Federal agents have interviewed officials at several of the country's law enforcement and national security agencies in a rapidly expanding criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding a New York Times article published in December that disclosed the existence of a highly classified domestic eavesdropping program, according to government officials.
The investigation, which appears to cover the case from 2004, when the newspaper began reporting the story, is being closely coordinated with criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department, the officials said. People who have been interviewed and others in the government who have been briefed on the interviews said the investigation seemed to lay the groundwork for a grand jury inquiry that could lead to criminal charges.
Alberto Gonzales just spent 8 hours testifying before Congress making clear that he considers George Bush to be "his client". Isn't it plainly inappropriate for him to be making decisions regarding who should be prosecuted for having exposed his "client's" wrongdoing to the public?
Beyond that, consider the effects of these threats on other people who may be tempted to come forward and expose other serious wrongdoing on the part of the Administration. They hear that the Justice Department is "laying the groundwork for a grand jury inquiry that could lead to criminal charges" -- might that have an effect of intimidation against anyone who might consider blowing the whistle on other forms of serious misconduct by the Bush Administration?
And it isn't just potential whistle-blowers whom they are attempting to intimidate, but journalists as well:
At the same time, conservatives have attacked the disclosure of classified information as a illegal act, demanding a vigorous investigative effort to find and prosecute whoever disclosed classified information.
An upcoming article in Commentary magazine suggests that the newspaper might be prosecuted for violations of the Espionage Act and said, "What The New York Times has done is nothing less than to compromise the centerpiece of our defensive efforts in the war on terrorism."
So now we're a country which allows its leaders to flagrantly violate the law -- even cheering them on as they do it -- and we imprison the journalists who report that illegal behavior to the public. That sounds like a lot of things. The United States isn't one of them.
The Administration has been making threatening noises like this all week:
[CIA Director Porter] Goss, speaking at a Senate intelligence committee hearing on Feb. 2, said: "It is my aim, and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information. I believe the safety of this nation and the people this country deserve nothing less."
Those were the comments about which Dick Cheney remarked on right-wing radio that, while he agreed with them, he thought they were "rather restrained." If Goss' statement that there should be a criminal investigation into the leakers and journalists is too "restrained," what more aggressive measures would Cheney like to see be taken against them?
Whatever one's views are on the NSA scandal, disclosure by The New York Times has accomplished exactly what newspapers are designed to achieve -- ensuring that highly controversial government programs, particularly ones of dubious legality, are subject to public debate and not concealed by the Government. It has long been clear that the Times disclosed only that information necessary to enable such public discussion without disclosing any operational details and without even arguably jeopardizing national security. Indeed, one of the most frivolous claims we've heard from the Bush Administration and its followers is that national security was damaged by the Times' disclosure that the Administration eavesdrops without judicial oversight (rather than with it), and that this disclosure somehow helped Al Qaeda.
For that reason, this flamboyant use of the forces of criminal prosecution to threaten whistle-blowers and intimidate journalists are nothing more than the naked tactics of street thugs and authoritarian juntas. There is much speculation over whether other eavesdropping programs exist, including domestic eavesdropping programs, as well as whether other lawless programs have been authorized based on the Administration's theories that it has the right to wield war powers against American citizens on American soil.
Our hope for finding out about the existence of other illegality depends upon the willingness of whistle blowers to come forward and journalists to investigate and report such misconduct. That is precisely why the Administration is so aggressively seeking to attack and silence those two groups, and it is why the significance and danger of those attempts really can't be overstated.
I assume the journalists would move to dismiss the charges as violative of their constitutional rights. The unintended consequence of a federal investigation would be, I presume, the Administration having to prove the legality of the program (or at least bringing into sharper focus the frivolity of the Administration's claims as to the legality of its actions). As someone once said "Bring it on."
ReplyDeleteBTW, I agree that this investigatio is designed to intimidate journalists and will have a chilling effect. My point is not to excuse this nefarious purpose.
As someone once said "Bring it on."
ReplyDeleteThat's easy to say if you're not the target of the criminal investigation. I don't think this will be the attitude of most journalists.
It's not really settled as to whether journalists can be criminally prosecuted for disclosing classified information. And the mere threat of this -- we're not talking about a civil lawsuit, we're talking about prison, potentially for a good long time, let alone the expense involved -- will make a lot of newspapers much more hesitant to report stories of this type.
The Federal Government has unlimited resources and little to lose in criminal prosecutions of this kind. But clearly newspapers - and especially government whistleblowers without a big institution behind them -- would be much more reluctant to get involved in exposing government wrongdoing if they know they will be subject to an aggressive criminal prosecution for having done so.
That, of course, is the whole purpose of this investigation. Since whistle-blowers and newspapers are really the only check we have on this Administration, that's a pretty serious step to take.
Glenn, I understand your point and I hate what the Administration is doing here, but the fact is, there is a law designed just for intelligence workers to blow their whistles that does not entail going to the press, and the whistle-blowers in this instance do not appear to have exercised that option. How (and I do not mean this rhetorically) do you defend that?
ReplyDeleteI agree that no journalist would welcome prosecution and I would never argue that a journalist should be prosecuted for publishing classified information. Rather, my point is simply that the journalists have to be prepared to aggressively defend themselves against Bush's attempts to silence them and that the silver lining (if you can call it that) would hopefully be to more loudly demonstrate Bush's illegal power grab.
ReplyDeletethere is a law designed just for intelligence workers to blow their whistles that does not entail going to the press, and the whistle-blowers in this instance do not appear to have exercised that option.
ReplyDeleteI have a lot of doubts about the efficacy of that process, given the fact that the Bush-loyal Republicans control all of the government apparatuses in town, and it is no more legal for any of the parties to publicly disclose the wrongdoing.
But even if the whistle-blowers violated the law, there are clear issues of prosecutorial discretion which would militate against any sort of prosecution - let alone criminally prosecuting the New York Times.
Why haven't any of the endless pro-Bush leaks of classified information been prosecuted - recall the leak of how they were detecting radioactive activity at mosques? This is an Administration which continuously has disclosed classified information for political gain, both overtly and covertly.
Whoever disclosed this information did so exactly for the same reason that a substantial portion of our citizenry has expressed such outrage over what has been done here - becuase whoever did it was quite disturbed by its illegality - and they did it in a way that national security was not even remotely harmed. There is no justification for this criminal prosecution.
