Today (and tomorrow) on Free Speech TV (available on various cable/satellite systems) there was a panel sponsored last fall by the American Friends (Quakers, I assume) entitled "Inquest Iraq: Veteran Witness Testimony" during which "Iraq war veterans discuss impact of invasion and occupation on soldiers and Iraqi people."
I caught a few minutes and there was two men and one woman, who supplied a fairly low key but informative perspective and responded (the segment I saw) to some questions. For instance, when asked by private contractors, they had a mixed response, noting the importance of private translators and mechanic personnel, but being wary about Blackwater type armed guards type of deals.
I wonder, not keeping track of such things, how much such people are relied on in congressional investigations. You always see generals and the likes of Condi Rice giving testimony, but how much testimony is supplied by such personnel? Not just in offices and the like, but broadcast on C-SPAN.* Maybe, they do it sometimes. Doesn't seem to be discussed too much, though.
Talking about discussing, apparently those at the CRS -- a very useful nonpartisan group that puts out various informative reports -- are talking to the press a bit too much for some people. As noted in a story here:
The Director of the Congressional Research Service last week issued a revised agency policy on "Interacting with the Media" that warns CRS analysts about the "very real risks" associated with news media contacts and imposes new restrictions on speaking to the press.
"CRS staff must report within 24 hours all on-the-record interactions with any media to their supervisor, including the name of the reporter, media affiliation, date, time, and detailed notes on the matters discussed or to be discussed," the new policy states.
The concern is that the growing media use of this resource could lead to an appearance of bias. But, such use is ultimately a good thing, if one that might require a bit of finesse in some instances to avoid misunderstandings. A heavy hand, especially if it turns off the personnel (as in some cases it does) can be counterproductive. And, what is this deal about CRS reports not being easily accessible except often by indirect means?
Meanwhile, the NYT ironically is using the state secrets doctrine -- which overall limits their ability to get material -- to defend themselves from a libel suit. If they could not obtain exculpatory information:
It would be manifestly unjust and improper to require the Times to defend against the claims being advanced by Steven Hatfill without affording it access to critical information concerning his own activities that could serve to defeat those claims.
Secrecy tends to lead to various problems, huh?
---
* For instance, C-SPAN had a great piece on those injured in combat, including Tammi Duckworth, who ran (unsuccessfully) for Congress in '06, including their physical therapy and some interviews.