August 2, 2013

"Jake Tapper reveals classified information about CIA in Benghazi - should his sources go to prison? Should he?"

A tweet from Glenn Greenwald, part of a collection of tweets at Twitchy under the headline "Jake Tapper: Remember when Rand Paul asked Hillary about gun running in Libya?"

(I invite your comments, which must pass through moderation. Comments must relate to the linked article.)

41 comments:

chuckR said...

Missing a little. "Compare and contrast your position on this mess to your position on IranContra"

mccullough said...

He shouldn't go to prison. Maybe his source or sources should. He's doing his job. I'd say the same about Greenwald, who I don't much care for.

If Tapper won't reveal his source to DOJ, it would be dumb to prosecute him. But it would enhance his career if they did.

C Stanley said...

I called the gun running operation within the first few days because no other explanation made sense. The weird cover story, the fact that Stevens was even there on 9/11 without enough security, the fact that his last meeting was with the Turkish consul.

SteveR said...

I think it would be a mistake to go after Tapper on this, the CIA/Benghazi angle is not new information. The administration will just continue to push it aside, Carney has a well used list of explanations. The president is focused on helping the middle class don't you know.

n.n said...

This doesn't explain why Obama refused aid to Americans, including our ambassador, who were in mortal danger. It does not explain the theatrical deception he, his aides, and journalists presented as a coverup for the events which transpired in Benghazi.

Perhaps, C Stanley is right. Benghazi was just another incompetent effort to arm terrorists (or drug cartels), which resulted in dead Americans. Perhaps the Libyan operation which deposed Gaddafi was actually concerned with liberating untraceable arms in his possession. However, that is not a comprehensive explanation of their behavior during and after the incident in Benghazi.

Michael said...

As I have written many times here on the topic of Benghazi: Something bad went down there and we do not get to know what it was. Gun running. Torture. We don't get to know. Not that that is a bad thing.

Mike said...

No but I'd really LIKE to see the Obama admin go after Tapper like they did Risen. These lying weasels can't get enough payback for the way they've obfuscated on this issue, misdirected the press and public, denied Congress access to those in the know, disrespected the families of the dead Americans, and especially for jailing the "video maker" for "causing it all" in the first place.

Bob_R said...

Twitchy seems to have a malfunctioning sarcasm detector. Or maybe I do. I'm assuming Greenwald is being sarcastic rather than "ticked off." Less sure about Yglesias. There probably ought to be a special sarcasm font on Twitter to help.

On imprisoning the sources, it depends on a lot of things - in particular whether the sources have revealed actions that are illegal or unconstitutional. It's looking more and more as if that is the case.

LarsPorsena said...

Is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula still in custody? We all know that inflammatory video caused this. Susan Rice said so.

elkh1 said...

So anyone who exposes govt. official's cover up of malfeasance, incompetence, and criminal behavior will be sent to prison?

Our Dearest Dear Leader is trying to turn us into North Korea.

cold pizza said...

Do you really think there would be a Demo version of Ollie North willing to step up and say, "Yup, it was me." Lying weasels. They only care about their own position and the best way to advance is not through merit but through knifing the boss.

It's the way to advance Demulon empire. -CP

Henry said...

Is Glenn Greenwald tweeting that from his prison cell?

C Stanley said...

Perhaps, C Stanley is right. Benghazi was just another incompetent effort to arm terrorists (or drug cartels), which resulted in dead Americans. Perhaps the Libyan operation which deposed Gaddafi was actually concerned with liberating untraceable arms in his possession. However, that is not a comprehensive explanation of their behavior during and after the incident in Benghazi.

it makes much more sense to assume that the rescue effort was complicated by the need for secrecy and then the aftermath needed a lot of misdirection to keep everyone's eyes off of the real story.

Even as it was, they succeeded in recusing all of those CIA folks and there were reports right after the event that the Libyans were shocked to learn how many Americans flew out that morning. It was obvious that the "mission" at Benghazi was really a CIA operation with diplomatic cover.

For me the biggest curiosity remains around Petraeus. Perhaps I'm stuck in conpiracy mode but the timing of his resignation and the distinct possibility of blackmail, are suspect. So, was he opposing the gun running, or was it his operation and the administration decided to shut it down?

Lyle said...

Greenwald isn't working with a leaker, but a traitor. Whistleblowers don't run to China and Russia. They face the constitutional consequences, if there are any.

Furthermore, Greenwald wants to undermine the United States government whereas a whistleblower wants to rectify the record.



cubanbob said...

Where are Woodward, Berstein and Deep Throat when we need them now? Watergate was amatuer hour and child's play compared to this and the other 'phony' scandals. Nixon and his boys are owed a posthumous pardon and apology. Reagan is owed one to for Iran-Contra. At least Reagan was running guns to the good guys-the Contras and selling defective guns to the bad guys, the Iranians but just effective enough so they could keep killing another set of bad guys-Saddam's Baathists.

