Counterterrorism Blog

Journalism and official counterterrorism are in many ways similar. They each have important functions - journalism, to keep us informed, and counterterrorism, to keep us safe. They each have the dual goal of getting the facts right, and protecting their sources and methods. Viewed this way, you would think that there would be mutual respect between the two industries, even if they occasionally clash. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Despite the fact that journalists rely on confidential sources (even going to jail to protect them), reporters are often outraged that the government occasionally relies on secret information in exercising counterterrorism options. Secretive sources that are necessary to reporters are pernicious when maintained by the government.

Yesterday, I wrote an article that described a "parallel universe," in which “enlightened” Americans can attack Christianity with impunity while remaining dismissive of those who describe the threat of radical Islam. The words used in the attacks are indistinguishable from those that regularly appear in relation to Muslims in Family Security Matters and Jihad Watch, which you can see by replacing the references to Christianity and the Bible in these liberals' books with Islam and the Koran. The journalism-counterterrorism double standard suggests another parallel universe. Today, FrontPage Magazine has my review of Eric Lichtblau's Bush’s Law: The Remaking of American Justice, in which a prize-winning reporter affiliated with a newspaper that has had its share of scandal has no trouble being indignant at the suggestion that he should be more transparent, while attacking the government for its lack of transparency, all while getting the facts terribly wrong. Here’s just one example: Lichtblau, without any documentation, suggests that John Ashcroft favors stoning as punishment. What is his source for that tidbit? It is just one of many serious problems with his error-filled volume.

Yet another illustration of this parallel universe comes from an article in this week’s New Yorker by Patrick Keefe, about the U.S. reliance - yikes! - on classified information in exercising counterterrorism-related foreign policy prerogatives. Is reliance on secret sources unfair, as many people quoted by Keefe suggest? If so, are we really willing require the U.S. to be completely transparent in counterterrorism, if it means less reliable information because sources necessarily dry up? Think about it: a counterterrorism apparatus without confidential sources would be about as effective as a news bureau without them. The result would be less information, and a worse record of getting the facts right.

If getting the facts right is indeed important, how is American journalism doing in its coverage of counterterrorism? Does its jealous protection of its confidential sources (while bemoaning the government for its secrey) result in better coverage?

Yesterday’s Washington Post had a front page article, under the headline “Few Clear Wins in U.S. Anti-Terror Cases” I do not know whether the authors of the article - Carrie Johnson and Walter Pincus - were responsible for the headline, which does not match the body of the article itself, nor reality. The truth comes from a quote from Professor Robert Chesney of Wake Forest - that DOJ is doing better than is often reported. It is also supported by a quote from J. Dixon Wells, from the Center for Constitutional Rights (an organization with whom I rarely agree). Wells notes that the disappointments in the government’s aggressive campaign to attack terrorist financing are “few and far between.” Wells seems to understand that occasional acquittals and hung juries mean the system is working and not stacked in favor of the prosecution, and that we should not abandon the law enforcement approach to counterterrorism, something advocated by plenty of conservatives (who believe that the military options are always best) and FBI intelligence professionals (who would rather watch their subjects in perpetuity rather than arrest them). God bless him.

The Washington Post’s headline is also curious, in light of the article’s inclusion of a New York case involving Al Manar television that has not yet gone to trial. Treating this case as a failure is premature, and perhaps wishful thinking.

How do we check on the accuracy of the Post’s headline writers? Though I never thought this would be necessary to educate journalists whose job it is to get these facts right, here is a list of people the Department of Justice has convicted of terrorism-related crimes since 9/11. I am sure I missed some (since I relied on my memory), but I do know that each of the following people have been adjudged guilty of terrorism-related offenses, either by plea of by jury conviction, which means that - by definition - these cases were indeed “clear wins.” The number may be larger, but it is certainly not smaller. The only way that the yesterday’s Washington Post’s headline could be accurate is if at least the following 74 people convicted of terrorism-related offenses after 9/11 qualified as “few.”

1. Zacarias Moussaoui
2. Ihshan Elashi
3. BayanElashi
4. Ghassan Elashi
5. Basman Elashi
6. John Walker Lindh
7. Ahmed Bilal
8. Muhammed Bilal
9. Faysal Galab
10. Massoud Khan
11. Uzair Paracha
12. Mohammed Babar
13. Mark Robert Walker
14. Ahmed Abu Ali
15. Nahji Khalil
16. Kobie Williams
17. Yahya Goba
18. Shafel Mosad
19. Yasein Taheir
20. Mukhtar al-Bakri
21. Sahim Alwan
22. Syed Shah
23. Muhammed Afridi
24. Ilyas Ali
25. Uwe Jensen
26. Derrick Shariff
27. Cesar Lopez
28. Edgar Puerta
29. Hassan Makki
30. Iyman Faris
31. Fanny Amaris
32. Carlos Panchano
33. Adriana Mora
34. Uzair Paracha
35. Mohammed al-Moyaed
36. Mohammed Zayed
37. Yassin Aref
38. Mohammed Hossain
39. Carlos Murillo
40. Lamont Ranson
41. Cedric Carpenter
42. Tariq Shah
43. Rafiq Sabir
44. Mahmud Brent
45. Naji Khalil
46. Ali Chandia
47. Michael Reynolds
48. Mohammed Shorbagi
49. Haniffa Osman
50. Haji Subandi
51. Erik Wotulo
52. Thiranavuka Varatharasa
53. Jose Padilla
54. Kiffa Jayoussi
55. Adham Hassoun
56. Jeffrey Battle
57. Patrice Lumumba Ford
58. Maher Hawash
59. Ali Al Tamimi
60. Sami Al-Arian
61. Enaam Arnaout
62. AbdelRahman Alamoudi
63. Mohammed Hammoud
64. Said Harb
65. Randall Royer
66. Lynn Stewart
67. James Ujaama
68. Ibrahim al-Hamdi
69. Yong Kwan
70. Mohammed Aatique
71. Khwaja Hasan
72. Hammad Abdurraheem
73. Sabri Benkala
74. Seifullah Chapman

These views in this article are not those of the Department of Justice.