Shocking Twist, and Malkin doesn't have to go to Iraq

[BT]

As I said, he has a lot more reason to fear the "government" and its American "advisor's" than he does to fear the A.P.

You miss the mark. The issue is whether it is plausible for AP to bribe an Iraqi official to say a nebulous source exists and make an embarrassing situation go away.

Not whether Jamils life is in danger for AP naming him as a source. If he doesn't exist he has no life to pt into danger.

There is no real evidence that the guy exists. Just some MOI guys and the APs word.

more:
http://richardminiter.pajamasmedia.com/2007/01/02/jamil_hussein_and_confederate.php

[Michael Tee]

<<You miss the mark. The issue is whether it is plausible for AP to bribe an Iraqi official to say a nebulous source exists and make an embarrassing situation go away. >>

When the alternative is just to fire the guy who made up the source, it is highly IMPLAUSIBLE that the AP would compound its employee's wrongdoing and commit a federal crime rather than fire the guy.  It's never happened before.  The SOP is to fire the reporter, apologize profusely and move on.  THAT'S plausible.

[Amianthus]

AP would compound its employee's wrongdoing and commit a federal crime

Which federal crime would AP be committing if it lied about a source?

[Michael Tee]

<<Which federal crime would AP be committing if it lied about a source?>>

I wasn't referring to lying about a source.  BT's theory was that the AP paid the Iraqi MOI guy to "find" Jamil's name in its records.  Bribery of a foreign government official is a federal crime.

[BT]

The SOP is to fire the reporter, apologize profusely and move on.  THAT'S plausible.

WIth 61 articles,presumably passing through fact checkers and editors,  and denials from executive editors, this case went beyond the original journalist pretty quickly. Corporate credibility was a stake and that can be dangerous in these post rathergate days.

[Amianthus]

I wasn't referring to lying about a source.  BT's theory was that the AP paid the Iraqi MOI guy to "find" Jamil's name in its records.  Bribery of a foreign government official is a federal crime.

Actually, it's not.

From US Code:

          CHAPTER 11--BRIBERY, GRAFT, AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
 
Sec. 201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses

    (a) For the purpose of this section--
        (1) the term ``public official'' means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
        (2) the term ``person who has been selected to be a public official'' means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and
        (3) the term ``official act'' means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official's official capacity, or in such official's place of trust or profit.

http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=312462194209+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

So, bribing an official of the US Government is a federal offense, but bribing an official of a foreign government is not.

[Michael Tee]

I believe there is another statute or another section of the statute you quoted from that makes it a federal offence to bribe a foreign government officer.

[Amianthus]

I believe there is another statute or another section of the statute you quoted from that makes it a federal offence to bribe a foreign government officer.

Feel free to quote it, then. I did, after all, provide a source.

[sirs]

I believe there is another statute or another section of the statute you quoted from that makes it a federal offence to bribe a foreign government officer.

Feel free to quote it, then. I did, after all, provide a source.

This should be interesting   

[Michael Tee]

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/dojdocb.htm

That wasn't too hard.  It's expressed in terms of bribing for business favours, but there is an obvious business benefit in store for the AP in preserving its credibility and alteration of the official records or lying about their contents certainly confers a business benefit on a dishonest or incompetent news bureau by making it look more credible than it actually is.

[Amianthus]

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/dojdocb.htm

That wasn't too hard.  It's expressed in terms of bribing for business favours, but there is an obvious business benefit in store for the AP in preserving its credibility and alteration of the official records or lying about their contents certainly confers a business benefit on a dishonest or incompetent news bureau by making it look more credible than it actually is.

Sincerely doubt it would apply. AP's business is in the US, so any bribery doesn't apply under the "make and keep business" clause. They don't publish in Iraq.

[Michael Tee]

<<Sincerely doubt it would apply. AP's business is in the US, so any bribery doesn't apply under the "make and keep business" clause. They don't publish in Iraq.>>

AP's business is to gather the news and to publish the news.  They certainly gather it from all over the world, Iraq included, and are published everywhere people read their stories.  "Publication" is the act of dissemination of the news, not just running paper through presses.

If they published material on the brutality of U.S. and/or puppet forces, the U.S. federal government would be powerless to stop them - - but if they also bribed a foreign official, God help them!  The U.S. would prosecute them to the limits of its ability.

[BT]

If they published material on the brutality of U.S. and/or puppet forces, the U.S. federal government would be powerless to stop them - - but if they also bribed a foreign official, God help them!  The U.S. would prosecute them to the limits of its ability.

I say we audit AP and get to the bottom of this corporate malfeasance. Where is Elliot Spitzer when you need him.

[Amianthus]

AP's business is to gather the news and to publish the news.  They certainly gather it from all over the world, Iraq included, and are published everywhere people read their stories.  "Publication" is the act of dissemination of the news, not just running paper through presses.

I guess then AP would just and use one of the affirmative defenses for that act:

(c)  Affirmative defenses
It shall be an affirmative defense to actions under subsection (a) or (g) of this section that—
(1) the payment, gift, offer, or promise of anything of value that was made, was lawful under the written laws and regulations of the foreign official’s, political party’s, party official’s, or candidate’s country; or
(2) the payment, gift, offer, or promise of anything of value that was made, was a reasonable and bona fide expenditure, such as travel and lodging expenses, incurred by or on behalf of a foreign official, party, party official, or candidate and was directly related to—
(A) the promotion, demonstration, or explanation of products or services; or
(B) the execution or performance of a contract with a foreign government or agency thereof.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/usc_sec_15_00000078--dd001-.html

Hey, if the prosecution can stretch the definition of "doing business with" to include "watching them" then I'm sure AP's lawyers can stretch the definition of "promotion, demonstration, or explanation of products or services" to include making up some records of a "source."

[Michael Tee]

It's touching to see the faith you have in the AP's lawyers.  However, I think that most reasonable businessmen, given the choice of

(a) firing one or more incompetent and/or dishonest employees (in a field where there are notoriously more job-seekers than job-holders) and just moving on - - or,

(b) committing what might possibly be a federal offence and hoping that the company's lawyers will  be skillful enough, with or without the assistance and counsel of Amianthus, to get them off, in which case - - even if the lawyers DO get them off - -  their reputation is shattered far beyond what it would have been had they just fired the reporters and moved on;

would, if they had a single fucking brain in their head, opt for choice (a), which has the added advantages of not leaving them vulnerable to perpetual blackmail by the bribed government official, not costing them any more money in bribes and lawyers' fees, not exposing them to further risk of embarrassment by keeping a bunch of dishonest and/or incompetent schmucks on the payroll, and last but not least, of doing the right thing.

In fact, the whole raft of advantages that arise from firing the reporters is so overwhelming, and the disadvantages of bribing the Iraqi so obviously wrong, that it is nowhere but in the fevered imagination of a rightwing fruitcake that one could even seriously entertain option for even a microsecond.  It's what I mean EXACTLY when I say that the rightwing has got its head stuck up its ass so far that it has permanently lost all connection to the real world.