As for Tapper, dude where were you before the election when we needed you? Now that Obama has been reelected and is a lame duck you get manly? As noted above there is nothing new being revealed other than the extent of the involvement in the gun-running and the rather obvious attempt at covering it up for their political benefit. Toppling communists in Nicaragua was in our national interest. Toppling dictators in Libya and Syria to have them replaced by AQ isn't in our national interest.

Martha said...

The most transparent administration EVER!

C Stanley said...

I am no longer sure what color hat Petraeus wears. I'm pretty sure Tapper's is white.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Even if they go after Tapper, you can bet he won't run away to Hong Kong and telecommunicate with a guy in Rio. That's a valid contrast in my opinion.

Russ Wood said...

We don't know enough to say whether a prosecution would be viable or in the public interest. However, if his sources should go to jail, so should the reporter. The only protection for the press should be the ban on prior restraint: if they break the law, reporters should suffer the penalty just like anyone else.

Matthew Sablan said...

The question isn't will or should, the question is, has Tapper been targeted like Rosen.

damikesc said...

At this point, Obama has become Nixon, but slightly more shameless. He has no fear of repurcussions because they aren't an option with Dems running the Senate and the press holding his water.

But his actions have damaged the country and the media is ignoring it. Not just with Benghazi (but that a President can just leave Americans to die and not even TRY to do anything is deplorable), but ignoring laws routinely and selectively enforcing things he doesn't like is a horrible precedent...though it gives a committed conservative a chance to undo a lot of stuff if he gets power.

Say --- refuse to enforce any regulations except the most bare minimum until Congress specifies what they actually want. Excuse everybody from Obamacare. The budget describes what can be sent --- not that it actually HAS to be spent.

John said...

Jake Tapper is about the only MSM reporter that is doing his job. He is the only one not down on his knees licking Obie's ass.

So for that reason alone he should not go to jail.

More seriously, he signed no oath of secrecy. He should be able to publish.

If they can find the leaker, that person should probably go to jail. (Add some caveats here about assuming they broke the law etc)

John Henry

bpm4532 said...

Secrecy doesn't absolve law-breaking or government harassment of witnesses. The illegal, unethical, and immoral behavior of this administration continues to pile higher. Obama and his folks are likely "all-in" at this point and things could get even worse. I wonder what is going on now that we don't know?

How high does it have to get before Democrats recognize it and feel a duty to act in the country's best interest?

Chuck said...

If Jake Tapper's sources can be caught breaking U.S. law; yes, they should go to prison.

No, I don't think Jake Tapper should go to prison.

We can easily apply the same principles to recent cases. Bradley Manning broke the law and the code of military conduct, and should go to prison. Edward Snowden broke the law and should go to prison.

And Glenn Greenwald need not go to prison since he was acting as a journalist and not responsible for keeping national security secrets. Although Greenwald might like the dating scene in prison. Any Brazilians in that prison?

traditionalguy said...

The standard reply to accusations of a Government conspiracy that goes, "that hundreds of American Government employees could never be in on keeping such a secret."

Well it seems that is no longer true in our new one Party police state that must answer to one man, the nasty Drone Killer himself.

Obama's style of leadership is evil one man. The NSA guys have gone insane on their power, and that now goes for the quasi military forces emplanted inside the EPA and HSA too.

Cedarford said...

LarsPorsena said...
Is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula still in custody? We all know that inflammatory video caused this. Susan Rice said so.

========================
Of course the idol of right-wing chuckleheads is in jail.
For parole violation. Not for making a video then posing as a Jew saying Jews made the video so enraged Muslims would hopefully kill and injure lots of Americans.

See, it is a little hard to ignore the leftist taunt that the Right has more stupid people in the ranks - even with the Left's own Skittles Angel - when right wing droolers fail to get Nakoula was in jail for felony internet fraud and identity theft.
And after the video and finding he solicited actors and investors on the internet under false pretenses, had fake ID for Sam Bacile and his probation officer found 5 other forged passports in the career criminal's apartment?

Off back to jail he goes.

1/3rd of the people arriving at California jails are similar jerks that screwed up meeting terms of probation..

Maybe he needs some right-wingers to have candlelight rallies for him, similar to brain dead lefty women having Dzokhar Tsarnaev support rallies.

SJ said...

@chuckR
Missing a little. "Compare and contrast your position on this mess to your position on IranContra"

What about the treatment of Judith Miller, who would not reveal her source of classified information to the Grand Jury when under subpeona?

Chris Lopes said...