The only reason this is being prosecuted is because the disclosure harmed the political interests of the White House, not the national security interests of the country - and these prosecutions will enable the Adminsistration to operate with no accountability at all.
"Why haven't any of the endless pro-Bush leaks of classified information been prosecuted - recall the leak of how they were detecting radioactive activity at mosques?"
ReplyDeleteI think one of your previous posts/comments answered this question. The problem is the nation's top law enforcement officer, Alberto Gonzales, believes Bush is his client. He seems to believe he is still WH counsel.
Until there is a change in the polical power structure (i.e., until Democrats have the power to schedule hearings, subpoena witnesses and documents and put people under oath) it is likely that we will not see agressive prosecution of WH leaks but will see prosecution of whistleblowers and journalists.
I tend to go with Greenwald in his assessment. I believe that it is part of a larger pattern of intimidation of Bush critics that goes back to the bullying tactics used to silence the intelligence community in the gear-up to the Iraq "war." This inquisition's first effect was the outing of Valeries Plame. The tactics described by Greenwald are the next phase in that domestic terror campaign.
ReplyDeleteWhy haven't any of the endless pro-Bush leaks of classified information been prosecuted - recall the leak of how they were detecting radioactive activity at mosques? This is an Administration which continuously has disclosed classified information for political gain, both overtly and covertly.
ReplyDeleteGood point.
I do, very strongly, share your disgust with these proposed prosecutions. But it feels a bit wrong to be defending law-breaking by whistle-blowers when the issue is law-breaking by the President. I think they would have been on firmer ground had they first at least attempted to use the legal means available to them.
This is going to get very ugly, and it sickens me. Certainly you are right that there is discretion not to do this, and the idea of going after the NYT is awful.
God, what a horrible situation this is.
Sibel Edmonds points out, Whistleblowers Are Not Protected
ReplyDeleteI don't know exactly, but isn't it against the law for gov't agencies to classify information in order to hide illegal activity in the first place?
ReplyDeleteIf that is the case, then asking a court of law to first determine the legality of the domestic spying program seems to me to be the only sane defense for journalists.
Would you consider a blog debate with Constitutional Law Professor Ann Althouse, who seems to feel otherwise, but typicall refrains from addressing the specific details?
ReplyDeleteWhistleblowers and the whistleblower law.
CIA Director Porter Goss has a NYT op-ed:
"As a member of Congress in 1998, I sponsored the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act to ensure that current or former employees could petition Congress, after raising concerns within their respective agency, consistent with the need to protect classified information.
...
On the other hand, those who choose to bypass the law and go straight to the press are not noble, honorable or patriotic. Nor are they whistleblowers. Instead they are committing a criminal act that potentially places American lives at risk. It is unconscionable to compromise national security information and then seek protection as a whistleblower to forestall punishment."
We need to keep this distinction in mind.
(where blog debate may merely being posting a link to her post and commenting on that, I am not suggesting some sort of more formal thingy....)
ReplyDeleteAnd thanks for your great work. I am jealous enough of your success to be upset that you get to live in two great cities, and pleased enough with your work products to be very happy for you.
Well Greg, are we not surprised. Revealing security information may well be illegal, but what was revealed here? I think Tom Clancy has revealed more military-sensitive information in his books than the NYT has done for NSA's operations. But politcally sensitive, oh yes, boy! We're even getting Republican Senators asking uncomfortable questions of Mr Gonzales!! We're even forcing W to pull 4-year-old terror stories out of his many drawers, just to hope to disappear behind the smoke and the Flag!
ReplyDeletea striking example of abuse of powers, getting more arrogant and power hungry by the hour. I'm not a fan of the single solution answer to any of this, instead, there must be a concerted effort in a thousand small ways to pry this gaggle out of power. Every single effort must count.
ReplyDeleteJournalists have the financial resources of their papers. Don't these investigations also have a chilling effect in that they work to keep potential whistleblowers silent not only out of fear of prison but also the fear of bankrupting themselves in the process of defending themselves? Or do the existing whistleblower protections mean that this is not an issue?
ReplyDeleteAnd kudos on your blog. It is great. I read it all the time although this is my first comment.
Glenn, do you support Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the supposed leak of a classified information to the press (in this case a covert CIA asset)?
ReplyDeleteIf so, care to explain why that leak's wrong and this one's right? Can we just selectively leak, depending on whether we like the current administration?
Hmmm.... Cheney seems to think that leaking classified information is within his powers as VP.
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
ReplyDeleteAfter reviewing the NSA matter and these threats of prison-retalation, it seems clear what is to be done: The States need to compel the Federal government to recalibrate: [ The approach ]
The process is simple: The States need to agree that this Congress has failed; and that State direction and assistance is needed.
Calibration merely compels the Federal Government to go back to their respective powers and duties. No longer can the Federal government rubber stamp wars, or fail to assert their oaths.
The time for the States to debate this issue is at hand. The Federal Government has failed to protect the Constitution, and we no longer have a credible system of checks and balances.
There is a way forward. It is a simple plan. All that is needed is for you to consider the possibilities: That your Constitution can be preserved, and Congress can be forced to do what it has taken an oath to do.
Please consider the information in the spirit it is written: To provide a rough guide of what could be a solution to this current self-evident failure of checks and balances over the NSA domestic spying issue. The approach is simple, and that is why Congress and your friends should simply admit: This is possible and it is an option.
Best wishes and thank you for considering these views.
Very respectfully,
- Constant -
Mark writes:
ReplyDeleteIf so, care to explain why that leak's wrong and this one's right? Can we just selectively leak, depending on whether we like the current administration?
"Selective Leak Indignation" is a chronic side effect of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
It has no known treatment protocol.
Intimidation seems to be in. There's a diary at dkos about a VA nurse who wrote a letter to the editor about lacking funds to care for physical and mental needs among Iraq vets. They came to her place of work and impounded her computer to check if that's where she'd written the letter (and perhaps to check for other activity?). This was necessary, she was told, in order to evaluate whether she should be charged with sedition. Sedition, for criticizing the administration. Intimidation?
ReplyDelete--nbm
See Geofffrey Stone on these questions. Stone is professor of constitutional law at UofChicago Law School.
