"The leaking of classified information is a serious issue," said [White House] spokesman, Trent Duffy.I'm linking to the NYT and quoting its article, even though the NYT is the place where the leaked information first appeared. It is a special challenge to them to report the investigate well, and we shall see how well they report it. The author of the article, David E. Sanger, does a good job, I think, even if he gives prominent place to quotes that lamely say that investigating the surveillance program ought to predominate. Here's Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union:
"The fact is that Al Qaeda's playbook is not printed on Page 1, and when America's is, it has serious ramifications. You don't need to be Sun Tzu to understand that," he said, referring to the Chinese warrior who wrote "The Art of War."
The president last week denounced in strong language the leaking of information about the agency's program, saying: "My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."
"President Bush broke the law and lied to the American people when he unilaterally authorized secret wiretaps of U.S. citizens... But rather than focus on this constitutional crisis, Attorney General Gonzales is cracking down on critics of his friend and boss. Our nation is strengthened, not weakened, by those whistle-blowers who are courageous enough to speak out on violations of the law."And here's Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center:
"[T]he priority at this point for the Department of Justice should be the appointment of an independent prosecutor to determine whether federal wiretap laws were violated" by the security agency program, not the leak inquiry.Sanger does call attention to the leak investigation in the Valerie Plame case, which tends to refute Romero's implication that the President is only concerned about leaks as a way to get at his critics. (I wonder if those who screamed loudest about the Plame leak and national security are equally outraged about this new leak?) Sanger also quotes Tom Devine, legal director of the Government Accountability Project, "a nonprofit law firm that defends whistle-blowers," saying that "his group would not object to a limited investigation of the leak of classified information":
"But if they do a blanket witch hunt, which I fear, ... it would trample all over good government laws" intended to protect government workers who expose wrongdoing.Sanger offers a neutral-sounding account of the newspaper's role in leaking the information:
"The whole reason we have whistle-blower laws is so that government workers can act as the public's eyes and ears to expose illegality or abuse of power."
The administration first learned that The New York Times had obtained information about the secret eavesdropping program more than a year ago and expressed concern to editors that its disclosure could jeopardize terrorism investigations. The newspaper withheld the article at the time, and the government did not open a leak investigation at that time, presumably because such an inquiry might itself disclose the program.Why? Naturally, we crave more information here, but Sanger's inability to offer it does not undermine his report. The Times is part of the investigation, and Sanger can only tell us: "Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, declined to comment on the leak investigation."
The newspaper did additional reporting and eventually decided to publish the article despite the continuing objections of President Bush and other top officials.
UPDATE: If you came here from Crooked Timber and want my response to the scurrilous things that were said about me there, it's here.
Posts
56 comments:
The leak investigation should be widened to find the group of CIA bureaucrats who are attempting to overthrow the government with disclosures of secret anti-terrorist measures.
"Declined to comment"? What is he hiding, what does he know and when did he know it, bring on the Special Prosecutor!
Someday I would like to hear from Romero what he agrees with in government's prosecution of the WOT. Anything?
Any military officer, football player, or White House staffer can tell you that although playing "defense" will keep you from getting too mauled, only generating a good "offense" can actually win the game.
This offense is richly deserved.
gj:
"what is the appropriate course of action for a government official who believes that he has knowledge of a serious violation of the law by the highest levels of the executive branch of the government? Just suck it up?"
One problem with your statement is that the programs disclosed by the traitors in the CIA have been in place for decades and have been tested in the courts. Everyone in the CIA knows that.
Thus they had only two purposes for their disclosures.
1. Overthrow the government
2. Enable the Al Qaida to murder millions of Americans.
I wonder if those who screamed loudest about the Plame leak and national security are equally outraged about this new leak?
