Posted on 11/7/2001, 12:08:47 AM by RonDog
To follow is the complete text of a private e-mail correspondence sent to me today by Mr. Simon K.C. Li, foreign editor at the Los Angeles Times, along with the complete text of my original e-mail to him yesterday.
I did not disclose my identity as a FReeper, nor do I have his explicit permission to post this on a public forum, but I have this advice from competent legal authority (Hugh Hewitt), "When a newspaper editor writes you back, there is no expectation of confidentiality – unless you gave it up front."
Dear [my real name]: I was not directly involved in the decision you find so troubling as I had the weekend off. But it happened in my department, so I AM responsible for it. And while I respect the concerns that made you e-mail me, I disagree with your conclusions.We are well aware that ``the enemy'' with Internet access can read our paper, and we are well aware of the responsibility we have to be careful with what we print. But in this case, it was not The Times that first reported that American special forces are in Afghanistan, nor that some of them are there to train and advise opposition forces. Indeed, by now, that information is so old hat that Pentagon officials are talking about it freely. It was the secretary of defense who, in a televised briefing, said last week that there would be a roughly threefold increase in the number of special forces in Afghanistan. It was Pentagon officials who later confirmed in briefings that the increase in deployment had been effected. So the whole topic of American--and, by the way, allied--special forces is no secret to the enemy or to the American people.
But the four mystery men that Paul Watson wrote about were with the Northern Alliance forces, the enemies of our enemies. To the extent that there is a front in this strange war, those men were behind that front, with friendly troops. Further, it is a front on which there has been no trace of enemy aggressive activity since our bombing campaign began (and, in truth, for some time before that.) These men may not have been perfectly safe where they were, but these days, neither are citizens in New York or Washington. I do not see how Watson's report put them in any extra jeopardy from enemy action.
You ask how their situation differed from Watson's in Kosovo. It differs precisely in that they were with friendly forces, behind the lines of those forces. Watson was alone--not with foreign soldiers presumambly ready to protect him, if only in common cause for their own safety--and he was among the enemy. Moreover, he had been expelled, along with almost all his media colleagues, less than 24 hours before--actually taken to the Macedonia border under armed guard. He sneaked back in on his own, and this paper did not hold briefings to announce his presence in enemy territory. If you can't see a huge difference in that, then I suggest you are wilfully trying to pick an argument with us--and I would not be wasting my time responding at this length if I thought that.
Finally, I assure you that officials at the Pentagon would not be shy about complaining if our reports were endangering our troops. They have complained in previous military situations, and I have often had the same debates with them as I'm having with you. But they have not complained in this instance. Yesterday, America's top general, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard B. Myers spent more than an hour in our offices here in Los Angeles. If the Pentagon had a problem with the story you find so troubling, he would have been briefed about it. And his audience was perfect for resgisteringa complaint: the publisher, the editor and the managing editor--the people I and my department report to--were all present. Gen. Myers made no complaint; indeed, he expressed the understanding that the press has a vital role to play in the current situation in publicizing and explaining what the nation's servicemen and women are doing. He also said that on that issue, there was often discussion and disagreemnet among the services about what is all right for the media to publicize and what is best left unsaid. If such issues aren't black-and-white simple at the Pentagon, it seems a failure of civility to me that some readers, holier than the Pope, are so ready to impugn our patriotism.
Sincerely, Simon K.C. Li, foreign editor.
-----Original Message-----
From: [my real name and e-mail address]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 8:23 PM
To: Simon.Li@latimes.com
Subject: Paul Watson "disclosing logistics" NOW vs in 1999Dear Mr. Li,
I am very concerned that the safety of our military personnel has been severely compromised by the IRRESPONSIBLE disclosures in an article called "Silent Men Speak to a U.S. Presence in Afghanistan" written by Times Staff Writer Paul Watson and published in the 11/5 edition of your paper: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-000088475nov05.story
If I can read about the logistics of American troop movements online, so can any ENEMY agents with Internet access.
Perhaps YOU were not directly involved in the decision to publish information which so much potential for risk to our men in the field. I sincerely hope that you were NOT. I found a quote attributed to you in a Village Voice article about a time that Mr. Watson was similarly "at risk" (when he was in Kosovo) from April of 1999: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/9914/cotts.php
"...Two weeks ago, most of the foreign press corps stationed in Pristina, Kosovo, fled en masse, after Serb police pounded on some of their hotel doors with the butts of their AK-47s and ordered them out. Hacks on the run included correspondents from CNN, the BBC, and The New York Times, but when they were gone, one man was left standing: Paul Watson, a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times... ...Simon K.C. Li, foreign editor at the Los Angeles Times, declined to discuss the logistics of Watson's situation, saying that to do so would only "raise his profile" and further expose him to danger."If you WERE involved in the recent decision to publish the "Silent Men" article, please tell me the difference (if any) between exposing Watson to danger in 1999, and exposing our troops to danger in 2001.