ReplyDeleteAlso see Stone's blog posting and related comments at UofChicago Law School Faculty Blog
ReplyDeleteGlenn, do you support Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the supposed leak of a classified information to the press (in this case a covert CIA asset)?
ReplyDeleteBefore I answer, my question to you is - if you are in favor of the leak investigation into the NSA whistle-blowers, does that mean you favored the Plame investigation?
I've never been one to get excited about the Plame matter, but I will note that Fitzgerald ended up not bringing criminal charges against Libby arising out of the disclosure of classified information due, in part, to prosecutorial discretion. I have no complaints about that decision, even though it seems quite clear that Libby did indeed disclose information that was indisputably classified.
And the difference between the two situations has nothing to do with what Administration is in office and everything to do with the type of leak it is. For high government officials -- among the highest we have -- to leak classified information in order to attack a private citizen is a fundamentally different act than that of a low-level government employee leaking in order to bring to light what he believes (accurately or not) is illegal conduct at the highest levels of government.
But in general, we do not have a history of criminally prosecuting disclosures of classified information which are done in order to expose governmental wrongdoing rather than expose our secrets to the enemy.
There are enormous numbers of pro-Bush and anti-Bush leaks which have occurred since he's been in office. Yet they are prosecuting only this one - why? Clearly, it's because they want to deter other individuals from whistle-blowing. That ought to disturb everyone, and if that's not the case, why are they criminally investigating this leak and not, say, the leak of the program we supposedly had in place to detect unusual traces of radiation inside mosques, or any of the other countless leaks over the years?
Constant,
ReplyDeleteI looked at your blog, and I'm sorry to say that besides being completely unintelligible about almost everything, one thing did come through loud and clear. In my opinion, your political commentary is completely and utterly insane, and without any foundation in reality or even any foundation in this universe.
In fact you make the nut jobs here and on daily KOS look positively centered and in full control of their faculties.
In the name of preserving the constitution you preach dictatorship, but I'm not sure that you have any clue whatsoever that what you write is a call to dictatorship. I'm not sure you even know what planet you're on. Your stream of conciousness writing with absolutely no foundations or support or logical flow reminds me of that same kind of writing style found in Mein Kampf and Lyndon Larouche's stuff, although it would appear you are a left wing fascist, unlike Hitler and Larouche.
Sorry, but get some help. Fast.
Says the "Dog"
Also see Stone's reasoning for why the NSA spy program is unconstitutionala here and here.
ReplyDeleteSays the "Dog"
ReplyDelete10:56 PM
And your point is?
In re: Says the "Dog" 10:56 PM
ReplyDeleteNotice all, rather than discuss the merits of the ideas laid out here [ Click ]
The response shifts the subject from the Constitution to "something else." Brilliant -- thank you for the feedback, a clear sign that
A. They have no defense;
B. There is no credible solution;
C. They have no ideas.
Unable to help you if you have a hard time reading case law. [ Click ] With respect to Kos, here's what's already underway: [ Click ]
It is clear, in order to avoid facing the issues, some would enjoy mischaracterizing the situation. Brilliant -- another failed effort--their only skill is changing the subject.
Feel free to offer some substantive commentary on the points provided. Also, note when people start calling anyone a "leftie" it's a good sign of a problem: The only way to be "right of a right wing conservative in the RNC" -- is you're a fascist. Here it is: [ Click ]
Thank you for revealing yourself. Some have all the help the need: The Constitution. Well done in exposing the major credibility problem with the RNC at this juncture. Their in the last throes. You're free to offer another suggestion what the States might issue proclamation on. Oh, what's that: No ideas. More of the White House non-sense Click
Just as we saw on the eve of the Invasion of Iraq. Click They have no facts, no ideas, and nonsense. Same as 2002-3. Your solution? Nothing.
Beware!
Are there any democrats left in this country? By god, this administration is an abomination, it is antithetical to everything this country was created to stand for. Is there no one in this gov't that can stand up and defend Democracy and the republic? Does no one value truth and liberty?
ReplyDeleteI'm literally boiling over with rage over this. These sons of bitches decided that they are above the law and can do whatever they want and now they want to criminally investigate the people who had the decency to inform the American people that their President had secretly crowned himself Emperor?
Will not the public stand in defense of its right to know the conduct of its leaders.
[L]iberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right ... to knowledge ... and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers. Rulers are no more than attorneys, agents, and trustees for the people; and if the cause, the interest and trust, is insidiously betrayed, or wantonly trifled away, the people have a right to revoke the authority that they themselves have deputed, and to constitute abler and better agents, attorneys, and trustees ... - John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law (1765)
The irony being that once Adams became President the Sedition Act was passed to silence critics, which should serve as a reminder that power promotes abuse.
Let's recalibrate: Have a Constitutional convention at the state level to explore what is to be done about the failure of the RNC, White House, and Congress to timely address this issue. [ Click ] We have yet to hear any substantive reason why this issue cannot be discussed. Or is the RNC afraid of a debate, as they were with the Patriot Act, Iraq WMD, and the NSA unlawful domestic surveillance program?
ReplyDeleteHere's the progress on the State proclamation to compel the Congress to act: [ Click ] The only option the RNC has at this point is to smear with non-sense. There is nothing the RNC can do to stop the States issuign a proclamation calling for impeachment. This will force the House to vote up or down. This method was successfully tested in 1903, is consistent with the House rules and precedent. Here's what's happening: [ Click ]
The problem the RNC has is they have no credible defense -- just as they had with Iraq and the WMD issues. Their solution? To change the subject, threaten people with arrest, and distract attention from their problem: They have no lawful solutions. Can't help you if the RNC wants to you believe you're powerless. The states are already moving on this.
Surely, if this “failed approach” is not worthy of any attention, no body would have bothered to comment. Yet, the States are already moving. They defy you and the RNC non-sense!
Regarding why the proper whistle-blower channels weren't taken, if you guys haven't been following, this adminsitration has demonstrated a contempt for whistle-blowers. It has allowed its backlog of whistle-blower complaints to go uninvestigated in violation of the law, and it has sought to make whistle-blowing more difficult.
ReplyDeleteWhen MSHA superintendent Jack Spadaro blew the whistle on the Bush administration in 2001 for its coverup of the worst environmental disaster in 2001 - the Inez, Kt. coal slurry spill - he was rewarded with being accused of abusing his company credit cards and ended up retiring since he had already run up 20,000 dollars in legal fees fighting the adminsitration.
