Professor Murphy On Why He Thinks He Was Targeted:
The Daily Princetonian has an interesting story on Walter Murphy and the No-Fly list that sheds more light on why Professor Murphy thinks he was intentionally targeted for his speech:
Of course, none of this directly answers whether Professor Murphy was targeted. But I think it does add reason to think (in light of the sparse facts we know) that Professor Murphy may be reading a bit more into things than is warranted.
Murphy added that it could be a coincidence — "if you believe in the Easter bunny, yeah" — but said he doesn't think that it is.The story continues:
"The coincidences are multiplying," he said. He cited the "outing" of CIA agent Valerie Plame immediately after her husband's public questioning of the rationale behind the war in Iraq and two of his personal acquaintances, who are critics of the Bush administration and are also on the no-fly list.
"It begins to strain credulity," he said.
Murphy doesn't think that his name — which, he points out, is half-German, half-Irish — is common enough to suggest a case of mistaken identity.Assuming Professor Murphy's views are being represented here accurately, these explanations don't exactly inspire confidence that Professor Murphy's beliefs are justified. First, I can't see any connection between this and the outing of Valerie Plame. Second, a quick check with Peoplefinder found 380 people with the name "Walter Murphy." The fact that Professor Murphy has "only known of one other" seems a bit myopic. And finally, even though it's a joke, the comment about regretting not having been on Nixon's enemies list suggests that Professor Murphy may be a bit too inclined to interpret events as having targeted him in particular.
"I've only known of one other Walter Murphy, and that was a rock guy back in the '70s," he said.
Ultimately, Murphy said, there's little doubt in his mind that the airline ban is an annoyance deliberately devised for him by the government, albeit one that he has found amusing. "I was always sorry I didn't make Nixon's hit-list, but making Bush's hit-list is almost as good," he joked.
Of course, none of this directly answers whether Professor Murphy was targeted. But I think it does add reason to think (in light of the sparse facts we know) that Professor Murphy may be reading a bit more into things than is warranted.
Related Posts (on one page):
Actually, it doesn't. Professor Murphy's feelings about Bush and Nixon do nothing to explain the fact that he was on the selectee list. He's only suggesting that the best answer he can come up with is his vocal opposition to this administration. Plame is an obvious example of how vindictive they can be.
Do you have any good explanation for why his name (and that of 380 others -- which,I should add, is 1 in 1 million) is on the selectee list??
To prove the point: There are 76 Jacque Smiths, but only 33 Jacque Martins. I don't buy that (there are apparently no Vijays of any kind, which is obviously false)
1. Murphy was on the list.
2. Murphy doesn't like the Bush administration.
What do we not know?
1. Whether Murphy should, in fact, be on the list.
2. Whether he was put on the list because of his speech.
In view of what we do and don't know, it seems to me that it really doesn't make a lot of sense to discuss Murphy's "case." Of course, it might still be of interest to discuss no-fly lists in general, some of which has occurred in commentary to prior posts. But Murphy's case itself? Not enough information.
For that matter, a name with German and Irish parts isn't all that rare (I mean, wasn't Don Vito Corleone's consigliere a "Kraut-Mick?"). I have an ultimately French first name, Scottish middle name, and German last name. I'm a white person in America: we tend to have backgrounds including various European nations. It's not as though his name were Mbele Murphy, Takahiro Murphy, or Alberto Murphy.
Judging from how the rest of The War Against Terror has been fought, I'd say that's as convincing and more.
I'd place my money on mistake rather than deliberate targeting.
But the Administration is so open about these sorts of things, I'm sure we'll get a full explanation shortly.
The combination of "walter murphy" or "W. murphy" and "alias" is not found in a Lexis search of newspapers and magazine stories. Is that the type of thing that would be publicized, or kept under wraps?
As Kevin Colbert might say, this is JUST LIKE when America went to war over false reports of WMD. Except this time, people got hurt.
The fact that we haven't heard from other Walter Murphys (ies?) who have been stopped isn't evidence - how often are people stopped for extra scrutiny? How often do we hear about it? This particular Murphy has called attention to one particular incident.
