Pigfuckers.

I'm very conflicted about this kind of thing -- probably more so than ace is. For one thing, I consider government to be a necessary evil, and the smaller it is, the better for all of us. It is a Very Very Bad Thing to put too much surveillance power in the hands of any government, because the temptation to misuse such power is simply too great. And once the crisis (whatever it is) is past, the government has traditionally been quite unwilling to give up these "temporary" powers.

My own personal approach is to simply assume that everything I say or speak into a wire (or wireless) is being monitored and perhaps recorded. If I want something to be private, I am proactive -- which means making use of good crypto and electronic security.

I guess trying to track terrorists through electronic monitoring is all that's left when you can't count on Muslim FBI agents to report on their co-religionists. So is this as bad as assembling thousands of FBI and IRS files in the White House to use for purely political purposes?

Where is the Congressional outrage, the special prosecuter and the daily screams about compromising national security from our Democratic Senate leaders??

As our friend, Naked Testicle Spiderman said:

So then. Why run the report?

Well, that’s simple enough. Keep an eye on the headlines today. See how often you hear that Bush “has allowed spying on US citizens”Am I the only one who doesn't think this is "news," in the sense that this ain't new? Echelon, anyone?

I think what the Govt should do is set up a independent office staffed by the most non-partisan judges/lawyers they can find who can be given the highest level security clearance. These people would then be available for all these CIA etc leakers to give their classified leaks to instead of the NY Times or whoever. That way if anyone leaks something like this, it will be politically palatable for the Justice Dept or whoever to find and prosecute all these people.

Then the Times and all these, to quote Dave, pigfuckers wont be able to claim "the White House is trying to silence critics etc" when the Justice Dept goes after leakers.

In other words create an outlet, independent of the executive and legislative branches of govt, within the judicial branch where govt. employees can take info about classified programs they think are illegal. The judges or whoever looks at them and makes a decision whether it's illegal and takes appropriate action without broadcasting the entire thing to the whole world (or at least waiting until it is proven to be illegal before it winds up on the front page of the Pigfucker Times).

Damnit, this part shoulda been in the blockquote above, too:

Well, that’s simple enough. Keep an eye on the headlines today. See how often you hear that Bush “has allowed spying on US citizens”

I think what the Govt should do is set up a independent office staffed by the most non-partisan judges/lawyers they can find who can be given the highest level security clearance.

Ever see The Star Chamber? This is actually a pretty crummy idea. (The movie is lousy too, but makes an important point.) Elected, representative, civilian oversight of this kind of thing is crucial -- and, as we have seen, is still no guarantee against abuse.

That said, I am foursquare in favor of seeing the leakers prosecuted and jailed for their actions (which they never will be, of course; the Democrats will call them "whistleblowers", not leakers, and cast any prosecution as a politcal vendetta).

Monty,

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't "Star Chamber" about a group of vigilantes who kill criminals who beat the rap? My commission would be investigating government wrongdoings that for national security reasons should be investigated in secrecy (at least initially). It would be designed to give these CIA employees an outlet to report government programs/actions they feel are illegal/unethical that are classified to a seperate agency outside of the executive branch.

The difference between a "whistleblower" and a "leaker" is not as subjective as political inclination might lead one to believe. Implicit in the difference is the provability of unlawful behavior. Additionally, no matter how many layers of internal security an organization may have, the press is - and should always be - an option. Granted, there will be a price that each leaker and/or whistleblower might pay; and they generally are well aware of this. Especially when the stakes are this high.

To call immediately for the imprisonment of those who have brought this to our attention is not merely childish, it betrays a knee-jerk defensiveness for the executive branch that defies reason. For a party that often crows about it's inherent "distrust" of government, GOP pundits can be remarkably (and dangerously) syncophantic.

The problem with having an independent oversight panel to handle "whistleblower" complaints is that much of what gets leaked, if not most, is not to combat "illegal" programs. Rather, their purpose seems to be to do battle with "illegally elected regimes" or administration policies that the leaker(s) want to see shot down. In other words, most leakers are setting themselves above the duly elected and appointed policy makers and would have no grounds for dealing with a truly impartial panel. They would be blowing the whistle on themselves alone.

"...the press is - and should always be - an option..."