Four years later the corruption was still there and 12 people died when a mine that had been cited with hundreds of safety violations collapsed in Sago.
that should have read "blew the whistle on the Bush administration in 2001 for its coverup of the worst environmental disaster in the eastern United States"
ReplyDeleteHume's Ghost says:
ReplyDeleteI'm literally boiling over with rage over this.
You're not alone. Many of your fellow Democrats feel the same way.
Unfortunately, this is why Democrats will fail to regain national political power in this country for many years.
Rage never wins elections in the United States.
I'm a democrat, but not a Democrat. I have no allegiance to that party, as I view as part of the problem.
ReplyDeleteI don't think any real difference is going to be made in this country until the two party duopoly is broken up.
What more proof do we need that we are now living in a dictatorship?
ReplyDeleteWhat will it take for people to finally react? "Disappearances" like in Argentina and Chile?
Will we see the day when mothers silently protest on the public square holding the photographs of their "disappeared" children?
Will any of our elected politicians ever wake up to the fact that BushCo is turning this republic into a dictatorship?
In the name of preserving the constitution you preach dictatorship, but I'm not sure that you have any clue whatsoever that what you write is a call to dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteWhat embarassingly tortured logic do you use to frame the defense of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution a "call to dictatorship"?
If you say "al Qaeda", you get laughed at.
Prunes -- well said!
ReplyDeleteOh, and here's a love note to Dog: [ Click ] Singe like a poodle, Dog!
ReplyDeleteOh, and speaking of Vermont, Dog -- Check out Article 29 in this local action. Oh, but there's more: Check out the Vermont Action -- poised to issue a proclamation: [ here ].
But Dog, it gets better: Check out these three links showing States are taking action in Vermont to put down your President's rebellion against the Constitution: [ Click once ]; [ Click once ], but Dog you can click twice if you want LOL; and oh, [wait for it, Dog] -- a third one [ Click once.] But it doesn't stop, Dog. There's an entire network of local proclamations spewing out. What, Dog can the RNC do to stop this? [Click ]
glenn: "So now we're a country which allows its leaders to flagrantly violate the law -- even cheering them on as they do it -- and we imprison the journalists who report that illegal behavior to the public. That sounds like a lot of things. The United States isn't one of them."
ReplyDeleteSounds kind of Soviet to me. I agree with Anon 8:08pm: the information disclosed was politically rather than security sensitive.
Notice, how the Administration is under no obligation to prove exactly how this has affected national security -- other than their Say-So.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGlenn: But in general, we do not have a history of criminally prosecuting disclosures of classified information which are done in order to expose governmental wrongdoing rather than expose our secrets to the enemy.
ReplyDeleteBingo. Not all leaks are bad. Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers. Deep Throat leaked the, er, Plumbers. Bringing criminal activity on the part of our government to the light of day is something we do in a free society.
If ever there were a need to do this, it's with this Administration that has tried to clamp down on every legitimate source of information emmenating from civil servants, etc. that differs with its own world view.
If the rethug synchophants (I won't even call them 'conservatives') can't understand this, it's not our problem. It's proof that they have no idea what open government and democracy consist of. If we succumb to their idea of how a society should work, the terrorists really will have won.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteI really believe that the significance of this article from today's New York Times cannot be overstated. In essence, while the President sits in the White House undisturbed after proudly announcing that he has been breaking the law and will continue to do so, his slavish political appointees at the Justice Department are using the law enforcement powers of the federal government to find and criminally prosecute those who brought this illegal conduct to light:
If this conduct is truly illegal, then the leaker has nothing at all to worry about. The ACLU or a similarly inclined group will provide a free legal defense and he will be protected by the Whitsleblower statutes.
However, I would not want to be in his shoes...
Your wishful thinking aside, this program is well within the law and will win any court challenge.
This piece of traitorous garbage who revealed a top secret program of the highest sensitivity to the enemy in a time of war rather than go to the IG, AG or Congress with his complaint deserves to spend the next 20-30 in Supermax for violating the Espionage Act and probably a couple other statutes.
The damage to the country which this scumbag or scumbags has inflicted in incalculable.
Beyond that, consider the effects of these threats on other people who may be tempted to come forward and expose other serious wrongdoing on the part of the Administration. They hear that the Justice Department is "laying the groundwork for a grand jury inquiry that could lead to criminal charges" -- might that have an effect of intimidation against anyone who might consider blowing the whistle on other forms of serious misconduct by the Bush Administration?
I hope anyone else even with a passing thought of pulling this kind of crap themselves is scared to death by this news.
Folks, this is not a game. This is life and death serious. The results of blowing this program are no different than if al Qaeda itself had a mole in the NSA spying on this country.
And it isn't just potential whistle-blowers whom they are attempting to intimidate, but journalists as well...
An upcoming article in Commentary magazine suggests that the newspaper might be prosecuted for violations of the Espionage Act and said, "What The New York Times has done is nothing less than to compromise the centerpiece of our defensive efforts in the war on terrorism."
And why not?
Risen and his NYT editors should be engaging lawyers as we speak. The press may have been under the delusion since the Pentagon Papers case that they are free to collude with the criminal release of top secret materials, but there is no special press First Amendment protection for violation of the Espionage Act. The NYT received a call from the President himself warning them of the highly sensitive nature of this information. They can't plead ignorance.
Remember the radical lawyer who was relaying messages from her terrorist client to Egypt ordering violent attacks in that country? She thought that she had some sort of special privileges as the man's attorney. She was mistaken and is now in prison.
This is not a game and the NYT should be VERY concerned about its criminal liability.
Whatever one's views are on the NSA scandal, disclosure by The New York Times has accomplished exactly what newspapers are designed to achieve -- ensuring that highly controversial government programs, particularly ones of dubious legality, are subject to public debate and not concealed by the Government.
No, the media are the same as every other citizen in this country and have no special privileges to violate the Espionage Act. They are at least equally culpable as the leaker, perhaps more so since they were personally warned by the President and had access to a extensive legal counsel to check this out.
It has long been clear that the Times disclosed only that information necessary to enable such public discussion without disclosing any operational details and without even arguably jeopardizing national security. Indeed, one of the most frivolous claims we've heard from the Bush Administration and its followers is that national security was damaged by the Times' disclosure that the Administration eavesdrops without judicial oversight (rather than with it), and that this disclosure somehow helped Al Qaeda.