Conspiracy theorists seem to believe the government is omniscient. My rule of thumb is that if the White House can't keep a dalliance with an intern a secret, there is no way that the government could cover up involvement in the Kennedy assassination, or keep the thousands of people deriving technology from the spacecraft in Area 51 from going on Oprah.
It is also a good rule of thumb to not "attribute to malice that which can be adequately be explained by incompetence."
Even if the Bush administration (or any administration for that matter) was competent enough and had the time to go out of their way to mildly inconvenience minor critics, one suspects they would instead direct their puissance to more immediate concerns (like, I don't know, winning a war). Solving pressing problems would do more to silence/win over critics of the administration than misplacing their baggage.
Of course, take my opinion with a grain of salt. Perhaps I'm on Karl Rove's payroll. The conspiracy is, after all, enormous.
Would you want to share a plane with a nut like this?
Uh, no, we do not "know" this. We know that Murphy says that he "was denied a boarding pass because [he] was on the Terrorist Watch list". He does not tell us how he knows this - presuambly someone told him that, although he does not say who. We have no way of evaluating whether it is, in fact, true. And, moreover, Murphy himself has no way of evaluating whether it is, in fact, true.
Moreover, given the extensive problems with Murphy's credibility, I'd put the chances that he actually is on the list at approximately .01%
That's funny, the Plame affair was the first thing I thought of when I read the initial post. Remember, it was a "vicious" attempt by Cheney and or Bush to "smear" their "enemies." On day one of that whole saga, I remember thinking that didn't make any sense. How exactly did it "smear" or "discredit" Wilson to trumpet the fact that his wife worked for the CIA? I mean, so what? But even normally smart, skeptical Bush critics convinced themselves -- beyond a shadow of a doubt -- that it was all a Machiavellian plot by those evil, scheming Republicans.
Occam's Razor suggests we are talking about mere incompetence here, not malice. But then, I'm a graduate of a 10th-rate public university, not a professor emeritus at Princeton, so what do I know?
- Alaska Jack
Now that's good old fashioned respect for one's elders.
Or has the baby been thrown out with the bath water and now it's time to re-evaluate his writings given the assumptions made here that he is a raving paranoid narcissistic liberal?
I am continually amazed at the lack of intelligence displayed by those who aspire to post-graduate degrees. And in the sobering and vaunted field of the law.
Having made the smart ass comment, and since DavidNY is keeping score, Prof Murphy's situation, however, does raise another more important question--Once on such an apparently kafkaesque list, why is it so difficult to get off of it--that to me is the more important question.
Wait -- so it's already beyond straining credibility? When did that happen?
Stipulating that the Administration had good reason for putting "Walter Murphy" on a list, that the good Professor is being unduly paranoid (as well as showing an entirely unwarranted faith in the ability of this Administration to execute, at least in the matter of putting opponents on lists), that we need lists; stipulating all that as I say it still bothers me that such lists corrode the trust and confidence a citizen should have in his government. I go back to David Brin's "Transparent Society"—there should be a way for people to see the list and challenge the process and the information.
Still, maybe he has gotten what he wanted. After his, "Don't you know who I am comment," we ARE still talking about him.
It seems more likely he was a "selectee" for a random screening - which happened to my wife and I on the way back from our honeymoon because a helpful airline counter agent rearranged our return itinerary from Orlando to get us home earlier than we were scheduled...
Oh - the TSA also has a low opinion of the airline clerk's editorializing as presented in the article - he'd better watch out for his job if the airline figures out who he is.
1. Person X discovers that their name is on the list in front of the clerk
2. Their name is on the list only because someone else with the same or similar name was targeted.
3. Person X speculates as to why they may be on the list. Many people participate in peace marches, it's probably among the most common thing people think of.
4. The airline clerk begins to see a correlation between being on the no-fly-list and peace marches.
Remember that the list doesn't only contain names, it also contains name fragments. The list may only have W. Murphey, or Walter M. and this individual would be flagged.
"We"? "Ban"? "A lot of people"? "Speech marches"?
Rashomon, American-style.
No way! I can't believe you fell for that! Sure -- Hawley "just happened" to be at the WSJ offices THE DAY AFTER this important story broke! Obviously, James Taranto and Kip Hawley are part of the unholy cabal here, and this whole affair was set up from the beginning. But while drawing up the evil plan, Cheney made one crucial oversight: He didn't anticipate the betrayal of his confidante and right-hand man, the selfless airline clerk who dragged the whole sordid affair into the light of day.
