tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post113604532528112039..comments2024-03-18T23:54:08.410-05:00Comments on Althouse: Investigating the leak... and reporting about it in the NYT.Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136460319050318652006-01-05T05:25:00.000-06:002006-01-05T05:25:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Dominionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16865751130999163721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136407270586131972006-01-04T14:41:00.000-06:002006-01-04T14:41:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Dominionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16865751130999163721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136403734238520662006-01-04T13:42:00.000-06:002006-01-04T13:42:00.000-06:00Professor Booty: That's a flat lie about me and yo...Professor Booty: That's a flat lie about me and you know it.Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136308474366888682006-01-03T11:14:00.000-06:002006-01-03T11:14:00.000-06:00prometheus---all compromises have to be investigat...prometheus---all compromises have to be investigated as soon as possible? Is that one of the little lies? I think the intell world is larger than you suspect.<BR/><BR/>I can't speak for Bush's motivations, but I do know that often terrorists aren't as smart as people think they are. Yes, IMO this leak may cause them to change their operational procedures.David53https://www.blogger.com/profile/12583911948694096916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136192890864172502006-01-02T03:08:00.000-06:002006-01-02T03:08:00.000-06:00PrometheusDon't know. But maybe it was because the...Prometheus<BR/><BR/>Don't know. But maybe it was because the information seemed to be contained, and that an investigation would do more to publicize the information than doing nothing. <BR/><BR/>Add to that that if there is an investigation of the disclosure of classified information, it most likely will be a result of pressure from some of Mr. Bush's base to hit back. A lot of them have been frustrated at the ability of the Democrats and the MSM at changing the topic from Joe Wilson's lies and deceits to that of who outed his wife (their view - it was Wilson's fault she was outed). (And you and I can debate the Wilson kerfuffle for the forseeable future without convincing each other or anyone else here, so let's not even try).<BR/><BR/>Point though is that a lot of those who put Mr. Bush in office see this as payback and a chance to maybe start to cleanup the Washington system of strategic disclosure of classified information to news organizations for personal political reasons that has been going on since at least the Pentagon Papers. It has always been illegal, but has been winked at now for decades. But for the last couple of years, much of it has been aimed at damaging the President, the putative and legal head of the agencies for which those leaking the information work. <BR/><BR/>Your point that nothing new was disclosed is maybe not quite accurate. Yes, many have known for quite awhile that the NSA listened to a lot of international traffic. This may have disclosed some additional capabilities on the margins, esp. maybe some of what was actually being monitored and how. <BR/><BR/>Your suggestion that nothing new was disclosed sounds to me like arguing that the Chinese didn't steal any of our secrets during the Clinton Administration (or it didn't matter) because they already knew how to make nuclear weapons and missle delivery systems. Never mind that ours are better, and theirs are better now too, thanks to the stolen secrets. In other words, sometimes the specifics are important too.<BR/><BR/>Also, prior to the disclosure of this program, there was always the question of how likely it was that a specific conversation between a suspected terrorist overseas and someone in the U.S. was being monitored, given the apparent warrant requirements. Yes, a warrant could be obtained. But arguably, this could be avoided by moving the U.S. contact side of these conversations around enough. It is now obvious that that potential strategum is unlikely to work. And that is potentially helpful information to our enemies.Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136137673587588712006-01-01T11:47:00.000-06:002006-01-01T11:47:00.000-06:00I think the fact that the NYT has not reported tha...I think the fact that the NYT has not reported that there is a statutory procedure for whistleblowers in the NSA already tells us much about how balanced their coverage of the leak investigation will be.john(classic)https://www.blogger.com/profile/05804517855913600116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136137502200009612006-01-01T11:45:00.000-06:002006-01-01T11:45:00.000-06:00The big problem with the media making determinatio...The big problem with the media making determinations about the balance between security and oversight is that the media are ignorant.<BR/><BR/>As an example, when the Pentagon papers were published they had a section of "Soviet Reaction". Some of the material in that came from what was one of our most secret sources -- satellite interception of Brezhnev's car phone. By knowing the information, it could be possible to track back to the leak.<BR/><BR/>The NYT and Ellsberg were presumably both unaware of this. Maybe it would have made no difference, but the point is that they are incompetent to make rational security/right to know decisions because they are ignorant of all the factors.