Unfrigging real! Its time to wake up my friend...
The 9/11 hijackers were communicating in the open by telephone and internet. A similar data mining program at the Pentagon called Able Danger actually identified the Atta cell before the attack as a likely al Qaeda terror cell, but they were blocked from referring this info to the FBI by DoD lawyers afraid that the Able Danger program might be construed as "domestic spying." The result was 3500 murdered, many more maimed or injured, over a billion dollars in damage and a million unemployed.
Apparently, the enemy is still operating largely in the open after 9/11. Based on the leaks themselves, this NSA program identified at least 10 likely enemy agents per year in our country for which the FBI gained probable cause to get FISA search warrants.
According to the leakers, the NSA program has also busted up at least two terror operations in the US.
Since this program also intercepts international calls routed through US hubs, who knows how many enemy agents and plots we have taken down overseas.
Because of the incredibly reckless and very likely criminal acts of these leakers and the NYT, the enemy is getting a pretty darn good description of the means and methods with which we are listening in on their communications.
If the telephone and internet traffic ceases or is encrypted because of this blown program and we suffer another catastrophic attack about which we know nothing about, the blood of our fellow citizens (maybe including you and your family, Glenn) will be on the hands of these leakers and the NYT.
A long stint in prison is the least that we can reward these criminals with...
bart: "If the telephone and internet traffic ceases or is encrypted because of this blown program and we suffer another catastrophic attack about which we know nothing about, the blood of our fellow citizens (maybe including you and your family, Glenn) will be on the hands of these leakers and the NYT."
ReplyDeleteSorry bart, too little too late. You're blood-dripping fear-mongering no longer works. It no longer works because we've heard this story so often it's made us suspicious and we've started to compare it with actual results on the ground.
In the words of John Kerry, Osama will die of kidney failure long before George Bush catches up with him. Only an Administration this inept would have to resort to secrecy at this level.
What they're most energetic in covering up is their own failure to do a proper job. That's what all this NSA business is all about.
Glenn said: An upcoming article in Commentary magazine suggests that the newspaper might be prosecuted for violations of the Espionage Act and said, "What The New York Times has done is nothing less than to compromise the centerpiece of our defensive efforts in the war on terrorism."
ReplyDeleteHere is the link to the Commentary article to which Glenn was referring...
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/schoenfeld0306advance.html
The legal analysis looks balanced and thorough. Risen and the NYT better be engaging very good criminal defense and constitutional law attorneys.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFor those who have not seen the background on this issue of whistleblowing, see here and here.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: Sorry bart, too little too late. You're blood-dripping fear-mongering no longer works. It no longer works because we've heard this story so often it's made us suspicious and we've started to compare it with actual results on the ground.
ReplyDeleteThen you have noticed the utter absence of attacks on US interests and citizens outside of the Middle East since 9/11...
hume's ghost said:
ReplyDeleteIs there no one in this gov't that can stand up and defend Democracy and the republic? Does no one value truth and liberty?
There ARE such people:
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/02/20060207.html
Whether there are ENOUGH of such people is a much harder question to be optimistic about.
But it feels a bit wrong to be defending law-breaking by whistle-blowers when the issue is law-breaking by the President. I think they would have been on firmer ground had they first at least attempted to use the legal means available to them.
ReplyDelete1. Going through the legal means sounds kind of dense, that would mean they'd go to the same people who started and classified the program. It's like complaining to Hitler himself that the Nazis are secretly rounding up jews and dissidents. (I'm not saying Bush is like Hitler, but the analogy is accurate)
2. Breaking the constitution is a worse crime than whistleblowing. I don't care whether some pro-Bush judge considers it a crime, by exposing attacks on our constitution they did the right thing for America. There's a reason the person HAD to be whistleblower in the first place.
If they had published details of classified military weapons to the public or another government, that would be wrong. This however is completely different.
If the media cooperates with Bush, we'll be a giant step closer to a state-run media. Good old chairman Mao Ze Dong would be proud.
They just don't care about the hypocrisy (i.e., Rove, Libby, and the Plame stuff ... not to mention their own leaks of supposedly classified stuff when convenient). Or they know that they just can't help the hypocrisy and hope not too many will notice it.
ReplyDeleteNow it's all about power. Raw, naked power. They think it's enough (or that it's the only thing that will carry the day). They think they can intimidate people into not ratting out the rest of the Dubya maladministration's criminal enterprise ... or toss them in jail if necessary. Popularity is nice, but no substitute for power.
And it's when they make or (made) that transition that we have the "bright line", the dividing point, where historians will one day say: they slipped over the ende into fascism.....
Cheers,
It is interesting that while we are debating these incredibly important issues about whistle blowers and improper leaking by the Bush Administration, the sale of more than 300,000 acres of forest is moving forward with little comment. So, too, is a budget that contains a near $600 Billion deficit and is cutting over 100 social programs. The current administration is without a doubt trying to recreate a nation in their narrow vision with less freedom and more control. I have so many "friends" who will say that Bush isn't the consertative they thought they elected but are afraid to be critical enough to admit their mistake. The time has come for all to look at the whole picture of how the United States is being altered and the freedom that is being walked upon and lost.
ReplyDeleteNJ Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of Electronic Voting Machines
ReplyDeleteFebruary 09, 2006
Newark, NJ, February 9, 2006 – The New Jersey Appellate Division announced today its agreement with concerns raised by the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers School of Law-Newark that all electronic voting machines used in New Jersey may violate New Jersey’s Constitution and election laws.
In its decision, the Appellate Division reinstated a lawsuit filed by the clinic in 2004 that challenges the ability of New Jersey’s electronic voting machines to count votes accurately, in compliance with voting rights laws. The Court reinstated the lawsuit even though, as a result of judicial and legislative efforts led by the clinic, all voting machines in the state must be equipped with a voter verified paper ballot component by 2008. The Court was concerned with protecting the hundreds of millions of votes that would be cast on voting machines between now and 2008. The Court also expressed its concern that the Attorney General’s office would use a loophole in the statute and issue waivers to the 2008 voter verified paper ballot requirement – further jeopardizing the franchise.
