Thursday, February 02, 2006

Thanks to Commentary magazine's Davi Bernstein for sending a link to an advance copy of Gabe Schoenfeld's "Has the New York Times Violated the Espionage Act?" from the March Commentary. Schoenfeld's thesis is that while intelligent people can (and do) disagree over the legality of the NSA surveillance program, the more interesting story involves the role of the wartime press, the Constitution and whether the Times committed a criminal act.

Power Line's Scott Johnson writes that the piece "should change the terms of the debate over the NSA surveillance program." Should is--unfortunately--the operative word.

Meanwhile, the February Commentary has a review of Robert Fisk's new book. Glenn Reynolds comments on the review:
Fisk has never been strong on facts. Of course, his analysis has always been weak, too.
(Of course, this way of thinking is what led to the blogosphere verb "to fisk." Speaking of which [Nice segue. -ed], I'll take the opportunity to mention that the Little Green Footballs Dictionary cites (as of this week) my etymology of the word fisking. As, apparently, does Wikipedia, at least for the nonce.)