Fronting the TerraWar. Miserable news judgement giving Sarah Kershaw's story ("Guardsman Charged With Trying to Spy for Al Qaeda") A1 play. A member of the Washington State National Guard was charged a week ago (a fact made public only yesterday) with an attempt to "supply information" to Al Qaeda. The story is introduced by a very nearly sensationalist, and rather misleading, opening graf:

The Army has charged a member of the Washington State National Guard with attempting to supply intelligence of Army organizations and weapons systems to the Qaeda terrorist network, Army officials said on Wednesday. The intelligence included details about military personnel, troop movement, tactics and "vulnerabilities," the charges said.

The soldier, Specialist Ryan Anderson, actually supplied intelligence to no one: he was caught in a sting, apparently a collaboration between the FBI, the Justice Dept. and the Army, apparently Internet-based, though the article offers no clear picture:

Specialist Anderson was taken into custody at Fort Lewis last week after an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Justice Department and the Army found that he had used a computer to try to contact Qaeda cells in the United States, Army officials said.

According to the charges made public on Wednesday at Fort Lewis, Specialist Anderson provided extensive information to military personnel posing as members of Al Qaeda, both in person and via the Internet.

I find it hard to square "found that he used a computer" with the mention of in-person contact. The whole article is vague and, beyond the bare minimum represented here, nearly information-free. Did Specialist Anderson know anything that might have been significant to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group? Did he somehow originate his contacts with the undercover agents, or was he targeted for the sting? The report offers "military experts" claiming the arrest as a result "of the kind of sting operation not seen since the cold war"—does that mean anything in particular, or is it just a way of hyping the charges? (Given that the piece ends with "legal experts" saying the charges are "among the most serious they had heard of since the cold war," my vote is for hype.)

And then there's this sentence, which practically made me choke on my lunchtime spicy tuna roll:

Specialist Anderson's case is the latest example of an American military soldier being formally charged with espionage ...

Remember Captain James Yee, the Guantanamo Muslim chaplain? Ms. Kershaw apparently doesn't, or it's of no importance to her to place the military's record of success in its terror-espionage hunts against the new claims in the case of this kid from Washington. (Here's a hint, Sarah: You could start with your own paper's December editorial about the Yee case ...)

What we have here is murk, murk, murk, and no suggestion of anything important having been, or likely to be, at stake: if not for the hint that some massive sting operation is underway (we'll hear a lot more about that, I'm sure) this would be a story of merely local import. Even with that hint, it's a story of merely local import. Except, maybe, I don't know, for the fact that the soldier (whose photo is available in the print edition but not, for whatever reason, online) is a Muslim convert, and white.

So is the Times simply succumbing to prurience, and in the process tabloidizing its front page? That'd be bad enough: but in a week where the paper sees fit to disappear a story involving serious allegations of misconduct in the DoJ anti-terrorism effort, this comes awfully close to the Times going out of its way to pimp for the domestic TerraWar cops.

posted by michael  3:45:02 PM  
tell me about it []