Comments on: Court sentences IDF whistleblower Anat Kamm to 4.5 years

By: Y.

Y. — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:02:18 +0000

Oh, and a different conjuncture on what really happened:
.
A) A young, crackshot reporter wants to get the story. All the stories. He convinces an impressionable young clerk in the Central Command to give him lots of documents.
.
B) Blau publishes his first story based on the leaks, which the IDF (esp. the military censor) don’t consider damaging or based on too secret info, which is why they don’t try to stop Blau.
That said, they want to stop leaks. Due to negligence on Ha’artez’s part (IIRC), IDF finds Kamm quickly. So far, this isn’t considered much of an issue.
.
C) Kamm panics, does a very very stupid thing by telling the Military Police just how many really secret documents she leaked. Various people are extremely displeased.
.
D) The Shaback etc. start hounding Blau, which figures he’s in a lot of trouble. But then, he finds there’s a nice, ex-post facto, defence based on the story he released. And if that won’t work, blackmailing the IDF over the documents would do. Kamm’s defence has little choice but to follow suit with the first part. The rest is obvious.

By: Y.

Y. — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 22:04:04 +0000

The +972 talking points fail to impress.
.
First, one can’t be a ‘whistleblower’ without having something to whistle about. The problem here is that the allegations against the IDF are repeated as fact (nevermind the attorney general disagrees). If you really think the IDF violated the High Court’s ruling (which is, btw, not necessarily the same as ‘war crimes’ – I think Bin Laden’s death would have failed that ruling), ***you can sue the IDF in the high court***. The fact neither Kamm nor any of her defenders bothered to use the simple defense suggests it’s nothing more than an empty talking point.
.
Second, Kamm’s testimony in the court did not claim the alleged whistle motivation, which weakens her case even more. The court obviously can’t consider what she did not claim (which makes the lenient sentence a bit of a surprise).
.
Third, again, Kamm leaked far more than the two documents related to the accusations vs the IDF, which suggests rather different motivation. Per Dimi’s standard, every widespread leak ever would be perfectly fine – after all, in any large amount of documents, one can (mis)interpret a crime. Since Dimi does not actually want an investigation of said accusation, one can invent anything. Once this happens, the leaker can claim good faith, no matter what… Somehow, I doubt sane people would accept this ‘standard’.

By: maxim reider

maxim reider — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:45:42 +0000

Sad as it is, the text is brilliant.

By: AYLA

AYLA — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:53:20 +0000

thanks DRob–I actually did google last night and read a lot, including NYTimes and Judith Miller. But what about now? Just, too late? Or? We’re setting a dark precedent for journalism. Or maybe it’s long established.

By: directrob

directrob — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 10:11:14 +0000

Ayla, the Anat Kamm case was not that silent, it made the news all over (have a look at google).
.
As this side has to obey (the quite popular) gag orders and is probably monitored by the censor for dangerous content you better study Richard Silverstein’s site for more real scoops like these.

By: AYLA

AYLA — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 07:35:24 +0000

Thanks, SH. It really concerns me that this story isn’t getting more attention, even here (in comments). The implications of this case are dark and serious, and if we accept this without making noise, we’re heading further into darkness.

By: sh

sh — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 20:29:02 +0000

Just read Ilana Dayan’s review of Moshe Negbi’s new book.
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/are-the-superpowers-squashing-israel-s-free-press-1.392490
Chill winds.

By: AYLA

AYLA — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 19:06:18 +0000

what about a petition from respected journalists, worldwide?