Prosecute the Leakers

[Annie]

Past time, links at site:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004159.htm

HOW TO STOP DANGEROUS PRESS LEAKS
By Michelle Malkin · December 26, 2005 11:16 AM

So, President Bush is now begging newspaper editors to stop publishing classified information obtained via illegal leaks. Howard Kurtz reports:

President Bush has been summoning newspaper editors lately in an effort to prevent publication of stories he considers damaging to national security.

The efforts have failed, but the rare White House sessions with the executive editors of The Washington Post and New York Times are an indication of how seriously the president takes the recent reporting that has raised questions about the administration's anti-terror tactics.

Here's an idea. Instead of going hat in hand to the liberal media elite to prevent these security-compromising disclosures, the White House should try this:

1. Strengthen collective spine.
2. Subpoena reporters.
3. Find the leakers.
4. Prosecute the lawbreakers.

Six days ago, the President said he had not ordered an investigation into the leak, but that, "There's a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks. I presume that process is moving forward."

Well, is it?

Jack Kelly, who blogs at Irish Pennants, writes in his latest Toledo Blade column:

It is despicable, but not illegal, for the news media to publish vital national secrets leaked to them. But the leakers have committed a felony.

Those who have demanded severe punishment for whoever it was who told reporters that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA have been remarkably forgiving about who leaked the existence of the NSA intercept program, which - like the earlier leak of secret CIA prisons for al-Qaeda bigwigs and unlike the Plame kerfuffle - has done serious harm to our national security.

But fortunately, by clapping New York Times reporter Judith Miller in irons until she talked, overzealous special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has set a valuable precedent.

Attorney General Gonzales should subpoena Mr. Risen and Mr. Lichtblau, and have them cited for contempt of court if they do not disclose their source or sources. Maybe they could share Judy Miller's old cell.

***

AJ Strata is keeping an eye on recently resigned FISA Judge James Robertson.

Fausta at The Bad Hair Blog is fed up.

***

Reader S.M. e-mails:

I'm certain you get numerous e-mails such as this one following any item you blog about regarding leaking classified information. My fiancee and I both work in the defense industry and hold security clearances of varying degrees. What strikes us both, and anyone else in our sphere of professional aquaintances, is the seeming double standard in place where the protection of classified information is concerned. While it seems that senior managers (and I use "manager" as a term of derision) and policymakers are cozy enough with the oversight comittees and agencies that they feel at liberty to divulge carefully selected pieces of classified information whenever it suits their purpose, I *KNOW* that anyone at my level would be swiftly and thoroughly wrung out following anything but the most benign security violation.

For example, if I should happen to accidentally leave my cellphone in my briefcase and bring it into a SCIF or other classified area, I would be guaranteed a trip to the security office to explain the breech of policy, sign a counseling statement and perhaps be re-briefed on local security policy. Two or more such violations would likely result in a suspension of my clearance or an outright revocation of such. This would kill me professionally and financially. Additionally, if I were to deliberately place a phone call to the editor of a national media outlet to discuss classified information, or willfully stuff classified documents down my trousers, I would be standing before the security officer as the first step towards prosecution under the laws that I am subject to in regards to my job. This does not seem to be the case for those at higher levels of "management" than mine.

...This double-standard cannot stand and I worry that the ongoing leaks that do not result in any attempt to prosecute the guilty parties may set a dangerous precedent in the future. This topic needs to have the spotlight thrown on it for open examination by people of all political stripes, and the electorate of this country needs to know that national security, both in policy and in practice, is a joke.

 

[Abbey Normal]

So, President Bush is now begging newspaper editors to stop publishing classified information obtained via illegal leaks. Howard Kurtz reports:

President Bush has been summoning newspaper editors lately in an effort to prevent publication of stories he considers damaging to national security.

How dare he try to protect our country. The nerve!

 

[manu1959]

treason = muzzle to the medulla

 

[Annie]

Perhaps the government is going to get to the bottom of the leaks. Notice the last sentence:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/AR2006072801606.html

Grand Jury Probes News Leaks at NSA
Fired Officer Subpoenaed for Aug. 2

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 29, 2006; A02

A federal grand jury in Alexandria is investigating unauthorized leaks of classified information and has issued a subpoena to a fired National Security Agency officer who has acknowledged talking with journalists about the agency's warrantless surveillance program, according to documents released yesterday.