There is absolutely no reason to be equally outraged. Libby and Rove's actions in Plame were as Judge Tatel and as each judge who provided oversight agreed, that of the government taking revenge against a classic whistleblower. The NSA surveillance leak is also a case of the classic whistleblower, protecting the public against an overreaching government taking illegal actions. And Alberto Gonzalez' actions to investigate the whistleblower and not the crime will rank up there with Bork's actions in the Saturday Night Massacre.
Ann, just what were you doing in your 20s when your actual education should have been taking place?
"There is absolutely no reason to be equally outraged."
There is reason to be more outraged, because of the actual damage to national security. Ever think about that?
Programs such as this, really have two components: the technological "capability" to conduct them (which can take decades to develop, and put in place); and the political or administrative "intention" to begin them and direct their focus. While I see value in institutionalizing a system of whistleblowing to expose run-amuck intentions, I don't feel the same about allowing anyone to expose the capabilities which are a vital part of our national security infrastructure. How to allow one to happen (whistleblowing on the alleged illegal motives or intentions of governmental perpetrators), while not allowing the other to happen (revealing national capabilities) seems to be a key issue that will have to be examined.
Quick post while getting my daughter's bath ready.... but...
There is reason to be more outraged, because of the actual damage to national security. Ever think about that?
A) None of us at this point know of the actual damages caused by either leak.
B) We do know that Judge Tatel and others said the Plame leak was very serious. So serious that though he wanted to let Cooper and Miller off the hook, that he couldn't.
C) We do know that Bush has claimed the NSA leak targeted thousands of people with a history of blowing up churches and trains. But we also know we haven't heard of any such arrests, which after Moussaousi and Padilla and the Marin Taliban dude and Reid and the prof in florida and the lackwanna 5 is somewhat odd.
D) We also know that Bin Laden was hardly surprised to find the NSA is trying to intercept his phone calls. (That's probably why he uses PGP)
E) We still haven't found Bin Laden
F) The Administration has known about the NSA leak for over a year -- why are they only investigating it now?
G) Bush definitely knows who the Plame leaker is, or could have found out -- he has chosen not to
H) Bush claimed he wouldn't go after the NSA leaker.... Flippity, Floppity. As usual, trust Bush at your own peril.
G) You are trying to change the subject. The point stands, the NSA surveillance is almost certainly illegal, and it's leak to the public is in fact, the definition of the classic whistleblower.
As a Constitutional Law Professor, why don't you explain to your readers the history of whistleblower protections.
Rinse, Lather, Repeat.
Quxxo: "As a Constitutional Law Professor, why don't you..."
Since you're short on time, try skipping the usual crap.
"There is reason to be more outraged, because of the actual damage to national security."
That's the thing--the Bushitler dogma denies that there is a serious threat to national security, so that derails the debate. The two sides haven't even agreed on the underlying assumptions yet.
"Since you're short on time, try skipping the usual crap."
-- well played... if you're in the third grade.
Perhaps, but quixxo's m.o. is to throw the 'as a constitutional law professor, you ought to...' phrase at almost every occasion, to the point where people roll their eyes and scroll past his comments so as to avoid the usual droggel.
The same can be said, on either side of any debate, when someone says "funny how..." Especially when they continually throw out (up?) the same tired points over and over.
I am still unsure why people believe the intelligence collection in question is unlawful. I am a former military member who was involved in a variety of collection efforts from the 1970s through the 90s. The majority of the people who are front-line collectors are members of one of the armed forces. Operationally they take orders from their respective branch of service but receive their tasking from NSA. NSA mandates that anyone who collects communications intelligence must be intimately familiar with United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 (USSID 18). This USSID is declassified and is considered the operational counterpart of FISA. It explicitly states that the Attorney General of the United States can unilaterally authorize the collection of communications to, from, or about US persons IF the purpose of the collection is to acquire significant foreign (terrorist) intelligence. If this is illegal activity then we have been breaking the law since at least the Carter Administration with full knowledge by each and every Attorney General since then.
Kenny, they have cooperated in both investigations. Who cares whether they were "anxious" enough? Maybe Bush should smile more at press conferences.