Thank you, noble airline clerk, whoever you may be. The dark night of tyranny will never fall while incorruptible warriors like you toil in unceasing vigilance!
- Alaska Jack
The reason most haven't gone with the "mistake" thing that you have latched onto is b/c Mr. Murphy himself is showing exactly how inflated his head is.
I promise to come down off of my soapbox when Mr. Murphy climbs down from his.
Bill Harshaw, I disagree 100% here. Letting people see the list and learn how it is compiled would defeat the entire purpose of this list. Assuming the list is intended to flag potential terrorists for additional scrutiny, then publicizing the process would be the best way to assist terrorists in avoiding said heightened scrutiny. The list/process should be overseen by a limited group, and not the general public. Otherwise, what's the point in having a list in the first place?
Specifically, my comment that the professor is paranoid and self-centered is not technically an ad hominem, as it actually goes to the very substance of the man's accusations. These two traits explain why he thinks he's being singled out and persecuted. Lots of people are flagged as a matter of random mistake. This guy, because he is paranoid and self-centered, sees a design and plan behind the random mistake. I bet this guy even believes in a flying spaghetti monster!
Here's an illustration:
Al Gore: "I am being mocked because I am black."
Joe: "Al Gore is white."
Has right-wing Joe committed an ad hominem? NO.
Eddie,
I am continually amazed at the arrogance and condescension shown by those who apparently see anyone who disagrees with them as "right wing crazies." So much for the "reality based community."
The only reason I say 'almost certainly' was not on the list is that we cannot discount the possibility that 'the evil Bush hegemony' realized who they had harassed and quickly took his name off in order to give themselves cover from the inevitable firestorm that would ensue. Or something.
We can discuss how inaccurate the watch-lists are, how hard it is to get off them, how ineffective they may be, or any other variation on the theme. But please let's not use this case as an example. The only story here is the clerk who fed into his paranoia. Whether it was sincerely said, sarcasm, or just a way to get an obviously very upset passenger to redirect his anger, it has led to a PR kerfuffle for the TSA and airlines in general. I'm sure his or her fellow ticket agents will love the new rants they will now hear from people on the random selection list in the future.
Your point that intellignece / law enforcement is more efficient when secret is true in one way, but ignores some of the basic realities of how massive bureaucracies act. The people staffing all organizations have goals and interests which are different from the organization itself. This "agency problem" is not unique to government, but governments tend to exhibit it more, because they are among the largest organizations, and their accountability/control procedures tend to be weaker (to avoid problems of oppression).
At best, the management of any bureaucracy focuses more on *seeming* effective than on *being* effective (since *seeming* effective is how one gets promoted). The FBI is frequently criticized for this, and the criticism appears to have some foundation. I've worked for other federal agencies, some of which I thought did a good job, and they all have this problem to a greater or lesser extent. Nor is this agency problem new - Shakespeare referred to "the insolence of office" as one of life's unavoidable evils.
Sure, it *could* be efficient and effective in secret, if the tens of thousands of people involved could find a way to overcome the agency problems. But, in the real world, thats impossible, and secrecy typically ends up being more useful for covering up administrative embarrassment than for furthering the mission.
You are correct. I interpret this view as "secrecy breeds incompetence and abuse." But I don't see how any flight watch list can be effective if it operates under publicly available criteria. If we published the formula, it wouldn't matter to joe public (since it would be marginally inconvenient to tailor their behavior patterns just to comply), and joe public would still get mis-flagged at about the current rate. It would make a big difference to an actual terrorist, however, who would have a strong motivation to tailor his behavior to avoid scrutiny. If terrorist "bob" knew the forumla, he would know when he was NOT going to get higher scrutiny, and thus he would have a huge increase in effectiveness.
So yes, the secrecy has problems. But I don't see any way around it. As far as "seeming effective" goes, I have to say that when the issue is stopping plane attacks, things "seem" pretty successful to me (albeit annoying and inefficient).
The word myopic is too kind. Stupid is a better description. Does the good Professor really think that 'Walter Murphy' is a name unique to him?