<BR/><BR/>The same is true of any low ranking individual who decides that for reasons of conscience, revenge, or whatever, he should leak what he knows.john(classic)https://www.blogger.com/profile/05804517855913600116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136135902832488142006-01-01T11:18:00.000-06:002006-01-01T11:18:00.000-06:00"Let me add that the accepted cost of civil disobe..."Let me add that the accepted cost of civil disobedience is paying the price. "<BR/><BR/>Hear, hear. Everyone nowadays seems to forget that an "act of conscience" must also be an act of courage for it to have any meaning whatever.PatCAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08920623662477828662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136134874280341152006-01-01T11:01:00.000-06:002006-01-01T11:01:00.000-06:00Let me add that the accepted cost of civil disobed...Let me add that the accepted cost of civil disobedience is paying the price. If the argument is that the disclosure of classified information was a result of conscience, you have classic civil disobedience, and the leakers should be willing to come forth and pay the prescribed price, including, of course, the jail time.Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136134584160696972006-01-01T10:56:00.000-06:002006-01-01T10:56:00.000-06:00I think that what those trying to hijack this thre...I think that what those trying to hijack this thread are trying to obscure is that the one crime that is most likely to have been committed is that of disclosing classified information. Yes, maybe the NSA actions did too, but as pointed out by John (classic), we don't have enough information to know that for sure, and as pointed out, even if it did putatively violate FISA, arguments have been made by the Administration that it was still legal.<BR/><BR/>Back to the point. The one clear violation is that of the disclosure of classified documents. Why should that be legal here, given that there is no NYT exception to the relevant statutes, etc.?<BR/><BR/>A post today at Powerline.com points out that this has been accepted behavior since at least the Pentagon Papers. But should it be, esp. given that you then have civilians in the end deciding what to disclose, and not those elected or hired to do so? <BR/><BR/>In the end, I think that the intersection of these two scandals is going to result is a crackdown on leaking, as, IMHO, it should. What gives some CIA, NSA, etc. employee the legal right to decide that this specific classified information should be disclosed, regardless of the laws, etc. to the contrary?Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136133733540732212006-01-01T10:42:00.000-06:002006-01-01T10:42:00.000-06:00As usual, things have gotten side tracked here. Th...As usual, things have gotten side tracked here. The original question was about investigating the leaks of the NSA evesdropping. And it has repeatedly pointed out that there are legal avenues for whistleblowing, that don't include the NYT. <BR/><BR/>Remember that final scene in the Clancy "Clear and Present Danger" movie where Hans Solo (sorry, Indiana Jones - whoops, Jack Ryan) testifies before that precise Senate committee. That was what was happening: Whistleblowing in the prescribed way (CIA vs NSA, but same idea). <BR/><BR/>The Plame leak has been investigated at the cost of millions of dollars. Why should this leak be exempt from that investigation? <BR/><BR/>An argument can be made that this leak is worse than the Plame leak (after all, she was riding a desk at Langlely at the time). And this potentially disclosed our intelligence capabilities, which the Plame one did not. (Yes, the opposite argument can be made, and has been, above).<BR/><BR/>So, what distinguishes this disclosure from the Plame disclosure (if there acctually were one, which is still not proven)? That it was putatively illegal behavior by the NSA? But then, the obligation of the employees who did disclose this information would be to follow the prescribed whistlelowing procedures (at least first - if they didn't work, then let's have that debate, but that is not where we appear to be).<BR/><BR/>Or is it that the Plame leak hurt the left, and the NSa leak hurt the Addministration?Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136130908817235002006-01-01T09:55:00.000-06:002006-01-01T09:55:00.000-06:00Anyone who says that the NSA program is "clearly l...Anyone who says that the NSA program is "clearly legal" or "clearly illegal" based on the statutes is either someone with an executive position at NSA and detailed notes who is breaking the law, or is unable to read and reason.<BR/><BR/>FISA, by virtue of its matrix of factors in the definition of "electronic surveillance" is a very detailed, operative fact oriented statute. What kind of communication, between whom in terms of legal status and location, intercepted where by what means, and with what approvals are all factors that have to be known to express a conclusion about the statutes applicability.<BR/><BR/>As a small for instance, FISA makes whether the communication is a wire or radio communication a pertinent factor. A communication on a cable is not necessarily a wire communication, however, unless the cable is that of a common carrier. Most submarine cables are not operated by common carriers. Without knowing which submarine cables and whether there is a "device" doing the interception and where it is, one is unable to make a determination.<BR/><BR/>Those who reason carefully, such as Prof. Kerr, almost always caution that their analysis is dependent on assumptions about unknown factors.<BR/><BR/>"Clearly" just doesn't belong in any discussion of FISA's statutory applicability to facts that are not known in detail.john(classic)https://www.blogger.com/profile/05804517855913600116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136122755753302652006-01-01T07:39:00.000-06:002006-01-01T07:39:00.000-06:00We even had a cameo appearance of Altmouse in this...We even had a cameo appearance of Altmouse in this thread!brylinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00736910078664653015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136103780395413092006-01-01T02:23:00.000-06:002006-01-01T02:23:00.000-06:00BTW, speaking of separation of powers, who is the ...<I>BTW, speaking of separation of powers, who is the check on the Legislative during wartime? Do you think a war should be conducted by committee?