There’s a long history in journalism of people speaking the truth – and being willing to identify themselves to the media (as here) – to prove what they’re saying is legit, while still keeping their identity a secret from the public / from their bosses, so they can’t be punished. Seems okay to me.
Maybe so, but analysis from an anonymous lawyer is still no better than analysis from an internet stranger.
What would you think about a letter casting doubt on, say, climate change signed by 50 university professors? I would immediately check their affiliation. If they are all from the Department of Music, then their opinion is no better than anyone else’s.
Likewise, law is a highly subspecialized field. For all I know, the letter was written by a bunch of IP lawyers. In which case, their opinions on potential war crimes would not be particularly valuable.
Oh, come on. You know this isn’t from the damn music department. They actually went out of their way to indicate what were the credentials of the specific sources they talked to.
a DOJ attorney
a DHS attorney
A State Department staffer with more than two decades of policy experience, including in foreign assistance in the Middle East
Or, with equal validity, I could say they could include Merrick Garland and Jonathan Meyer.
You’re implying that they’re probably anonymous because they’re nobodies, as opposed to because they’re doing exactly what’s the standard thing to do when you have an issue with what your employer the United States Govt is doing.
You’re also comparing them to music professors speaking on climate change, when professors have tenure specifically because of this exact issue, so they can speak publicly on controversial issues without being fired for it if they cross someone powerful. Since these people don’t have that protection, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that the reason they’re anonymous is because they want to be able to tell the truth without being fired, and they’re using the exact mechanism built into our society for doing that.
You’re implying that they’re probably anonymous because they’re nobodies
Not at all. If they are anonymous, then they are no better than an internet stranger but also no worse.
We’re all equal here. After all, for all I know you could be Merrick Garland.
And I fully understand why they want to remain anonymous. I’m anonymous too. But claiming the benefits of anonymity means giving up the mantle of authority. You can only earn that by providing your CV.
There is, but unfortunately that process was pretty slipshod here. All we can conclude is that the Intercept interviewed four authors and confirmed that at least three of them are government lawyers.
They don’t report anything about legal backgrounds beyond that. Perhaps they think that’s sufficient but I don’t. Maybe other news outfits will do better.
There’s a long history in journalism of people speaking the truth – and being willing to identify themselves to the media (as here) – to prove what they’re saying is legit, while still keeping their identity a secret from the public / from their bosses, so they can’t be punished. Seems okay to me.
Maybe so, but analysis from an anonymous lawyer is still no better than analysis from an internet stranger.
What would you think about a letter casting doubt on, say, climate change signed by 50 university professors? I would immediately check their affiliation. If they are all from the Department of Music, then their opinion is no better than anyone else’s.
Likewise, law is a highly subspecialized field. For all I know, the letter was written by a bunch of IP lawyers. In which case, their opinions on potential war crimes would not be particularly valuable.
Source anonymity is an important and necessary part of journalism to protect said sources. It’s the journalists’ job to do the vetting.
Oh, come on. You know this isn’t from the damn music department. They actually went out of their way to indicate what were the credentials of the specific sources they talked to.
Yes, I know they aren’t in the music department.
What I said is that they could be IP lawyers (who exist in both DOJ and DHS).
Or in the case of State, likely not a lawyer at all.
Or, with equal validity, I could say they could include Merrick Garland and Jonathan Meyer.
You’re implying that they’re probably anonymous because they’re nobodies, as opposed to because they’re doing exactly what’s the standard thing to do when you have an issue with what your employer the United States Govt is doing.
You’re also comparing them to music professors speaking on climate change, when professors have tenure specifically because of this exact issue, so they can speak publicly on controversial issues without being fired for it if they cross someone powerful. Since these people don’t have that protection, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that the reason they’re anonymous is because they want to be able to tell the truth without being fired, and they’re using the exact mechanism built into our society for doing that.
Not at all. If they are anonymous, then they are no better than an internet stranger but also no worse.
We’re all equal here. After all, for all I know you could be Merrick Garland.
And I fully understand why they want to remain anonymous. I’m anonymous too. But claiming the benefits of anonymity means giving up the mantle of authority. You can only earn that by providing your CV.
If only there were a process where some third party could vouch for their credentials while keeping them anonymous
There is, but unfortunately that process was pretty slipshod here. All we can conclude is that the Intercept interviewed four authors and confirmed that at least three of them are government lawyers.
They don’t report anything about legal backgrounds beyond that. Perhaps they think that’s sufficient but I don’t. Maybe other news outfits will do better.