The "proof" that you're demanding will only be available in hindsight, as in the case of 9/11. If the FBI and security agencies had not been separated and hindered, perhaps they might have connected those dots. But the law at that time did not allow them to. Perhaps, too, if Clinton had had the moral courage, he could have told us who really attacked the WTC in '93 and done something about it, like passing a Patriot Act. Yet no one attacks his handling of an attack. Why?
The loyal opposition attacks the government for failing to stop the attack and at the same time for trying too hard to stop another attack. Which is it, should we connect the dots or prove the danger only after the fact?
David53: Thanks. It's things like that that underscore why I do not use my position as law professor to make pronouncements about the legality of the surveillance. The law here is complicated, and opponents of the President are trying to spin it as simple and obvious.
It is highly unfortunate that quxxo included a childish and utterly uncalled for taunt in his post, because it gave folks a convenient (and understandable)excuse to ignore some of his points. That said, Ann, I don't understand something. You have made it abundantly clear of late that you will refuse to opine on complicated issues outside of your expertise (e.g. surveillance issues). Yet, you have no problem stating that the national security ramifications of the NSA leak(s) completely overwhelm those of the Plame leak. Please admit that when you make such a pronouncement you are speculating about an area in which you have no expertise. Or else please tell us what credentials you have to identify and rank the consequences to national security of various types of leaks to the media. Lots of people in the know think the consequences of the Plame leak are incredibly severe.
"....but what is the appropriate course of action for a government official who believes that he has knowledge of a serious violation of the law by the highest levels of the executive branch of the government? Just suck it up?..."
gj has a point here. I think if abuse is found out about the wiretapping, such as unreasonable wiretapping of domestic political opponents, or intentional wire tapping of domestic persons with no reasonable connection to terrorism, etc... then it is a real case where the whistle blower should be protected.
However, if there is no abuse, if the program (that Congress was already informed about) turns out to be limited to spying on incoming and outgoing communications with suspected terrorists, then the leakers committed a serious crime and are not whistle blowers. They are traitors.
Whistleblowing as not a protection for the disagreement with a policy.
When Ann is interviewed on NPR, it is not as J. Random Blogger. When Ann is introduced, it is not as J. Random Blogger. People look to her opinion and judgment based upon her title, "Constitutional Law Professor Ann Althouse."
Ann profits daily on her elite position in society as a Professor (and most likely as a Doctor) of Law. And she profits in her blog as "Formidable law blogger Ann Althouse" and part of the "Law Blog Ad Network"
As someone that society gives a great deal of deference and respect to as a professional and as an educator, she has certain ethical responsibilities the rest of us do not.
If she is going to offer comments on the Administration, she should make it very clear when she is speculating, when she is not, when she has studied the issues, and when she has not, and when what she writes is partisan, and when it is not.
I do not expect her to be balanced. And no one can be objective.
I do expect her to be respectful of all sides, not to pretend her adversaries have good arguments, and not to ignore those arguments.
I just don't know who to believe, quxxo or Cass Sunstein?
That's right! I don't think anyone should just believe me. I am just a software engineer working in aerospace and defense. I have pretty much the typical American education and experience.
I think us Americans can understand the issues and make our own judgments when the issues are fairly laid out for us by those of us with the specialized domain knowledge and the historical context.
That is exactly what I ask Ann to do when I encourage her as "Constitutional Law Professor..."
In the meantime, Professor Sunstein and since clarified his point of view. And many other lawyers, some of whom are professors, senators, congressman, and many from the right, have entered the debate disagreeing with Sunstein, including Orin Kerr, Warren Rudman, Arlen Spector, Bob Barr, Glenn Greenwald, Marty Lederman, Mark Kleiman, and others, including of course, Armando.
Don't believe me.
And question authority.
I do expect her ... , not to pretend her adversaries have good arguments
No need to pretend, I do expect her not to pretend her adversaries DO NOT have good arguments. They do.