Absolutely and categorically wrong. At least in the case of classified information. Anyone who with a security clearance who holds an opinion such as that should be immediately stripped of access to classified information and have their clearance revoked.

Declassification and release of information that has been classified is not an individual decision, nor should it be. The protection of information which may have military or security importance is directly related to the protection of lives. It is not an individual's choice when they will honor the provisions of their security clearance. The rules are clear; each and every individual who is granted a security clearance understands those rules and the penalties for breaking them.

If their is question about legality of oprations, their are channels for addressing those concerns. Major federal agencies, such as CIA, FBI, NSA, etc., each have an Inspector General office, which is charged with investigating such claims. The IG historically has blown the whistle on a number of illegal activities in government organizations. They are chartered, staffed and equipped to investigate and make determinations that a news room just can't do.

Jeez, I really should have previewed that one, crappy preview mode or not. Too many typos to correct - Sorry about that, Chief.

Big E:

Yeah, you're right -- I was probably thinking of some other flick. The Star Chamber was about rogue judges executing criminals who got away, according to IMDB. But I seem to remember some movie from the 1970's on the intelligence angle -- The Parallax View, maybe? Can't remember.

For a party that often crows about it's inherent "distrust" of government, GOP pundits can be remarkably (and dangerously) syncophantic.

And for a party that's been crowing about how the leak of the name of super-secret double-naught spy Valerie Plame's name has nearly destroyed our national security apparatus, Dem pundits have been remarkably "syncophantic" about other leaks of classified information that seem a bit more, well, fucking important, Kelly.

Sean M.: I agree. The leaks that Dems have "endorsed" (as it were) have been more important. They've been leaks that have come about, in all likelihood, because the apparatuses within governmental bureaucracy have failed to adequately address the malfeasance in question. This is why the press exists as an option for those stymied by internal authority. Whistleblowers not only highlight corruption directly, they are also symptomatic of broken (or corrupt) bureaucratic systems. It is understandable (and predictable) that those authorities who are called into question by such acts of civil disobedience would attack the credibility of whistleblowers, but it is a harbinger of disaster when society reflexively participates in those attacks.

Nevertheless, the central issue is the Bush administration’s unlawful and anti-democratic subversion of our most fundamental institution: representative government. If he didn’t like the law, he should have petitioned Congress to change it. Instead, he broke it. And that, that right there, is infinitely more serious than anything being discussed here.

Kelly,

The people who deliberately compromise classified information (not just in this instance, but in many, many instances here lately) are not "whistleblowers - they are criminals. If they wanted to blow a whistle, there is an avenue available to them. What they wanted to do instead was to achieve political goals. What they wanted to do was to place their own idea of what should be above any other, without going through the process.

Put it in this context: You work for a corporation that has proprietary data, the compromise of which would cost the company market share and cost the shareholders money. You sign a non-disclosure agreement in which you agree not to disclose any proprietary company information. The corporation also publishes an ethics policy which prohibits criminal and otherwise unethical activities on the part of its employees. This policy also provides a channel for reporting possible ethics violations for investigation by the company. Now assume that you hear about activities of a member of the management team that you feel to be unethical and perhaps criminal. If you take the issue to the press and in the process divulge proprietary company data, what is your status? Are you a whistleblower whose job and status should be protected? Or have you violated the nondisclosure agreement, possibly the ethics policy and forced your own termination? Who should decide your status? Should the press? Should you? Or should your actions be weighed against the company policies you voluntarily agreed to as conditions of employment?

The situation with divulging classified information is very similar, but the "nondisclosure agreements" and "ethics policies" are much more detailed and binding. Everyone who is granted access to that kind of information is completely aware of the requirements before they are granted a clearance. Everyone in those government organizations is also aware of the ethics policies and of the legal requirement to report violations or suspected violations through proper channels. Government offices are required to inform employees and post notices for this stuff. Government employees have to attend regular training on ethics and how to handle violations. Leaking classified information to the New York Times, the Washington Post or the Pennysaver, for that matter, is not part of the approved process.

The presumption that an organization must be corrupt and broken because someone broke the law and went to the press with classified information is illogical.