If you were NOT involved in today's decision to publish the "logistics" of our military actions in Afghanistan, are you prepared to DENOUNCE it publicly, and demand an apology from whoever was?
In the interests of journalistic integrity, I await your reply.
[my real name, address and phone number]
I love how he put "the enemy" in quotes, making it clear that he wonders if they really are the enemy, or "the so-called enemy".
Hi, Travis - Not sure if you heard it, but Hugh tried to plug the Sebastian Jurgen(?)/NIGHTLINE story several times today, but he needs more solid documentation.
Can you dig up something more concrete, and post it here?
(Thanks! I am outta here for a while.)
The article went into considerable detail to identify Americans who are there to assist the Northern Alliance forces, i.e. "One of the observers was wearing a Marlboro Classic shirt with the sleeves rolled up, exposing an expensive watch. Another had on silver Oakley sunglasses. All were dressed in chinos, and all sported Afghan scarves worn as bandannas or tied to cover the whole head, except for the designer shades."
You ask..."Is this treason or journalism?"
I won't get involved in that question per se, RD.
Would degrade into a pi$$ing contest quickly if I would.
However, is Li's last statement the most TYPICAL Liberal elitest bilge you've ever read, or what?
I won't bother you with *the* sordid details of a story which happened a few years ago, but here are just the facts...
While staying at the Union Station Hyatt Regency in downtown St.Louis, my bride & I sauntered into the lounge for a cocktail.
It wasn't but a few minutes & we were watching OJ Simpson *live* (on the lounge TV) leading a caravan of LA County deputies down an LA xway.
Suddenly the place became JAMMED with none other than participants of the Investigative Journalists Association convention in the adjacent, "Great Hall;" all wanting to watch the *spectacle* -- while proceeding to get themselves properly pissed.
A cocky, quite tanked gal ("journalist") standing behind where I was sitting BARGED into a private conversation I was having with my wife, & made the comment, "My-my; you are a pompous one, aren't you?"
I nearly fell outa my chair at the audacity & unmitigated gall; but, regained my composure quick enough to *politely* tell the lass to, "Mind your own business."
She must've deduced I meant business from the tone of my voice (miracle of miracles...) since she proceeded to move to another location, presumably to invade someone else's privacy?
The chutzpah displayed by today's "journalists" is beautifully summed-up in the one sentence of Mr. Li's in a way I could never describe if left to my own devices; since, that brand of brash, obnoxious arrogance is quite foreign to me.
In my opin, HH is wasting his precious time with this consummate fool; as this breed (of *journalist*) has an inbuilt, "There before the Grace of God go I" mentality one simply cannot fight nor reason with.
Dear Mr. Li:
Through this war and your reporting your newspaper has given me hope. You see, I hate this country and its president. I hate the military. I hate any republican or anybody who works for a republican. The deaths of these people mean nothing but happiness for me.
Well, thank you for reporting things in a manner that puts these terrible people in increased danger. We all know that the enemies of our enemies are our friends, and that they cannot watch all the news all the time. But they can rely on your paper to give them the information they need. They don't have to search. They just read your internet site.
Thank you, Mr. Li! When those soldiers die because of your paper's reporting I will not send flowers to the soldier's graves, but flowers to you, for you are the one that helps rid our country of these power-hungry 'patriots.' Some day we will see this government blossom into the full flower it should be, because you helped remove the restraints!
Muhammad Al Pseveneleven
Maybe letters like this will throw some logic into the 'minds-at-the-times.'
...WALTER CRONKITE =
...The Anti-U.S. Enemies Within
I dunno GortK.
I'd bet (you) dollars to donuts upon reading this letter?
Mr. Li will begin to flush beet-red while blushing as he stammers about saying, "Geee Shucks..."
-really.
Nice try; but hey?
I get it, though. {g}
There. All better.
I always thought that the Tribune had some integrity and a hard-nose conservative (back when I was a mindless, liberal undergrad in Chicago) philosophy. Can't be true anymore.
Or Cuba.
RonDog, please add me to the ping list. Thanks.
Oh come on now. We all know better. Foot in mouth from the first sentence. Hard to be credible when you start with an EXCUSE.
"...men should live by
the rule of what is best
for the greatest number.
That sooner or later...
somewhere...somehow...
we must settle with the world
and make payment ..."
From the Lone Ranger Creed
You Da Man, RonDog!!!
Utmost FReegards to you and Mr. Hewitt...MUD
BTW...how old is Mr. Hewitt?! I've never heard the guy's show, but from the posts I've seen on FR, he seems like the best talk show host this side of Rush Limbaugh and I'd like to see about getting his show tape-delayed here in Richmond on either WRVA-1140 or LEE-990.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.