He has clarified it (but hasn't really changed his opinion.) Follow Armando's link, Armando links directly to it and discusses i.
The leakers in this case may need to follow some procedure -- I do not know the status of the Whistleblower Act you refer to, or how it has been amended or interpreted or who it applies to, etc.. I do note that the Act itself calls for the IG to determine if the complaint is reasonable or credible and to take certain actions. Though Gonzales is investigating the leak, he doesn't appear to be determining if the complaint is reasonable or credible.
Who does Gonzales represent? The people or the President himself?
I don't know what it means to say that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed this issue. Kerr, Lederman, and Greenwald all tell me that that doesn't matter, what does matter is that Congress specifically did.
I think it is a bogus cop-out of Professor Althouse to tell us that she thinks X, but that since she has not studied the issues, she is not going to acknowledge Y, or agree that Y may be reasonable.
Anyway, time to do one girl's nails, and pick the other up from her playdate.
Whether the program in question is constitutional is an open question.
But it was clearly illegal -- and for the chief executive to deliberately break a law passed by Congress is obviously unconstitutional. The enemies of the Constitution who pretend otherwise are just spinning. Disgustingly so.
There is reason to be more outraged, because of the actual damage to national security. Ever think about that?
Yeah, terrorists might now suspect they could be wiretapped. Brilliant point.
quxxo> he uses PGP
How do you know bin Laden uses PGP?
There is in fact, no evidence that Bin Laden used PGP (or steganography), these are just two widely spread myths the government has used to crack down on encryption technologies and to try to force weak technologies with back doors.
(As to what I have programmed over the years, apart from commercial systems, it has been what you call "the real stuff, as in systems that have gone into Air Force fighters (and AWACS), Navy ship defensive systems, Army communications systems, as well as tanks and helicopters. That I and many of my fellow developers in aerospace over the years have been very liberal and libertarian in their views while building the best offensive and defensive systems for the country is why I laugh with the silliness of the argument that Evidently you don't feel that there is an "enemy" or that he poses a significant threat. Many of us feel otherwise. That is just a smear. Call liberals, democrats and anti-war conservatives traitors. That is a vicious smear, completely illogical, and with no evidence behind it. But I can see how it would make you feel good and help keep you from having to pay attention to the dissonant facts.
If the Constitution is the highest law in the land, then if the President has the Constitutional authority, say under under Article II, to eavesdrop where foreign powers are involved, then wouldn't the law you imply (passed by Congress, e.g., FISA) be unconstitutional?
Very interesting, but stupid. The president does not get to make such decisions on his own say-so with no oversight, and anyway, if it were the administration's determination that such were the case, then he had FOUR YEARS to seek a lawful remedy. But he waited until his sorry ass was exposed in the NYTimes.
Evidently you don't feel that there is an "enemy" or that he poses a significant threat. Many of us feel otherwise.
Grow up. The scheme the administration came up with violated the law, and he didn't seek lawful remedy, just went forward full steam ahead. There are always threats. And there are always laws. Are you such an abject coward and fool that you think screeching the word "terrorism" allows the executive branch the power to do whatever the hell it wants? Glad you weren't around in 1776...
And don't go pontificating about Congressional intent for one statute and then completely trashing it in the actually relevant instance. BUSH BROKE THE LAW. To say that he had no other option than to do so for FOUR YEARS is inane.
In our system of government the Supreme Court has the final say, and they haven't yet spoken.
Yeah, that's why no law is ever enforceable until it gets to the SC, you nitwit.
After all this time, its a mystery as to what law Bush broke? Lets see.... Suspected terrorist in Pakistan calls person X in United States. NSA wire taps the call....seems reasonable to me. Okay how about Person Y in the United States calls suspected Terrorist in Pakistan.
Where is the law that is broken? Is there a law against the President listening to international calls taking place with our enemy without a warrant? Umm... that answer is no. Can Congress require that the President get a warrant to listen to international calls.. Hmm, that would be NO.
