Here is the theory of governance advanced by the New York Times reporter James Risen, explaining (to Katie Couric on the Today Show) why the Times’ 12/16 NSA terrorist surveillance story had to be published:
RISEN: Well, I–I think that during a period from about 2000–from 9/11 through the beginning of the Gulf–the war in Iraq, I think what happened was you–we–the checks and balances that normally keep American foreign policy and national security policy towards the center kind of broke down. And you had more of a radicalization of American foreign policy in which the–the–the career professionals were not really given a chance to kind of forge a consensus within the administration. And so you had the–the–the principles (sic)–Rumsfeld, Cheney and Tenet and Rice and many others–who were meeting constantly, setting policy and really never allowed the people who understand–the experts who understand the region to have much of a say.
COURIC: You suggest there were a lot of power-grabbing going on.
Mr. RISEN: Yes.
Mr. Risen clearly subscribes to an idiosyncratic school of Constitutionalism in which real governing authority is based upon “expertise” and “centrism,” and reposes in the hands of career bureaucrats, who are entitled to take drastic measures (even compromising National Security by leaking to the Press, if necessary) to defend their policy-making prerogative against usurpation by mere temporarily elected amateurs. Michael Barone also had some sarcastic things to say about this on Monday.
———————————————————–
The Times was not inhibited from proceeding with this story, either by a request to refrain from publishing information injurious to National Security in time of war by the President of the United States, or by consideration of the questionable motives and psychological health of their informant Mr. Tice.
Tice, Risen, the New York Times and its editor and publisher have all committed very serious crimes.
Don Soeken
I have worked with whistleblowers for years and have the following observation on the TICE case.
Sending whistleblowers to a psychologist or psychiatrist is a tactic that is used to get management off the hook and let the mental health worker do the dirty work.
The Committee on the Abuse of Psychiatry of the APA has condemned this type of testing to discredit a whistleblower.
The test cannot be challanged because it is classified and not available for an evaluation by another mental health worker. Anyone performing them is committing a malpractice if they are ordered to find something when there is no mental illness.
The benefit for the government in dismissing a person with the psychiatric diagnosis allows them to discredit the whistleblowers message and thus “kills the messenger” and his message. If they fired him without the trumped up psychological exam it would be more difficult for managers of NSA to get people to believe he was not only wrong but also he was wrong because he was crazy too. It is the old soviet style psychiatry and it is alive and well in this country. It has happened to many other whistleblowers.
If it were true that he is psychotic he would have never made it into NSA. They do not employ paranoid psychotic employees. Since they do not employ them then this exam was a set up to discredit the whistleblower. Personality disorders are developed early in one’s life and would have been picked up by the prior exams.
JDZ
You never knew anyone who developed a personality disorder later in life? I certainly have.
J. wARREN CLARK
NOTE THAT THE REFERENCED ARTICLE ON TICE’S PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH DID NOT IN FACT SAY ANYTHING TO PLACE HIS HEALTH IN QUESTION. THAT WAS A RUSE BY THE BLOGGER. CHEAP TRICK.
WHEN THEY COME AFTER THEM, ITS BECAUSE THEY THREATEN TO TELL THE TRUTH. IT’S TOO SIMPLE REALLY. jwc
Please Leave a Comment!