The New SteveSilver.net

I forget which of the aresstees it was, so I'm not sure if it was Yee; but if I'm not mistaken the military decided to drop charges against him because they didn't want to have to reveal classified (make that currently classified nat'l security) evidence during the court martial to the defense, so as such, they dropped those charges.

As for suing the military, I don't know if that's possible...

And Malkin, I wouldn't put her on a level with Horowitz and Coulter...a rung or two lower maybe

I love Horowitz. And Malkin's issue isn't with immigrants but with illegal immigrants. I'm an immigrant but I too have major problems with illegal immigration.

Are we reading the same column? The phrase "the left" doesn't appear in Malkin's piece. She doesn't accuse Yee of "guilt by association," nor does she "decid[e] his ordeal has no validity." Nowhere does she mention "certain radical anti-war activists." Rather than "[refuse] to apologize to Yee," she conditions her apology on a comparable apology from defenders of Mike Hawash. In other words, just about everything you write about Malkin's piece is wrong. Even your brief biography is wrong: Malkin isn't an Asian immigrant, she's the daughter of Asian immigrants.

This post of yours is the shoddiest piece of analysis I've encountered in a long time.

"If members of the military could sue the government..."

I'll defer to someone more familiar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice with respect to military members in particular, but in general, you're talking about a suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act. As a sovereign, the US government has sovereign immunity: it cannot be sued without its consent, and the FTCA is that highly qualified consent with respect to most tort suits for damages. That means a bench trial (i.e., a judge sitting without a jury) before the US Court of Claims, without the possibility of punitive damages.

"...for defamation (and maybe they can; help me, lawyers!),"

That assumes quite a bit. Unlike in England, the First Amendment makes a proving a defamation here notoriously difficult. Yee is not a public official or public figure (not by his choice), but case law since New York Times v. Sullivan has constitutionalized vast swaths of defamation law, i.e., anything delaying with "matters of public concern." Yee would bear the burden of proof to show, by clear and convincing evidence (higher than the usual civil standard of a preponderance of the evidence; lower than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt) that the federal government acted with "actual malice," i.e., knowing that what they were saying was false or recklessly disregarding. Not bloody likely.

"Yee would likely be looking at a judgment in the tens of millions..."

Assuming arguendo that the US Court of Claims found the government liable for defaming him (a vast and basically unfounded assumption, see above), without a jury and without the prospect of punitive damages, I wouldn't expect a judgment to run nearly so high.

"...the anti-war left happened to be right, and Yee was innocent."

Unless you're failing to share something else you know with us that we don't, you have no way of knowing that. That someone is not prosecuted, for whatever reason, does not mean they factually are innocent.

Stephen,

First, I find it ironic (gentle word) that after writing, "Ah, always nice to see my writing skills/integrity debated in someone else's comments," you reply to me in someone else's comments before doing so in your own.

Second, I'm always skeptical when a critic rephrases an argument he disagrees with, as you do throughout your response. The more honorable and, frankly, courageous way, which you avoid, is to quote directly, then rebut. You quote only twice in your post: "the left" and "excesses." Neither term -- neither! -- appears in Malkin's piece. Let me make this plain: Unlike "CW," who replied to you at Sheila's site, I am questioning your integrity. I've doubted it before, but never so strongly.

Third, Malkin doesn't "[tie] Yee to anti-war activists and China." The "Arab-American and Asian-American activists" (she never uses the term "anti-war") and China have aligned themselves with Yee's cause. Malkin doesn't do the "tying," nor does Yee.

Fourth, I could go on -- really, I could -- but it isn't worth it. Sheila's a very sharp reader, but in this case she's let her distaste for Malkin (whom she "can't stand") lead her to praise a very poor bit of criticism.

Michael-

Just two comments, then I'm ready to put this to bed:

- I replied in Sheila's comments because people commented there before they did on my blog; as you may have seen had you looked at the post, I have linked from this post to Sheila's.

- Do you really think Michelle Malkin sees any distinction between anti-war, Asian, or Muslim activists? They're all the left/the enemy to her; as a partisan attack dog, that's the way she approaches any and all issues, as is made clear by her entire output of columns. And OF COURSE Malkin ties Yee to the activists; why do you think she refers to them as "Yee's team"?

Stephen,

You're right, we should quit. As your last reply shows, you're not honorable enough, and perhaps not intelligent enough, for a real discussion. I may leave a comment on Sheila's site, though, if I feel it's called for.

Your page, so your last word if you wish.

was michelle malkin one of those vietnamese orphans that was adopted by limousine-liberal american jews?

Michelle Malkin is not an "Asian immigrant." She was born in Philadelphia, PA.