The 23-member grand jury is "conducting an investigation of possible violations of federal criminal laws involving unauthorized disclosure of classified information" under the Espionage Act and other statutes, according to a document accompanying the subpoena.

The demand for testimony from former NSA officer Russell Tice provides a sign of the Justice Department's aggressiveness in pursuing the leak investigation, which follows a series of controversial news reports on classified programs. It also marks the latest potential use of the espionage statute to combat such leaks.

In December, Justice opened a criminal investigation after the New York Times disclosed the existence of the eavesdropping program, which allows the NSA to monitor telephone calls to and from the United States without a court order if one party is linked to suspected of links to terrorist groups. The documents released yesterday do not make it clear whether the grand jury is focused on that report or on some other disclosure.

Tice has publicly identified himself as a possible source for the report, saying that he talked to Times reporters before it was published. He also has said he believes he was fired by the NSA last year because he complained of possible Chinese espionage at the agency, and he has since sought to testify before Congress about "probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts" by the NSA director and other senior administration officials.

Tice said in an interview that he viewed the subpoena as an attempt at intimidation by the government. "This is the king saying, 'How dare anyone challenge my authority and say that I'm a crook or a criminal?' " he said.

The subpoena, dated July 25, requires Tice to appear Aug. 2. It was posted yesterday on the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition's Web site. Tice is a member of the group.

New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said the newspaper has "not been contacted by the government" in the case. A Justice spokesman declined to comment.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has said that while prosecutors are focused on the "leakers," he cannot rule out the need to demand testimony from reporters as well. A separate grand jury investigation into the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity resulted in the jailing last year of one reporter and testimony from her and numerous others.

Journalism and secrecy experts said the Alexandria investigation is another worrisome development for reporters attempting to inform the public about intelligence programs and policies.

"They are playing hardball," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. ". . . They're rounding up the most likely suspects, getting them to say 'Yes I was a source' or 'No I was not a source,' and then they'll go to the reporters."

Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Perhaps the government is going to get to the bottom of the leaks. Notice the last sentence:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/AR2006072801606.html

The problem is, how do you determine someone who just leaks information, from someone who is blowing the whistle on something that is flat out wrong? Hmm? The precedent that we set here and now may have extremely dangerous repurcutions for the future. Keep in mind, that the media is the only way the public found out about Watergate.

 

[Annie]

The problem is, how do you determine someone who just leaks information, from someone who is blowing the whistle on something that is flat out wrong? Hmm? The precedent that we set here and now may have extremely dangerous repurcutions for the future. Keep in mind, that the media is the only way the public found out about Watergate.

Depends on the information, classification, promises inherent with clearances and appointments to office. One must remember that appointments and job holders are not elected and are not to make policy.

 

[Dr Grump]

Depends on the information, classification, promises inherent with clearances and appointments to office. One must remember that appointments and job holders are not elected and are not to make policy.

But they should blow the whistle if they think something is wrong, and there lies the rub.

 

[Annie]

But they should blow the whistle if they think something is wrong, and there lies the rub.

'blowing the whistle' has a process, which does NOT include NY Times, et al.

 

[Dr Grump]

'blowing the whistle' has a process, which does NOT include NY Times, et al.

I disagree.

 

[Annie]

I disagree.

Well then!

 

[KarlMarx]

The problem is, how do you determine someone who just leaks information, from someone who is blowing the whistle on something that is flat out wrong? Hmm? The precedent that we set here and now may have extremely dangerous repurcutions for the future. Keep in mind, that the media is the only way the public found out about Watergate.

Yes, the argument that the press has the power to keep people honest goes out the window when liberals start talking about Fox News, though, eh?

Still, I don't see why there's a debate about this. Watergate was a conspiracy and clearly criminal. The classified program that was leaked to the press was not.

Here is an obvious fact, which seems to be skirted by those that defend the NYT's actions. Disclosure of classified information to parties with no need to know and lacking the proper clearance is a federal offense. Those responsible should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If not, we run the risk of others disclosing even more classified information to the press and further eroding national security.

Information is classified for a simple reason. Information is classified if it can be shown that disclosure to the enemy will result in serious consequences to national security. Just because information is classified doesn't mean there is a conspiracy to cover something up. Almost always, information is classified to keep it hidden from the enemy, not the public. Parenthetically, I sometimes wonder if some don't realize that the enemy lives in the Middle East and not in the White House.