The central issue, regardless of what you may feel, is that leaking classifed information to advance political agendas or affect policies has become a common way of doing business for many government bureaucrats who absolutely do know that what they are doing is wrong. The specific details leaked are not the story. There is a process for dealing with those kind of events. The process was not followed. Defending the leaks as somehow necessary and proper is just plain wrong and highly dangerous.

Did it again - previewed and forgot to put in my info. I really prefer not to be anonymous.

Nevertheless, the central issue is the Bush administration’s unlawful and anti-democratic subversion of our most fundamental institution: representative government.

Did you even bother to read the NYT article, Kelly? If you had, you'd note the following in the eighth paragraph:

The officials said the administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues.

Oh, and as for Bush breaking the law, I didn't see anything that suggested that the surveilence was illegal. I did, however, notice this:

Mr. Bush's executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States - including American citizens, permanent legal residents, tourists and other foreigners - is based on classified legal opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A. operation.

Nice job, Sean M. They almost make it too easy :)

Dave,

The presumption that an organization must be corrupt and broken because someone broke the law and went to the press with classified information is illogical.

Well, I agree that it’s a presumption – and as a presumption is not necessarily illogical. It’s a guess. There’s nothing “illogical” in that.

You’re absolutely correct in your description of corporate non-disclosure agreements and so on and so forth. My personal experience in this (which is far from extraordinary) confirms this. I totally understand the purpose of such agreements and the just penalties for violating them; as did those who came forward in this instance. There were, let’s not forget, many of them [people that came forward].

It’s worth noting that we’d be hard pressed to demonstrate that the government officials who brought this to the attention of the NYT were violating such an agreement (albeit the idea of such a violation is the subject of this discussion). The specifics of Bush’s order(s) are still confidential. They were not disclosed – by anyone. The only facts that were disclosed touched directly on Bush’s approval of actions that he himself deemed potentially unconstitutional and unlawful.

Furthermore, your own contention that the bringing forth of such information was “politically motivated” is as specious as you contend my own “presumption” is. Or, as you put it, it is “illogical”.

As I said before, we’re still left with the raw and uncomfortable fact that the President feels that he’s above the law. This is something that puts us all at risk.

Sean M.: Notifying [a select few members of] Congress does not equal Congressional approval and/or consultation. Also, that some aspects of the orders issued might have been appropriate does not excuse those that weren't. I say "might" have been appropriate because they were based on legal 'opinion', not actual law. Internal legal opinions - especially those which are so dubious and far-reaching as these turned out to be - hardly merit your 'slam dunk' tone. Thanks for playing indeed.

Okay, Kelly, we could go dancing back and forth on this for quite a while, but I'd just like you to back up your assertion (made at least twice now) that the president did something illegal. Reading through the NYT article. I see lots of concerns from Democrats, unnamed officials, and civil liberties groups, but so far I've been hard pressed to find any mention of anything being called specifically illegal.

And if the Bush admin had broken the law by doing any of this, don't you think that would be prominently mentioned in any of the story's opening paragraphs? The headline, maybe?

S'yeah, okay, Kelly, you're asking us to believe that the New York Times had an article about Bush doing something illegal and then they sat on it for a year because Bush asked them nicely.

It's time to look into medication, guys. Professional therapy or something. I thought Tubino was just a freak case, but when your paranoid conspiracy theories put the New York Fucking Times into the VWRC you're not only off your fucking rocker but you are tumbling ass over heels down the street towards a crowded cafe staffed by purple unicorns.

Sean M: You’re right. We could go back and forth. The reason being that the illegality of his actions is as yet unresolved – and will be until such time as it goes to court; which is unlikely in the extreme. Wiretaps on American citizens (conversing with other American citizens) are clearly the main gripe here. As for illegality, it comes down to a question of interpretation of the powers granted to the President. But you and I both know this.

Ultimately, however, this represents a serious political setback for the President. This is not insignificant. If we come to feel that what happens to the Patriot Act or any other legislative initiative to fight terrorism is fundamentally irrelevant because the President has, essentially, the power to do whatever he wishes by secretive executive fiat, well... we’ve got problems.

I had a TS clearance sometime ago because of something I was working on. There ARE avenues that you can use if you have concerns - avenues that are clearly explained when you get the clearance. No excuse for going to the NY Slimes. Just some BDS spooks.