The lawsuit is the first in the nation to successfully challenge electronic voting machines. Professor Penny Venetis, associate director of the clinic and lead counsel on the case, commented, “This shows that our courts take very seriously their role in protecting our most fundamental of all rights – the right to vote. Despite clear evidence that New Jersey’s voting machines are insecure, the other branches of government failed to take appropriate action. That is why the Court stepped in,” Venetis added.
The same voting machines used by almost all of New Jersey’s five million registered voters have been found too insecure to use and have been de-commissioned by California, Ohio, Nevada, and New York City. New Jersey does not check the software of electronic voting machines to determine whether they have been tampered with or whether they are faulty.
The Rutgers clinic filed the suit on behalf of the Coalition for Peace Action, a citizens group based in Princeton that has been in the forefront of advocating for safe, transparent and auditable elections, as well as voter Stephanie Harris, a farmer whose vote was lost by a malfunctioning Mercer County electronic voting machine. Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit include State Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, an early proponent of the voter verified paper ballot.
For more information, contact Professor Venetis at 973-353-5687 or 917-617-3524.
CONTACT:
Contact: Janet Donohue, Manager of Public Relations, t: 973-353-5553, f: 973-353-1717, or email: jdonohue@andromeda.rutgers.edu
Who IS paying you, Glenn?
It was I who leaked!
ReplyDeleteI too am Spartacus!
Thanks for posting on this, and keeping us all informed and aware of the activities of this regime as they effect us all...I truly hope that their own illegal actions lead to their Unraveling....keep blogging it.( and I will keep lurking and hoping )
ReplyDeleteBart, who evidently thinks a little security is worth giving up a little freedom, is one of those who deserve neither.
ReplyDeleteThis argument is as old as our country. When I was in junior high, a civics teacher took a poll to see how many of us thought it was OK to let police search every house in town to find a murderer among us, (noting for us that those with nothing to hide had nothing to worry about.) Something like 90% of us 8th graders thought it was perfectly reasonable to let the police search every house in town to find a murderer, and we agreed that those with nothing to hide had nothing to fear.
Then we spent a year learning about the Constitution.
At the end of the year he took the poll again and 100% of us soon-to-be high schoolers decided it was more important in the United States of America to live with the risks that come with the infringements on police power laid out in our Constitution, in order to enjoy the freedoms it allows us.
There are many adults who have evidently never really learned basic American Civics. They're the ones who are so afraid of terrorists that they're ready to run to the protection of Big Brother, shedding all the freedoms granted by our Constitution for the safety of a police state. Living in a free society requires a level of risk that some find too demanding. But the Londoners who went about their business in World War 2, continuing to show up for work and school even as the air-raid sirens went off several times a day would probably snicker at those of us who still quake in our boots over a single attack almost 5 years ago now. Somehow the level of risk we seem to be dealing with just doesn't rise to the level that would make strong people run for the safety of Big Bro. For those of us with the backbone of our forefathers, giving up even a little of our freedom for the minor security advantage offered by warrantless eavesdropping is out of the question. Especially when we're dealing with the Keystone Kops of national security, Bush and Cheney.
You're welcome to move to a bomb-shelter Bart. You can check your freedoms at the door, and trust the thugs in charge to keep you safe from all dangers. Those of us who are less frightened of terrorists will continue to live out here in the free world. If the terrorists ever wipe us out, feel free to have the last laugh as you police-staters emerge from your hidey-holes to inherit the earth. I'll be glad to not still be around.
There is an amazing post at Secrecy News which discusses how the Bush Administration is using the Espionage Act to criminalize public speech in the case of former two AIPAC lobbyists. Although they did not hold security clearances and did not solicit classified documents, they are being charged with mishandling classified information.
ReplyDeleteDidn't the Attorney General, when asked how did the NYT article hurt the program, respond something like (and I am paraphrasing)"well the terrorists sometimes forget and that by constantly having the issue in the media reminds them to of the risks they take when they use their cell phones".
ReplyDeleteIf this is justification for a Grand jury investigation it is laughable but not surprising since virtually all of the administrations reasons from going to war to detaining American citizens and others have rested on shaky legal reasoning.
Anonymous @ 10:31am:
ReplyDeleteWord!
Can someone in the Democratic Party transcribe that and distribute as talking points to our gutless "opposition" party.
A few additional comments about the All Things Beautiful post:
ReplyDelete(1) She writes, "Whilst there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a strong opinion . . . it strikes me as suspicious when the emphasis appears to be more on reflecting the most commonly held 'flavor of the day' Liberal sound bites . . ."
"Suspicious" is a curious word. Is this meant to suggest that she finds the blogger's (in this case Glenn) interest in, or emphasis on, the subject matter to be disingenuous; perhaps a mere display to fan the flames of partisanship in the hope of gaining political ground for the democrats? If so, how would she characterize recent reports that high ranking members of the administration are calling for the GOP to make an election issue of the NSA program? Is *their* proposal something other than a call for the GOP to emphasize a particular issue for political gain? Or would she argue that their proposal is a legitimate effort to arouse a public dialogue on an issue of national importance? While I would be loathe to accept this latter argument in light of the oft-cited, and I believe unfair, characterization of various democrats by certain republicans as “weak on terror” (a characterization which I believe detracts from the underlying issue of the legality of the NSA program), I will accept it for the purpose of discussion. That being said, if the proposal is so justified, why then is a blogger’s criticism of the administration on the same issue not justified? Why is it deserving of suspicion?
Lest my comments be dismissed as simply a tit-for-tat, let us also consider the notion that liberal bloggers (Glenn in particular) are merely focusing on the “flavor of the day.” How would she define this term? “Flavor of the day” suggests that there is a set of democrat talking points that bloggers are simply regurgitating. I find this suggestion to be particularly problematic in regard to her discussion of Glenn’s post on the administration’s revelation of the plot to destroy the Library Tower. Who wrote the talking points on this issue? What prominent democrat is pounding the table demanding that liberal bloggers pick it up and run with it? Really – I would like to know. Who made this a “flavor of the day” issue? If it was bloggers, they can hardly be accused of merely regurgitating their own talking points. Perhaps she’s referring to some sort of echo chamber among liberal bloggers. Putting aside the issue of whether a similar echo chamber exists within the universe of conservative bloggers, and indeed the mainstream media, does such a characterization address the underlying question – whether the substantive issue is deserving of public attention and discussion; or whether someone interested in discussing it is deserving of a suspicious, and apparently skeptical, reaction?