It seems to me that many who have been hyperventilating over the Valerie Plame affair are dismissing the seriousness of the NYT blowing the lid off of this program and off of the wiretaps authorized by the Bush Administration. Valerie Plame's identity as a "covert operative" (meaning she had a desk job at the CIA) has been public knowledge for years. Her face has been plastered on billboards, books and newspapers. Yet, no one has been able to produce any tangible evidence as to how revealing her identity has caused irreparable damage to national security.

And I think I know part of the reason why. The Valerie Plame affair had the potential to discredit Bush. It now turns out the person that leaked her identity to the press did so on his own rather than at the behest of his superiors.

On the other hand, revealing to the enemy the fact that they are being watched and supplying the particulars can be shown to be a threat to national security. Another obvious fact that needs to be emphasized for the sake of some who think the press can do no wrong is also needed here. "Threat to national security" usually means people's lives are put at risk or that people will certainly die.

An historical aside, the most classified program during World War II, apart from the Manhattan Project was Ultra. Ultra was the program that dealt with the breaking of the Enigma codes. Historians agree that had the Germans been tipped off about this program, the war in Europe would have dragged on much longer.

I don't feel that the press should be granted oversight authority to the defense of this nation. The press is out to sell newspapers and advertising. It's primary interest is its bottom line. In addition, the press in general and the NYT in particular have been known to be biased against Republican administrations and anything they do. So, it seems that if the NYT can sell more papers by blowing the lid off a classified program and make insinuations of something unseemly or illegal, so much the better, for them and tough luck for those whose job it is to defend the country. Meantime, in a cave in Pakistan, someone has been tipped off.

I wonder if the liberals of this board would feel differently if the NYT blew the lid off a major wiretapping and surveillance program directed towards the organized crime?

 

[KarlMarx]

But they should blow the whistle if they think something is wrong, and there lies the rub.

"They think" as in the conclusion one reaches after a long and dispassionate investigation with no bias whatsoever or as it usually seems to mean, the conclusion the NYT reaches simply because a Republican Administration is involved?

 

[Dr Grump]

"They think" as in the conclusion one reaches after a long and dispassionate investigation with no bias whatsoever or as it usually seems to mean, the conclusion the NYT reaches simply because a Republican Administration is involved?

The former. I don't buy the latter...

 

[Annie]

The former. I don't buy the latter...

If the former, then the process should work. Truth is you may believe in the former but subscribe to the later.

 

[Dr Grump]

If the former, then the process should work. Truth is you may believe in the former but subscribe to the later.

Who's to say that the process didn't work in the recent case? And no, I don't subscribe to the latter. Got any proof to back up your assertion, or is it a shot in the dark?

 

[Annie]

Who's to say that the process didn't work in the recent case? And no, I don't subscribe to the latter. Got any proof to back up your assertion, or is it a shot in the dark?

The 'process' does not involve leaking. If a 'worker' thinks there is something unlawful going on and wishes to blow the whistle, there is a process.

 

[Dr Grump]

The 'process' does not involve leaking. If a 'worker' thinks there is something unlawful going on and wishes to blow the whistle, there is a process.

And if the people at the top don't care/use the 'process'?

 

[Annie]

And if the people at the top don't care/use the 'process'?

The Justice department has a very good record of following up. Note that those that are 'outed' have always been 'resigned' or 'retired'. Those are the ones that leak, often going to a more lucrative position then going to the press.

 

[jillian]

The Justice department has a very good record of following up. Note that those that are 'outed' have always been 'resigned' or 'retired'. Those are the ones that leak, often going to a more lucrative position then going to the press.

You mean the Justice Department that Alberto Gonzalez said didn't investigate the NSA wiretaps because Bush told them not to? That Justice Department?

You think watergate would ever have come to light but for the Washington Post? You think Nixon would have used the "process"?

Sorry... I want a free press to shed light on nefarious doings....so did the founding fathers, hence the First Amendment.

 

[dilloduck]

You mean the Justice Department that Alberto Gonzalez said didn't investigate the NSA wiretaps because Bush told them not to? That Justice Department?

You think watergate would ever have come to light but for the Washington Post? You think Nixon would have used the "process"?

Sorry... I want a free press to shed light on nefarious doings....so did the founding fathers, hence the First Amendment.

Like exposing Bill and Monica?