Denying a rescue operation to protect the gun running makes sense from a CYA point of view. If you aren't really guided by any principles beyond expediency, leaving people to die to cover up your goat fornication works as a policy.

Robert Cook said...

Lyle said:

"Greenwald isn't working with a leaker, but a traitor.Whistleblowers don't run to China and Russia. They face the constitutional consequences, if there are any."

If there are any? Snowden prudently put himself out of reach of what he knows more than we to be the almost infinite arms of the preeminent security state in the world, a state that would surely clap him into prison for the rest of his life...simply for confirming what most surely assumed to be true, that the Unites States is spying on everyone in the world. Good on him, I say.

"Furthermore, Greenwald wants to undermine the United States government whereas a whistleblower wants to rectify the record."

Rectify the record? What does this mean? Even a cursory reading of Greenwald reveals that he believes the United States should be held to its own purported ideals and to the laws that it expects everyone else to be held to. Greenwald is the antithesis of being against America, he is an advocate of the rule of law and for elected officials to uphold their oaths to the constitution. Greenwald abhors the crimes of those who use their offices to aggrandize their own power and to further the lawlessness of the United States.

Cubanbob said...

"Reagan is owed (an apology) for Iran-Contra. At least Reagan was running guns to the good guys-the Contras"--by what definition can the Contras, who committed murders of their countrymen, be considered "good guys?" --"and selling defective guns to the bad guys, the Iranians...." Why are the Iranians "bad guys," at least insofar as we are concerned?

Is seems you have swallowed the propaganda of our ruling elites without an iota of skepticism, CB.

Truckee Man said...

Glenn Greenwald is the new Andrew Sullivan.

The Godfather said...

I used to be a foreign policy hawk, back in the day -- when the Communists were the big threat and were trying to take over the world. Then the Iron Curtain fell and the USSR collapsed, and I felt a lot less hawkish.

Only then there was 9/11 (the first one), and from my office in Washington I saw the smoke rising up from the Pentagon. I later learned that a friend who worked at the World Trade Center had taken the day off, so she survived. And I got hawkish again.

I have nothing against espionage directed at our enemies. I have nothing against killing our enemies with drones. But our experience with EVERY war is that civil liberties are sacrificed to the cause of winning the war: We tarred and feathered "loyalists" in the Revolution, we suspended habeas corpus in the Civil War, we imprisoned opponents of the draft in WWI, we sent Japanese Americans to camps in WWII, etc.

Now we have a "Forever War". We need to fight it and win it (no, Pres. Obama cannot validly declare the war over). But if it's going to go on for a long time, we need to learn to fight it in a way that won't impose intolerable burdens on the rights of citizens. If the CIA was running guns from Libya to Syria, well good for them. But if the government screwed up the defense of our Benghazi embassy and our personnel, then we the people need to know that. And if that means that the secrecy about the arms-to-Syria has to be sacrificed, well so be it.

I'll reserve judgment on whether the leakers of information about the (supposed) Syrian connection should be punished until we know more about it. But a blanket "national security" gag doesn't persuade me.

Sigivald said...

Should Jake Tapper go to prison?

No, unless there's some law I'm unaware of making someone who got such information secondhand unable to disclose it.

The people who had legitimate access to that information should go to prison if they knowingly/intentionally gave it to him in violation of the Espionage Act.

See how easy that is?

bpm4532 said...

This administration has little standing to label anything a phony scandal or wacko conspiracy. We might want to check into Andrew Breitbart's passing a little more. He was conveniently silent for the fall 2012 elections.

am said...

They won't prosecute him, but they may pretend to a judge that they will, then tap his phone.

Who will be Tapper's tapper?

edutcher said...

Reporters have done worse for worse reasons and stayed out of jail, including the Gray Lady reporters who blew the whistle on FISA.

As for Tapper's sources, undoubtedly, they'll get immunity.

As I've said all along, this ain't goin' away and now more and more people are talking; some, I suspect, who either were there or are friends and/or co-workers of those who were.

This is only starting to heat up.

Unknown said...

Americans died. Obama caught some ZZZ's

jr565 said...

Whether there was more CIA there or less doesn't explain why there was no response from the Obama administration for close to 8 hours. Nor, why they continued with the argument that the incident occurred because of outrage about a video.
You'd think more CIA being there would make it easier to ascertain the true cause.

As to revealing the CIA being there - there is covert activity.And we aren't supposed to know about it unless we have clearance.

Even if we are to say that Obama promised the most transparent administration ever, I never assumed that meant transparency as far as our espionage was concerned.

But, behind Benghazi is there yet another scandal going on, namely Barack Obama's version of Iran Contra?



jr565 said...

I was just watching Zero Dark Thirty. And I'm wondering if Glenn Greenwald would have leaked the operation prior to it being carried out if he had the intel.
Because it wasn't a certainty that OBL was there. And we had to send in the troops covertly.

