Dana Priest Live Chat

Is going on right now.  We'll see if anything interesting pops up. Priest and Josh White wrote a couple of stories yesterday, based on leaks of classified information, about abuse of prisoners and a secret operations squad called the Scorpions that were formed to help topple Saddam but later began running amok.

UPDATE: Well, I submitted a question and a followup that Dana Priest answered. I'll add a word on my procedure momentarily, but first the exchange:

Manassas, Va.: In your story yesterday about the Scorpions, what were the motivations of the officials who compromised the secrecy of this classified program? On those rare occasions when The Post uses anonymous sources, aren't you supposed to give us some insight into why anonymous sources are speaking to you?

Dana Priest: In most stories like this, it's an issue of trying to help me get it right, with some proper context, rather than wrong in some way. Both those stories took a very long time to put together....you are right about unattributed sources but only if they have some particular motive. In this case, I don't see an obvious one other than the one I just stated.

And the followup:

Manassas, Va.: Dana, thanks for taking the question on motives, but isn't there usually something going on more than some source being nice enough to help you get it right? Couldn't the motivations range from everything to a sincere interest in stopping the kind of abuse said to be committed by the Scorpions to outright opposition to the war effort? And don't you agree that conveying that kind of information will help us evaluate the situation?

Dana Priest: In some cases yes. But I won't apply it to this case.

In fact, as I've said recently, the motives for leakers are rarely addressed in the Post. It's obvious to me that this leaves a huge gap in the story if we're asked to believe there was just this kindly anonymous source looking out for the integrity of Dana Priest and the Washington Post--especially if the issue isn't addressed in the story.

Now about that procedure... When I posted these questions I didn't identify myself as Christopher Fotos at PostWatch and here's why: When I've done so in recent chats, my questions have not been addressed. This could be random--they get lots of questions--but it also could be out of a lack of interest in promoting a site that criticizes the Post every single freakin' day.  And in my recent attempts to communicate with ombudsman Michael Getler--before he went on vacation--I've been ignored.

So I just submitted the questions as Manassas, Va., which is all they ask for.

It's a pity, because I had an excellent exchange as PostWatch in Richard Morin's chat about a poll I questoned, some time back. Hopefully he hasn't been thrashed for that.

LIVE CHAT UPDATE: Still going on, I'm still here, nothing too exciting--only my own questions are fascinating. Priest did open with a tidbit on some AIPAC-related indictments coming along--it's at the top of her chat.

UPDATE:

Beaverton, Ore.: Are there any American connections to the British rail bombers?

Also, the rail bombers seem to have come from families that we would think of as assimilated into the society.

Does that mean intelligence experts are generating new "profiles" of potential terrorists? And those profiles would include citizenship, therefore intelligence seems to me to be moving directly into law enforcement's territory by potentially monitoring citizens activites.

I'm concerned about that as an invasion of our liberty.

Dana Priest: Well, you got that right. Especially in Europe with its huge Muslim immigrant communities....

Me, I'm concerned about being blown up on the subway. Maybe they don't have them in Beaverton.

UPDATE:

Washington, D.C.: Have Iraqi citizens been more cooperative in providing intelligence info to us regarding insurgent activities?

Dana Priest: I think that was true in the beginning but is now getting hard for many citizens because the insurgents are clearly in the position to intimidate the population (through suicide bombs, targeting police and other IRaqis working with the Americans)

I think that's backwards, though I'm no closer physically to Iraq than Priest is. But there are plenty of accounts in Arthur Chrenkoff's Good News From Iraq series, including my excerpted Chrenkoff Today, that say they were hesitant earlier in the conflict are are now fed up and helping out a lot more.

UPDATE: Boy, Priest hangs in there--the chat started at two and ended just now, around 3:25, with the following:

Dana Priest: To "An Evolving Ethicist wondering:" I do have a personal opinion on that issue and am debating whether sharing it publicly crosses some line we journalists must maintain. Will give it some thought over my vacation. To all the rest of you: thanks for joining me and for all your insightful, difficult questions.

Another Postie takes vacation after queries posed by PostWatch! (No, not the last one, the earlier ones.) First Getler, then Kurtz.... coincidence? I think not.

Sure it's August but...