So the illegality of the situation which "required" someone to divulge classified information to the press is "unresolved". Yet, in your view, the blatantly and specifically illegal act of leaking classified information is righteous.

"It’s worth noting that we’d be hard pressed to demonstrate that the government officials who brought this to the attention of the NYT were violating such an agreement (albeit the idea of such a violation is the subject of this discussion). The specifics of Bush’s order(s) are still confidential."

Had you taken the time to read the source article, you might have seen: "Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times...."

There is no doubt that they were covered by nondisclosure agreements. You don't get a clearance or access to classified data without one. Even "former officials" are covered by security regulations.

But this is pointless. As far as I can tell, we're not even in the same argument here. I think intelligence officials who can't be trusted with classified information are a serious problem. You aren't worried about that, so long as someone can stop Bush.

Have a nice night.

Anonymous: "...granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program"? Good lord. There's no end to it is there? The program remains classified. This says nothing about those who know about it, how they found out about it, or whether - and to the extent which - they're legally bound to keep silent about it.

I would have a great deal of respect for anyone who rejects this model of "attack-the-messenger" politics and simply addresses the main issue. Sean M. seems to be doing that. That's a legitimate argument/discussion. This red herring b.s. about the NYT and the traitorous inclinations of those who informed them is, frankly, infantile.

Thanks for the acknowledgement, Kelly, but to be fair anon was quoting directly from the Times article.

And I think the problem that a lot of us here have with these leaks is the fact that the leakers are most likely violating their security clearances when talking to the press--especially since the same kind of howling for an investigation of the leakers that we saw in the Plame case isn't likely to be heard.

Kelly: they're legally bound to keep silent about it.

If it's classified, you are legally bound. It is that simple.

If you are going to claim a higher legality, then plenty of others on this thread have made the point that there are other channels to go through.

This red herring b.s. about the NYT and the traitorous inclinations of those who informed them is, frankly, infantile.

It is not infantile - it speaks directly to the motivation of the person making the accusation. This would be a key line of attack in any court of law.

There is a huge, substantive difference between whistle-blowing and leaking. Leaking, like posting, is essentially anonymous. Whistle-blowing most assuredly is not. So let's dispense with the fiction that this is motivated by some noble sentiment.

Kelly: they're legally bound to keep silent about it.

If it's classified, you are legally bound. It is that simple.

If you are going to claim a higher legality, then plenty of others on this thread have made the point that there are other channels to go through.

This red herring b.s. about the NYT and the traitorous inclinations of those who informed them is, frankly, infantile.

It is not infantile - it speaks directly to the motivation of the person making the accusation. This would be a key line of attack in any court of law.

There is a huge, substantive difference between whistle-blowing and leaking. Leaking, like posting, is essentially anonymous. Whistle-blowing most assuredly is not. So let's dispense with the fiction that this is motivated by some noble sentiment.

Silly typepad

Gosh, what happened roughly a year ago that might have prompted the leak? Oh right. A Presidential election. But I'm sure Kelly is right. They were noble heroes and not at all politically motivated.

Fuckwit.

Wiretaps on American citizens (conversing with other American citizens) are clearly the main gripe here

Then you're in luck Kelly:

Under the special program, the agency monitors their international communications, the officials said. The agency, for example, can target phone calls from someone in New York to someone in Afghanistan.

Warrants are still required for eavesdropping on entirely domestic-to-domestic communications, those officials say.

But to go back to your point, you assert that leaks to the press are neccsary to prevent abuses, despite the possibilty of crying to the IG, DoJ or even their favorite Congresscritter. But how does leaking the details of Bush's secret babyraping program to the NYT end it?
Is the NYT going to bust into the White House and frogmarch Bush out?
If they testify in a court of law that "Deep Throat" told them so, is that enough for it to be accepted as legal fact?
The only reason to leak to the press is to affect public opinion, and public opinion has nothing to do with legality.

Time like these I wish the "Press" would have called itself something completely different like "The Papers", rather than ursurping our freedom of the printing press as their institutional priviledge.

Lets have shout out to all the loose shit in this thread!

Lets have shout out to all the loose shit in this thread!

And then let's learn grammar and punctuation!

Don't you be talking bad about my grammar. That woman was a saint, but she'd still kick your ass