(2) She writes, “It is clear that Glenn does not consider al Qaeda to be much of a threat at all to the United States. Neither do many of his compatriots on the left.”
I find this passage particularly interesting in light of the author’s previous comments about liberal bloggers emphasizing “Liberal sound bites.” Unlike Glenn’s comments about the Library Tower story, however, the author’s own comments appear to be well grounded in partisan talking points propagated by the administration and supporters of the administration (e.g., Cheney and Rove). Would she then concur that her comments are deserving of a suspicious reception?
Further, I am reminded of one of my old law school professors who was fond of saying, “When someone says ‘it is clear’ or ‘clearly’ in an attempt to set forth a persuasive argument, it is a signal that their point is far from ‘clear’.”
Finally, I would also note that this statement (similar to the allegation that Glenn is somehow clouded by his “hatred of Bush” - mentioned in other commenters’ posts) is essentially an irrelevant diversion. I don’t purport to speak on Glenn’s behalf, yet I feel safe in saying that most Americans would agree that Al Qaeda remains a significant threat. That being said, whether they believe this or not does not have any bearing on the issue of whether the criticisms of the Bush administration are warranted and/or valid (particularly in regard to the NSA program). Contrary to the author’s implicit message, the level of threat is not inversely proportional to the extent to which the public is permitted to criticize the administration. Nor is the level of threat the determining, or even primary, factor in determining the legality of the administration’s actions or the quality of their performance and level of competence. You don’t need to trust me on this point. Read the Constitution. Read FISA. Read the CRS report. Read the DoJ's report. Read the definition of “relevance” in the evidentiary code. The point that I’m trying to make is *not* that the administration’s actions are legal or illegal. The point is that the question does not hinge on whether a particular threat to national security is great or insignificant – or certainly on any one person’s perception of that threat.
(3) Lastly, she writes: “You may not understand this, but most Americans are more than willing to sacrifice our civil liberties and much more so than we have done so far in this effort.”
The reference to “most Americans” appears to be unsupported and does not bear close examination except to say this. The author appears intent on calling into question Glenn’s credibility, claiming that he has somehow bought into the “liberal agenda” lock, stock and barrel. If the author is endeavoring to distinguish herself from this type of alleged mindless partisan propagandizing, she would do well to stick to the facts and avoid exaggeration. She seems to criticize Glenn for lack of intellectual independence, and yet she shows little intellectual acumen at all when she relies on these types of hyperbolic statements.
More importantly, however, it is worth reminding the author that whether some, or even “most” Americans are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties does not mean that they have the authority or the right to sacrifice mine. Again, you don’t have to trust me. Read the Constitution.
Rage never wins elections in the United States.
ReplyDeleteUm... Were you in a cave in November of 1994?
We need an opposition party that's capable of opposing.
ReplyDeleteThe Republican Party structure is obviously corrupt and prostrate before the facist elements.
I don't believe that the voting process is entirlely broken, yet.
A third party isn't viable.
The only reason that constitutional checks and balances worked during Watergate is that the Dems controlled the legislative branch.
The answer seems obvious: we must replace the current accomodationist and politically inept Democratic leadership with people willing to fight, hard and dirty.
Then we can restore Democratic control to the HoR.
The down side of this strategy is that change won't be immediate and we won't be able to impeach the Bush junta and put them in jail.
The upside is that we'll still have a democratic republic.
Sorry if this prescription involves a lot of hard work, some compromise and no immediate gratification.
I'd say some honest prosecutor ought to be thinking about the RICO statute. It seems to me that there is a serious argument that there is a conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart, who evidently thinks a little security is worth giving up a little freedom, is one of those who deserve neither.
I am not giving up a scintilla of my freedom under this NSA program and neither are you unless you are making foreign calls to al Qaeda telephone numbers.
This argument is as old as our country. When I was in junior high, a civics teacher took a poll to see how many of us thought it was OK to let police search every house in town to find a murderer among us, (noting for us that those with nothing to hide had nothing to worry about.)
This absurd comparison of blanket searches of every home only illustrates the reasonableness of the intelligence collection at issue.
Even the most hysterical commentators have only claimed that a few thousand telephone numbers have been surveilled...out of, what, ten million or so?
bart still hasn't proven that national security was damaged by the leak. As I wrote him several days back, and he didn't respond:
ReplyDelete"bart, you still haven't explained how the terrorists adding long distance harms our national security. You also haven't explained why you believe that the paranoids in the executive branch aren't in fact wiretapping domestically, even though they've said it's within their rights to do so. In fact, I don't see how a reasonable case can be made for either of these. You are basically arguing that we're not wiretapping and Al Qaeda is taking such advantage of it that it harms our national security. I call BS. So I don't believe your faux righteous indignation toward the NSA whistleblowers and the newspaper who published them." (emphasis added now)
We talked about it here. My comment is also about another myth bart promulgates: that the NSA program has saved us from two count 'em two terrorist plots. As it turns out, Media Matters ran an illuminating post about the very issue. My comment's at 5:19 PM.
Also, in that thread, bart said Grover Norquist is not a conservative! "BTW, Fein and Norquist are not conservatives nor are they military experts, they are libertarians." bart is creating credibility issues.
bart says:
"This piece of traitorous garbage who revealed a top secret program of the highest sensitivity to the enemy in a time of war rather than go to the IG, AG or Congress with his complaint deserves to spend the next 20-30 in Supermax for violating the Espionage Act and probably a couple other statutes.
The damage to the country which this scumbag or scumbags has inflicted in incalculable."
I say, your faux rage does not become you. Cheney and Rove and Libby all leaked classified information so maybe they should spend 20-30 years in prison if you're going to be consistent. But IOKIYAR.
I say, put up or shut up. You really think all of the following? Bush isn't wiretapping, Al Qaeda is making domestic calls and getting away with it, now they know and knowing is half the battle, and that's how you know that a whistleblower did grave damage to our national security? That's the only scenario I can scrape together to justify your rage; too bad it's completely ridiculous.
Thank God someone did leak administration behavior that has raised bipartisan calls for Bush's impeachment. It is so serious and it looks so illegal (to the layperson's eye, to the NSA staffer's eye, if not to the partisan's eye) that this whistleblower should be protected even if, God forbid, the spying program turns out somehow to be "legal".
