Tuesday, December 20, 2005
The Leakers and The Times
Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom:
The most serious legal problems are posed by those who leaked this highly classified national security information to the media, an unauthorized recipient of any classified information. Any NSA or intelligence community official concerned over an intelligence activity has an internal oversight system available to address these concerns in a legal and classified environment: NSA’s internal Inspector General and/or the Intelligence Community’s Inspector General. If the internal oversight process proved insufficient, legislative oversight would have been the next logical place for these officials to take their concerns: congressional oversight committees routinely investigate just those types of concerns in a legal setting designed to preserve classified national security information. Should following this well-established process still not satisfy their concerns, the honorably course of action for any true intelligence professional is to resign from such an untenable position - WITHOUT revealing classified information and potentially damaging national security.
These “concerned” officials have acted extremely unprofessionally: they clearly violated their secrecy oath and the provisions of the 1980 Classified Information Procedures Act by providing classified information to the media. While it may come as a shock to some, the media is NOT entitled to classified information under any circumstances.
Interesting how the NYT and the rest of the MSM was so concerned about finding the sources of the Plame "leaks" and is now not disclosing their own sources. In fact, they are so not disclosing their sources that they sat on the story for a year before using it to derail the renewal of the Patriot Act.
The Times must be investigated by a Special Prosecutor and the leakers and their press enablers tried for their actions.
I doubt it will happen, but it would be just.
John Hinderaker writes at Power Line:
Under the circumstances we face in dealing with the terrorist threat, is it unreasonable--the Constitutional standard--to begin immediately intercepting calls being made to a captured terrorist cell phone, whether those calls originate in the U.S. or another country? Of course not.
The most serious legal problems are posed by those who leaked this highly classified national security information to the media, an unauthorized recipient of any classified information. Any NSA or intelligence community official concerned over an intelligence activity has an internal oversight system available to address these concerns in a legal and classified environment: NSA’s internal Inspector General and/or the Intelligence Community’s Inspector General. If the internal oversight process proved insufficient, legislative oversight would have been the next logical place for these officials to take their concerns: congressional oversight committees routinely investigate just those types of concerns in a legal setting designed to preserve classified national security information. Should following this well-established process still not satisfy their concerns, the honorably course of action for any true intelligence professional is to resign from such an untenable position - WITHOUT revealing classified information and potentially damaging national security.
These “concerned” officials have acted extremely unprofessionally: they clearly violated their secrecy oath and the provisions of the 1980 Classified Information Procedures Act by providing classified information to the media. While it may come as a shock to some, the media is NOT entitled to classified information under any circumstances.
Interesting how the NYT and the rest of the MSM was so concerned about finding the sources of the Plame "leaks" and is now not disclosing their own sources. In fact, they are so not disclosing their sources that they sat on the story for a year before using it to derail the renewal of the Patriot Act.
The Times must be investigated by a Special Prosecutor and the leakers and their press enablers tried for their actions.
I doubt it will happen, but it would be just.
John Hinderaker writes at Power Line:
Under the circumstances we face in dealing with the terrorist threat, is it unreasonable--the Constitutional standard--to begin immediately intercepting calls being made to a captured terrorist cell phone, whether those calls originate in the U.S. or another country? Of course not.