</I><BR/><BR/>How on Earth are either of those questions relevant to.... anything? If you're not talking about the actual law, you're talking crap.Thershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14072224569922847217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136103609652676572006-01-01T02:20:00.000-06:002006-01-01T02:20:00.000-06:00Besides, how is it possible that Congress could pa...<I>Besides, how is it possible that Congress could pass a law preventing the President from spying on a foreign power? How ridiculous. Thus, either FISA law does not encompass this or the law is unconstitutional.</I><BR/><BR/>See? The problem is that you're ignorant to a profound degree. Your conception of how the Constitution works is simply bizarre.Thershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14072224569922847217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136102718890983882006-01-01T02:05:00.000-06:002006-01-01T02:05:00.000-06:00thersitesBTW, speaking of separation of powers, wh...thersites<BR/><BR/>BTW, speaking of separation of powers, who is the check on the Legislative during wartime? Do you think a war should be conducted by committee?<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, Congress controls the purse strings. They could simply shut down the NSA.<BR/><BR/>Funny, though. I don't think they will. The top democrats knew about this program all along and didn't make a stink until the article came out. Strange, isn't it? And Rockefeller, surprise, found a CYA memo in his magic safe.<BR/><BR/>The program will continue. And the leaker will be caught and punished. Technically those who confirmed the program to the Times and gave further details are just as guilty. I don't know how finely meshed the net will be.Sylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03069871911665125873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136102267802919892006-01-01T01:57:00.000-06:002006-01-01T01:57:00.000-06:00That's WHY WE HAVE A SPEARATION OF POWERS.LOLYep, ...<I>That's WHY WE HAVE A SPEARATION OF POWERS.</I><BR/><BR/>LOL<BR/><BR/>Yep, hysterical types are stickin' it to the Executive.Sylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03069871911665125873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136100180096746832006-01-01T01:23:00.000-06:002006-01-01T01:23:00.000-06:00"..You're a coward and a fool and no American. Go ..."..You're a coward and a fool and no American. Go back to 18th century England, Tory...."<BR/><BR/>Ouch that hurts...to be called a Tory in times like these.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you should go consult your little Red Book.Sloanasaurushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15787488302564761993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136100053043865722006-01-01T01:20:00.000-06:002006-01-01T01:20:00.000-06:00"....Nope. He broke the Foreign Intelligence Secur..."....Nope. He broke the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA). And he could have had this program and done it lawfully in 2001, but didn't...."<BR/><BR/>Actually...your wrong. I know you wish it were true. But, alas. Bush did not break this law. <BR/><BR/>Besides, how is it possible that Congress could pass a law preventing the President from spying on a foreign power? How ridiculous. Thus, either FISA law does not encompass this or the law is unconstitutional.Sloanasaurushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15787488302564761993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136099962174439612006-01-01T01:19:00.000-06:002006-01-01T01:19:00.000-06:00A final quote from Marbury: "[A] law repugnant to ...A final quote from Marbury: <BR/>"[A] law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."brylinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00736910078664653015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136098832956283952006-01-01T01:00:00.000-06:002006-01-01T01:00:00.000-06:00"God bless you, and God bless America," said Georg..."God bless you, and God bless America," said George Bush.brylinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00736910078664653015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136098319823463582006-01-01T00:51:00.000-06:002006-01-01T00:51:00.000-06:00Tick, tick, tick, meanwhile the surveillance conti...<I> Tick, tick, tick, meanwhile the surveillance continues, unless Thersites figures out a way to stop it.</I><BR/><BR/>A system where the president can reinterpret or ignore the law according to his personal whim, and nobody can stop him, is tyrrany, you imbecile. That's WHY WE HAVE A SPEARATION OF POWERS.<BR/><BR/>I really think much of the problem afflicting Bush supporters is that they are simultaneously ignorant and stupid.Thershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14072224569922847217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136098180920928582006-01-01T00:49:00.000-06:002006-01-01T00:49:00.000-06:00I don't think I've called you even one name. Let t...I don't think I've called you even one name. Let the readers decide.<BR/><BR/>Happy New Year, Thersites. Really.brylinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00736910078664653015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136098063914125132006-01-01T00:47:00.001-06:002006-01-01T00:47:00.001-06:00I guess this is no longer an intellectual discussi...I guess this is no longer an intellectual discussion.brylinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00736910078664653015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1136098027352980432006-01-01T00:47:00.000-06:002006-01-01T00:47:00.000-06:00Come on, we're not talking about "every xxx law," ...<I>Come on, we're not talking about "every xxx law," we're talking about who is going to stop the warrantless NSA eavesdropping of foreign powers ordered by the President?</I><BR/><BR/>You don't know FISA. Admit it. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for admitting you were being silly in citing Marbury. <BR/><BR/>Your question is simply dumb.Thershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14072224569922847217noreply@blogger.com