Let me add something.
ReplyDeletebart:
"This piece of traitorous garbage who revealed a top secret program of the highest sensitivity to the enemy in a time of war rather than go to the IG, AG or Congress with his complaint deserves to spend the next 20-30 in Supermax for violating the Espionage Act and probably a couple other statutes.
The damage to the country which this scumbag or scumbags has inflicted in incalculable."
The most important recipients of information about Bush's program to be the American public, not al-Qaeda. I don't consider the NSA spying revelations as exclusively "disclosure to the enemy." It was also a disclosure to me, and I'm not the enemy. I don't see the same damage to the country you do, not buying the "al-Qaeda is taking advantage now" scenarios or your histrionics and emotional language about the evil of revealing secret programs. I don't think the damage to the country is so high as to be potentially incalculable. In fact, the main damage this leak has caused is to the Bush Administration's gunslinger facade. That gunslinger looks more like a creep now.
Last, a little history lesson. From the dKos interviews of Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers: "For two years Ellsberg attempted unsuccessfully to persuade various members of Congress to make the documents public; finally, in 1971, he turned the papers over to the New York Times, which published the first installment on June 13, 1971."
For the leaker, it was years of fruitless attempts to go through channels, or it was the New York Times. Even then, the paper sat on the story for a year! So I don't buy your alternative scenario explaining what a leaker could have "legitimately done": waited dumbly through years of what they saw as an impeachable offense.
Bart takes me to task for comparing blanket searches of every home in town to the innocuous tapping of a few thousand phones out of millions. I'm glad you responded bart, so i can explain to you another very basic civics lesson you evidently missed.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this program isn't the threat posed by tapping a few phones--the threat comes from the legal justification Bush uses for doing so. The legal justification Bush claims for tapping phones also allows him to do blanket searches, if he sees fit to do so to protect us from terrorism. Do you understand the connection here? This is basic civics.
How will you feel when Hillary Clinton (or someone you find objectionable--I'm only guessing Hillary fits here for you) is POTUS and you've given her the power to do whatever she wants, as long as she claims it part of her mission top protect you?
I sometimes get the impression we're not all completely familiar with the basics of Law. If you give the Executive the power to tap phones based on the reasoning Bush has relied on so far, you'll also be giving it the power to do blanket searches, and much more. This is such basic stuff I have to assume all of you who think there's nothing wrong with what Bush is doing just don't really understand what it is he's actually doing.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart takes me to task for comparing blanket searches of every home in town to the innocuous tapping of a few thousand phones out of millions. I'm glad you responded bart, so i can explain to you another very basic civics lesson you evidently missed.
The problem with this program isn't the threat posed by tapping a few phones--the threat comes from the legal justification Bush uses for doing so. The legal justification Bush claims for tapping phones also allows him to do blanket searches, if he sees fit to do so to protect us from terrorism.
I understand the point you are trying to make. However, your presupposition is in error...
When did Mr. Bush or Justice ever cite to legal authority which would permit the executive to do blanket searches?
How will you feel when Hillary Clinton (or someone you find objectionable--I'm only guessing Hillary fits here for you) is POTUS and you've given her the power to do whatever she wants, as long as she claims it part of her mission top protect you?
Because I am not ceding any such authority to Mr. Bush, I am not concerned about Mrs. Clinton using the NSA within its current parameters.
Of course, her review of private FBI files of political opponents during the last administration raises a great deal of concern that Mrs. Clinton could actually go far beyond the limits on foreign surveillance set by the courts and start spying on her political opponents ala Nixon.
garygnfp: So, your position is that the law doesn't matter when it comes to security?
ReplyDeleteI must provide what has become my standard disclaimer: I have never voted for a Democrat or Green for any office, on any of the national, state, or local levels.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDan Lewis said...
ReplyDeletebart still hasn't proven that national security was damaged by the leak.
Try reading for content. I have posted this at least three times so far...
According to your heroic leakers, the FBI is getting FISA warrants for at least ten al Qeada targets per year who were first identified through this NSA program. Obviously, they were still communicating by telephone and email in order to be so identified.
Get it yet???
You also haven't explained why you believe that the paranoids in the executive branch aren't in fact wiretapping domestically, even though they've said it's within their rights to do so.
Your ongoing delusions are not my problem to solve...
1) The WH has never claimed that it had the right to perform intelligence gathering in domestic to domestic calls. I am really not sure why they are drawing their line there since the Supremes actually left that issue open in the Keith case.
2) While I am a fan of X-Files, I don't tend to have paranoid delusions about the government tapping my telephone. It is not up to me to disprove your paranoid delusions. If you have some evidence, present it.
My comment is also about another myth bart promulgates: that the NSA program has saved us from two count 'em two terrorist plots. As it turns out, Media Matters ran an illuminating post about the very issue.
Actually, I am repeating what your heroic leaker told the NYT. Are you calling him a liar? It's possible. Turncoats and traitors often are...
I say, your faux rage does not become you. Cheney and Rove and Libby all leaked classified information so maybe they should spend 20-30 years in prison if you're going to be consistent. But IOKIYAR
You are welcome to present evidence of this at any time...
The best the prosecutor could come up with is perjury against Libby based on the fact that the only four reporters he interviewed differed with Mr. Libby as to who told what when. The problem is that the "covert" Ms. Plame's identity was also well known to several other reporters with who Libby spoke, but Fitzgerald didn't bother to interview. Its hard to blow the cover of a woman who is not undercover. Fitz is going to have a hard time even making that case...
In contrast, one of the dirtbags who blew this extremely secret program is openly admitting his crime. This case is slam dunk...
It is so serious and it looks so illegal (to the layperson's eye, to the NSA staffer's eye, if not to the partisan's eye) that this whistleblower should be protected even if, God forbid, the spying program turns out somehow to be "legal".
The dirtbag who blew the program can't use the lay person excuse. He was a long time intelligence employee who knew damn well what he was compromising. He will have a long time to contemplate his error in prison,,,hopefully with Risen and a NYT editor with him.
"If Goss' statement that there should be a criminal investigation into the leakers and journalists is too "restrained," what more aggressive measures would Cheney like to see be taken against them?"
ReplyDeleteDeclaring them enemy combatants comes to mind.