Good thing for tenure.
If he is on the no-fly list, then his name should pop up whenever he travels. It doesn't.
For those suffering from BDS, I have a simple question. Are the people in Bush Adminstration bumbling idiots, who lie about everything but make make Inspector Cleuseau Forrest Gump look like Mensa candidates or are they so smart and so cleanly efficient in their desire to make the United States the Fourth Reich that they are monitoring the political activities of obscure retired college professors so they can put these people on the No Fly List?
Just asking.
I think James Taranto's Best of the Web commentary is spot on.
For those suffering from BDS, I have a simple question. Are the people in the Bush Adminstration bumbling idiots, who lie about everything but who make make Inspector Cleuseau and Forrest Gump look like Mensa candidates or are they so smart and so cleanly efficient in their desire to make the United States the Fourth Reich that they are monitoring the political activities of obscure retired college professors so they can put these people on the No Fly List?
Just asking.
As others have pointed out, the fact that Murphy was allowed to fly proves he wasn't on the no-fly list. It may be that his *name*, which he shares with hundreds of other people in the United States, was on the no-fly list. The most obvious explanation is that somebody else with that name did something to get put on the list -- not that Bush is singling out some no-name professor for critical remarks.
If Walter Murphy is, in fact, on the list then all 706 of those other Walter Murphys would, in fact, be getting stopped and questioned, too. That's how the system works.
Either (a) this is not happening because Walter Murphy's name is not, in fact, on the watch list (we have only his word on this, remember) or (b) it IS happening, and we have not heard about it simply because the average person, when selected for heightened scrutiny during the boarding process (before being allowed, as in this case, to continue to board the plane) does not immediately run to the press screaming "OMFG teh Bushitler is oppressing me". That sort of behavior is reserved for the excessively narcissistic.
A factotum scurries toward his master, bent almost double. "Lord Cheney, public opposition to our war of conquest is growing."
The dark lord's voice is barely above a whisper. "This is as anticipated."
"But, Lord, what shall we do?"
Cheney's eyes glow even more reddly as he considers. "How many are foolish enough to oppose us?"
"Millions, mighty Lord, millions."
"Select out one of them for ... special treatment."
The factotum cackles evilly. "Death, my lord?"
There is a pause. "No, death is too good for him. Too quick. We must make an example. Put him on the list for..." He seems to savor the punishment for a moment before pronouncing it, the blackened tongue running over the sharp teeth. "Put him on the list for a five-minute delay on check-in at the airport. But only once. After all, we don't want people to think we're monsters." Something like a laugh, a low Satanic laugh, erupts from the creature on the throne.
The factotum nods gravely and turns to leave, only to hear, "One more thing."
"Yes, Lord?"
"Lose his luggage."
That was the best satire I have read in long time. Keep it up.
The Social Security Death Index lists 556 Walter Murphys. It has 1 "Orin Kerr" 2 "Lawrence/Laurence Tribe" 11 "Bruce Ackerman" 254 "Louis/Louis Powell" and 1022 "William Douglas/Douglass," and over 16000 "John Smith."
You haven't a clue why Libby wasn't indicted concerning Plame. Aren't you aware that you can't out an agent who is public? She wasn't a covert agent. Layoff those detective classes.
However, since as many have pointed out he was allowed to fly again without specific scrutiny, hew as most likely not on the no-fly list. So this is an instance of neither incompetence nor malice.
No fly don't bother me
No fly don't bother me
I'm professor Walt Murphy
I'm not a terrorist, George Bush lies
I'm not a terrorist, tell me why
I'm not a terrorist, I can't fly
but they still lost my baggage
Bored Airline Gate person, deals with angry shouting passengers for most of each day, gradually develops coping mechanism of trying to guess which explanation will most excite the &**()() in front of him who has pushed one too many buttons.
Actually, there is a pool going with the other gate people which will be won when one of them literally makes the angry shouter's head explode. They're still working on the target phrase. "A Lot of Peace Activists" seems to come close.
People with BDS will answer, "Yes!"
Which is the same as the DC and NYC white pages. =)
The Daily Princetonian's account with the additional insights to Professor Murphy's reasoning only serves to make him look sillier in my eyes.