How much do we, as the public, have a right to know about covert activity? Enough to jeopardize a mission to kill OBL?

Robert Cook said...

jr565 said...
"I was just watching Zero Dark Thirty. And I'm wondering if Glenn Greenwald would have leaked the operation prior to it being carried out if he had the intel.
Because it wasn't a certainty that OBL was there. And we had to send in the troops covertly.

"How much do we, as the public, have a right to know about covert activity? Enough to jeopardize a mission to kill OBL?"


Although Greenwald has--rightly--raised questions as to why we premptorily assassinated bin Laden and disposed of his body rather than apprehend him alive, what in his writing would suggest to you he advocates the revelation of covert military operations before they take place? What equivalency does he make--or do you see--in covert military operations abroad and the secret all-consuming surveillance of all Americans by our own government, of the vacuuming up of all our communications: all Internet activity and searches, all email and telephone communications, all texts, all our mail photographed and logged?

Certainly there is a continuity between the behavior of a country toward the world outside its borders and toward its own people, and such continuities warrant our attention, commentary, and critique--especially as a government that behaves unlawfully abroad will likely behave unlawfully domestically, and vice versa--but it is the covert violation of the law and of our civil liberties internally that demands to be revealed to we, the people, in whose name and at whose service and discretion our government is supposed (and claims) to act.

(That said, if a journalist learned that the US was planning a first-strike nuclear attack on another country, such information would demand to be revealed, given the immensity of the mass deaths that would result, not to mention the expected and unexpected consequences to us, consequences which would surely be unimaginably calamitous.)

jr565 said...

"Robert Cook wrote:
"Although Greenwald has--rightly--raised questions as to why we premptorily assassinated bin Laden and disposed of his body rather than apprehend him alive, what in his writing would suggest to you he advocates the revelation of covert military operations before they take place? What equivalency does he make--or do you see--in covert military operations abroad and the secret all-consuming surveillance of all Americans by our own government, of the vacuuming up of all our communications: all Internet activity and searches, all email and telephone communications, all texts, all our mail photographed and logged?


Because it was a covert action with us doing stuff we did't tell the American people about which might have violated someone's idea of what was permissable in society.
And note that this conversation is about Benghazi and not about the NSA program. As such, the question was about whether Rosen should go to prison for leaking this.
What if, for example, there was a gun running operation done behind the scenes, reminiscent of IRan Contra. Wouldn't that be exactly what Greenwald would report.
Remember all the "reporting" about the American assassination squads that were roaming in Iran by one of Greenwald's compatriots? How is an assault on OBL different?

As to the NSA, the data gathering is not a violation of the 4th amendment. The Supremes already adressed this. and as has been discussed police used this type of gathering to get info on phone records as far back as the 80's (though on a smaller scale).

Because there is no privacy issues with the govt looking at which number called which number.
If they have to start listening in on conversations they still need a warrant. And there is ample evidence that they are getting them. Is the secret court issuing the warrants a rubber stamp? Perhaps, but it doesn't mean that they haven't been following the process.

And if the idea is that a monitoring program will produce actoinable intel, then they need access to all intel. It would simply be nightmarish to try to assemble such data "on the fly". So if they are gathering all carrier data, well that just makes it easier to run better searches.
But until they run the search it's just data in a database. And if the search never brings up your number, even though the data may be there, it will never be looked at.

Robert Cook said...

jr565,

The NSA program is certainly a violation of the 4th Amendment, no matter what the Supremes may say about it. (When did they address this? I don't think they have.)

Perhaps you're willing to believe claims made by Obama and others in the government that they're "merely" tracking meta-data--which is itself an invasion of our privacy--but others have asserted that they can listen to and read and record the actual contents of our communications and that they are doing so. Perhaps you should read Greenwald's latest article discussing XKeyscore. (Moreover, the government have been caught in so many lies that only a newborn could assume anything they say is the truth without irrefutable corroborating evidence.)

"Because (providing funds raised by selling arms to Iram to the Contras) was a covert action with us doing stuff we did't tell the American people about which might have violated someone's idea of what was permissable in society."

Actually, it violated the law, (the Boland Amendment). As such, it certainly should have been revealed by any journalist who might have known of it before it occurred or while it was going on. Oliver North later committed felonies by perjuring himself before Congress while testifying about our activities in the sequence of events that came to be known as "Iran Contra."

It's very simple: our government may not violate the law. Rather, it does and has done so consistently from the beginning of the republic. Contrary to President Nixon and his latest disciple, Barack Obama, an unlawful action is not legal just because the President or the United States does it. It is the duty of any journalist, private citizen, or person in government who is aware of criminal behavior by our government to come forward and make it known.