Please stop the namecalling. We are trying to have an intellectual discussion here, right?
In the sense that I'm telling you that you are talking crap. You have the eggs to get pious about "namecalling" when you come up with obnoxious, puerile, misleading garbage like "Bush is more of a threat than al Qaeda?"? The president broke the law, meathead. And you want to rationalize it. You're a sorry excuse for an American.
If Bush broke the law, who is going to stop the warrantless NSA eavesdropping of foreign powers ordered by the President?
That's the whole point, Chester. The president is saying he has neither check nor balance. And you have a dopey sense of "foreign powers" here...
"...Are you such an abject coward and fool that you think screeching the word "terrorism" allows the executive branch the power to do whatever the hell it wants? Glad you weren't around in 1776..."
I'm so scared. It sucks that the government is actually trying to protect us.
After all this time, its a mystery as to what law Bush broke?
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.
YOU think the president of the United States can all by himself declare that it is "wartime" and then pick and choose what laws he wants to obey. You're a coward and a fool and no American. Go back to 18th century England, Tory.
And, again, who is to stop the warrantless NSA eavesdropping of foreign powers ordered by the President?
Again, you idiot, that's the whole point.
Take Marbury out of your ass and read FISA.
No, I'm not going to read Parker's column. She's a moronic hack and life's too short.
Marbury is irrelevant, BTW, because while final interpretative authority may lie with the SC, that hardly means that every law raises interpretive questions that the SC will take. Otherwise, the SC would comment on every fucking law Congress passes. That is obviously not how the system works.
You might as well be posting Betty Crocker recipes. If Congress passes a law that says "you can't expose your nuts in court" you don't need John Roberts staring at your sack to tell you how the law should be interpreted.
Hey Thersites, how are you persuading the undecideds? Look at Rasmussen. You're losing, bigtime!
Are you ill? Rasmussen decides legal questions now? And did Rasmussen use the key word "illegal," which was clearly the case?
You can lead Brylin to water but you can't pull his head out of his ass.
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?
You don't know FISA. Admit it.
Thanks for admitting you were being silly in citing Marbury.
Your question is simply dumb.
Tick, tick, tick, meanwhile the surveillance continues, unless Thersites figures out a way to stop it.
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.
I really think much of the problem afflicting Bush supporters is that they are simultaneously ignorant and stupid.
"....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...."
Actually...your wrong. I know you wish it were true. But, alas. Bush did not break this law.
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.
"..You're a coward and a fool and no American. Go back to 18th century England, Tory...."
Ouch that hurts...to be called a Tory in times like these.
Maybe you should go consult your little Red Book.
That's WHY WE HAVE A SPEARATION OF POWERS.
LOL
Yep, hysterical types are stickin' it to the Executive.
thersites
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?
On the other hand, Congress controls the purse strings. They could simply shut down the NSA.
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.
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.
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.
See? The problem is that you're ignorant to a profound degree. Your conception of how the Constitution works is simply bizarre.
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?
How on Earth are either of those questions relevant to.... anything? If you're not talking about the actual law, you're talking crap.
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.
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.
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.
Those who reason carefully, such as Prof. Kerr, almost always caution that their analysis is dependent on assumptions about unknown factors.
"Clearly" just doesn't belong in any discussion of FISA's statutory applicability to facts that are not known in detail.
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.
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).
The Plame leak has been investigated at the cost of millions of dollars. Why should this leak be exempt from that investigation?
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).
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).
Or is it that the Plame leak hurt the left, and the NSa leak hurt the Addministration?
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.
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.?
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?
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?
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.
"Let me add that the accepted cost of civil disobedience is paying the price. "
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.
The big problem with the media making determinations about the balance between security and oversight is that the media are ignorant.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Prometheus
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Professor Booty: That's a flat lie about me and you know it.
Post a Comment