I, too, noticed Mr. F's trashing of the internet, which followed Brokaw telling about people saying something about something to him and supporting it by saying "I saw it on the internet."

Brokaw said he responds by telling them they should be sure the information they get off the Net has been "vetted."

I truly wished that at that moment there was someone there to ask him "Do you give them that same advice about the evening TV news?"

On the other hand, as the saying goes, some questions need only be asked.

Seconding Glenn's contention about media types who just blindly (and blandly) repeat whatever BS anonymous sources and government PR handouts give them, comes this quote, referring to another case where the media missed the story:

In that case, the particular outlet in question

simply decided that if there was a conflict between "government officials" and other sources, well, of course the government must be telling the truth. ...

One reason for that is an unacknowledged but extremely powerful bias in favor of "official," American, or famous sources over unofficial, non-American, or non-famous (or worse, infamous) sources. ...

What are we to make of such media? The same thing, I expect we're to make of media that still jump to believe the likes of Richard Allen and Donald Gregg.

The names, I expect, are a tip-off to the time frame. Specifically, it was December 1991. I was the author.

The more things change and all that.

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this; I haven't read all the comments. Forgive me if this is a repeat.

Kiriakou to Roberts: The next day he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate because it would make it easier on the other brothers who had been captured.

Kiriakou to Blitzer: The next day, he told his interrogators that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate, so that it would easier on the other brothers who had been captured.

Something that trial lawyers learn is that when someone repeatedly tells the same story in the same words (except for minor variations like "because" versus "so that"), it's a sign that the statement has been memorized.

Glenn -

Last summer, I was a recipient of one of those things that go around the blog: a "Thinking Blogger Award." In response, you're supposed to nominate five others. In choosing my five, I gave as one of my criteria that I was confident that in the event of the election of a Democrat to the White House, they would not be among those that would immediately turn from attack dogs into lap dogs.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that while I understand your frustration at being assailed for daring to criticize Obama, what I can't figure out is why you seem surprised.

Congratulations on your well-deserved Izzy Award.

Some years ago I ran a monthly mimeographed newsletter called "Lotus" which in a later incarnation was consciously modeled on the Bi-Weekly (as it was by the time I became aware of Stone). A fond memory is of the time I was invited to give a talk to a college-level US history class and the instructor introduced me as "a worthy successor to I. F. Stone."

The rest of my life hasn't lived up to that description but I still can feel flattered recalling it.

I'll leave it to others to determine whether Miller's article was written to convey that Obama had decided to continue the Bush rendition program.

This undoubtedly lies at the root of the disputes I've had over this.

I did not for one instant think the article was meant to say that Obama was continuing Bush's program. And I honestly don't see how anyone could read it that way without serious forcing.

I read it as saying that Obama was shutting down the secret prisons and the torture regime but "leaving intact" one portion of the program: the option of kidnapping suspects to be delivered for trial, either here or abroad - that is, he was leaving open the very option you presented in your hypothetical about bin Laden.

That option is controversial, as you yourself tacitly admit when you addressed that bin Laden hypothetical to those who believe rendition is wrong in all cases.

As a final note, still related to the "controversial" argument, as much as I respect (and frequently cite) the work of Human Rights Watch, the opinion of one of its directors is not the final determinant of what is "controversial" among human rights advocates.

Damn! And here I was all happy about Obama doing something of which I would wholeheartedly approve!

Thanks fer nuthin', Glenn.

Dang.

Those who are arguing that rendition is illegitimate in all cases ... have the obligation to answer that question specifically....

No we don't. And I won't answer it first because it's a ticking-time-bomb question and second because it's a slippery slope that ends up where George Bush pushed us.

Re first: A ticking-time-bomb question is one where the situation specified is exactly what it needs to be to force the "my way or let the bad guys win" choice.

Re second: Okay, assume we agree to rendition in that case. But then suppose we realize we can't try bin Laden because there's no way in hell we could find an impartial jury. What do we do then? Just let him go? Or, wait, no, maybe send him somewhere not so dainty about legal rights? And what about the information he may have? We can't just ask him for it, can we? Don't you want to stop potential attacks on us?

And where are we then? Once you cross that line, how do you set down a new one?