Way to go Mr. Budowsky!
From Brent Budowsky
February 18, 2007
To: Robert Kaiser, Washington Post
Mr. Kaiser, I am forwarding below the note I wrote to Messrs. Graham and Hiatt about Outlook's Victoria Toensing piece today.
With all due respect, I have long admired your work, but that piece today was the most egregious attempt at jury tampering that I have ever seen in this or any other town.
I spent six years at the core of the group writing the CIA Identities Law with its original sponsor, Senator Lloyd Bentsen. Setting aside my great differences with both Editorial and Op Ed pages at the Post on this case and Iraq in general, this piece was different. It was a clear attempt to influence the jury, after the defense rested and before the jury is given the case.
I predict the Judge will not be a happy camper, but beyond this, the piece was a shameless attempt to present a nullification defense to the jury, by an officer of the court who has worked for the Departement of Justice. It is attempt to bypass the judge and jury and present arguments to the jury, through the Post, that would not be admissable for law or fact, which also included factual inaccuracy.
This is the functional equivalent of the Post editorial board and the Libby defense team standing outside the jury room, handing the jurors leaflets, ignoring the judges instructions, and handing the jurors inadmissable evidence and telling them to vote not guilty.
I believe the Post owes its readers an alternate viewpoint, presented with the same visibility as Ms. Toensing's piece, though the ridiculing artwork will not be necessary and the tone of prosecution is more worthy of a second tier blog than the paper of record for this Capital.
Frankly, sir, from the beginning of this case, the Post opinion sections have never respected the fact that America has brave men and women serving in the intelligence community.
That their lives can be endangered by these leaks whether felonious or not. That distortions of intelligence that these leaks furthered did grave harm to our national security. That at a minimum the men and women who risk their lives for intelligence deserve the same honor, integrity and respect deserved by those who wear our uniform.
I am astonished that someone of your stature would approve what is an aggressive and obvious attempt at jury tampering, that your fact checkers would permit factual inaccuracy, and that anyone at the Post would use tones of ridicule and derision more akin to an internet blog post than the Washington Post.
You owe your readers an alternate opinion, you owe those who serve our country in intelligence far more respect and honor, you owe the judge and jury a trial without attempts to influence the verdict, and you owe the great tradition of the Washington Post a higher standard consistent with the highest standards of American journalism.
Please consider this, Mr. Kaiser. Whatever the politics of the Post, when these identities are published real intelligence officers can be compromised, real sources of American intelligence information in foreign lands are either compromised or lose their trust and refuse to help, real people can die, and real intelligence is lost.
We live in a city, Mr. Kaiser, that has already been targeted for one major terrorist attack on 9-11, and is no doubt on a target list for a WMD atttack at some point in the future.
You owe an obligation to your community, as well as integrity, honor, truth and the rule of law. You have a right to your opinion, but I suspect none of you have intelligence or military experience to assess the damage done by these leaks to those who serve, and obviously have no respect for the legal process which you attempt to influence through ex parte arguments aimed atthe jury through the paper.
If nothing else, I would hope you pay some deference to those who do have experience in military and intelligence affairs, and make an honest attempt to understand the damage these leaks do, to those who serve. It is the moral equivalent of those who perpetrate these leaks shooting an American Marine in the back while he or she serves in Iraq. Real lives are lost.
When we wrote the law, not one of us ever dreamed the law, which was meant to be applied to enemies of America, would be embroiled in debates about those who wear White House badges or press passes from America's great newspapers.
As Ms. Toensing knows, the content of her piece has nothing to do with the charges at trial. This is what is known as a nullification defense, which should be offered at trial by defense counsel, under the rules of evidence, not offered by a partisan attorney writing with the imprimateur of a former Justice Department attorney, under the letterhead of Washington's paper of record.
This letter is on the record and I request that you publish it.
Sincerely,
Brent Budowsky
Former Legislative Assistant to Senator Lloyd Bentsen. Member of theAdvisory Council of the Intelligence Summit.
:::::::::::::::::
No comments:
Post a Comment