brand CLEARLY opposes a proposed DRAFT of the legislation BECAUSE the DRAFT inclused a DEFINITION that she feels (as I do) is TOO BROAD!...
However there is simply NO basis for McLeary's dishonest claim that Brand opposes protection for journalists!..
Nonetheless, from Ms. Brand's concern that terrorists could be somehow confused with "journalists" because of an overbroad definition in the text... From THIS reasonable position... Mr. McLeary can somehow infer the workings of a Rovian plot against journalism?...
GIMME A DAMNED BREAK!....
CJR needs to get some honest people on the payroll NOW...
Posted by padikiller
on Mon 18 Jun 2007 at 05:39 PM