Loose Lips Sink Spies
The NY Times is running a Porter Goss op-ed in this morning’s edition that’s must reading.
Judge Laurence Silberman, a chairman of President Bush’s commission on weapons of mass destruction, said he was “stunned” by the damage done to our critical intelligence assets by leaked information. The commission reported last March that in monetary terms, unauthorized disclosures have cost America hundreds of millions of dollars; in security terms, of course, the cost has been much higher. Part of the problem is that the term “whistleblower” has been misappropriated. The sharp distinction between a whistleblower and someone who breaks the law by willfully compromising classified information has been muddied.
———-
Too many of my counterparts from other countries have told me, “You Americans can’t keep a secret.” And because of the number of recent news reports discussing our relationships with other intelligence services, some of these critical partners have even informed the CIA that they are reconsidering their participation in some of our most important antiterrorism ventures. They fear that exposure of their cooperation could subject their citizens to terrorist retaliation.
The effect that leakers, incorrectly titled whistleblowers by the Agenda Media, are damaging the CIA’s efforts to capture terrorists and protect Americans. The Agenda Media is quick to say that the “public has a right to know.” True enough but we also have the right to NOT KNOW if national security would be compromised and we might not be protected because of the Agenda Media’s “right to know” articles.
Furthermore, the leaking of classified information is tactic that’s designed to dissuade our allies from covertly helping us. Simply put, that’s inexcusable. It’s time that we prosecuted these leakers so that we can keep our allies allied with us in the intelligence-gathering part of the GWOT. We need all the allies we can muster and a leaker that prevents that deserves to be imprisoned ASAP.
Last month, a news article in this newspaper described a “secret meeting” to discuss “highly classified” techniques to detect efforts by other countries to build nuclear weapons. This information was attributed to unnamed intelligence officials who “spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the effort’s secrecy.” Whether accurate or not, this is a direct acknowledgment that these unnamed officials apparently know the importance of secrecy.
These anonymous sources know what they’re doing. Still, they don’t care that they’re compromising national security. It’s obvious that they only care about hurting the Bush Administration with any underhanded technique they can muster.
America needs better than that. The only question remaining is whether we’ll get the national security operation that we deserve. Let’s hope we do.
Cross-post at LetFreedomRing
February 10th, 2006 at 7:24 am
Why must every debate today become a Republican vs Democrat controversy. Isn’t it possible to examine issues in a non-political way? There is ample evidence that secrecy in national security is essential. Likewise, there is ample evidence that abuse of the public’s right to privacy is essential. These two givens are not disputed politically thus the appearence of dispute splits even good friends and causes confusion and animosity.
The administration, today Republican and tomorrow perhaps Democratic, must employ all “legal” techniques in the GWOT. The active word is legal. Is it so hard to modify and codify “legal” techniques that will work for the various security agencies? ‘All’s fair in love and war’ doesn’t cut it when it comes to legality. Let’s stop political divisivenes and personal attack and get on with establishing security.
February 10th, 2006 at 7:27 am
Sorry. I meant to say that the public’s right to privacy must be protected.
February 10th, 2006 at 8:11 am
Is it so hard to modify and codify “legal” techniques that will work for the various security agencies?
Considering all the technological changes, whether they’re new equipment or new software capabilities, yes, it’s essentially impossible to codify legal techniques into law.
There’s a bigger point here: When I vote for a president, part of the reason is because I agree with his policies but the biggest reason I vote for him is because I trust him.
To the side that loses, let it go. It’s over and you can’t rerun the election. PERIOD.
President Bush didn’t get that benefit and he should have. For that, I say shame on the ‘hate wing’ of the Democratic Party. That includes Sens. Schumer, Kennedy, Leahy, Clinton and Durbin.
Leahy in particular has been a jackass about the NSA program.
“No one, not even the President, is above the law”, he said. No shit Sherlock!!! I like to say this to Sen. Leahy: Congress can’t overstep its authority either, which is what he did.
This started just fine. Congressional leaders were getting briefed on the program and no one was complaining. Then the NYTimes article came out and suddenly there’s an uproar about it.
(Personally, I’d slap the cuffs on reporters Risen and Lichtblau and stuff them in a jail until they gave up each of their sources. PERIOD.)
The other thing I’d do is shame all the bloviating senators that want to stick their nose into this issue.
If there’s a constitutional issue, then the courts should decide. After all, that’s their job. As for these bloviating boneheads to ramble on and on about how they’re all for the surveillance but the President has to follow the law, I’d just as soon see each one defeated in their next election. Good riddance.
They’ve damaged national security just because they wanted to pontificate, in public no less, about something that they shouldn’t be talking about in public about. This is the type of thing that should’ve been talked about in Executive Session, if even there.
Shame on the entire lot of meddlers. If we get hit again, I’ll personally hang it around their loathesome necks. And then I’ll get upset.
February 10th, 2006 at 8:46 am
Well said, Gary. The only thing I’d add is that in the 50’s we put a spy couple to death for SELLING secrets to the Soviet Union. These no-accounts don’t even find the worth of an intelligence secret worth the traditional 30 pieces of silver.
Treason is treason, and all willing participants should be held to the full account of the law, including the reporters who wrote the stories and the editors and publishers who printed them.
February 10th, 2006 at 10:24 am
The Agenda Media is quick to say that the “public has a right to know.â€Â
Really? Where does it say that? Is it a constitutional right?And does that trump my right to life (also, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)
February 10th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Really? Where does it say that?
That’s their mantra when they’re chasing down ’scandals’ involving private matters. (Think Gary Hart’s getting caught cheating on his wife.)
February 10th, 2006 at 11:56 am
You’re absolutely right, Gary.
Fred, you have the right idea. This is the pot calling the kettle black. Our party doesn’t need the Democrats to stir up trouble; we seem to be doing it pretty well all on our own. And it’s a shame, because the liberals are going to come back into power one day, and there will be hell to pay.
February 10th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Do you truly feel safe leaving the government alone to fix its problems? We should be thankful for those whistleblowers who bring to light illegal activities within the government. We cannot afford as a nation to allow a group of people to make unilateral decisions without any fear of consequence. We as a people have the responsibility to ensure that our government is indeed lawful and acting in our best interest. Do not sit idly by or, even worse, criticize those who stand up and say something. There has to be some sort of system of checks and balances. If the government is incapable of regulating itself, then others must. Even in the name of national security, laws must be followed. Otherwise, what would stop torture, unlawful imprisonment, or, in the worst case, a prison state? I fear those of you who would allow our government such freedoms to do as they choose.
P.S. For those radical few that are comfortable with such illegal activities in the name of national security, how are you going to feel about it when our enemies believe it will be their right to do the same to us?
February 10th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Tammi, The argument you presented isn’t squared with the facts. Since its inception, Congressional leaders were briefed once every 45 days. During that time, these leaders were briefed by Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, the head of the NSA at the time, on what was happening under the NSA program. Durign that time, NONE of these leaders, which included Jane Harman, Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller and Harry Reid, expressed any dissatisfaction with what was going on.
According to Senate Intelligence committee Chairman Pat Roberts, Rockefeller was generally upbeat during the meetings.
It wasn’t until the NY Times article came out that Democrats changed their opinions. I don’t speak for you but I don’t find that to be the actions of a highly principled person. I doubt that you do either.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Gary, thank you for your comments.
I am aware Congressional leaders are briefed. That fact alone proves that government cannot regulate itself.
I, also, agree that the Democrats only got some backbone when they felt that the public was behind them. Unfortunately, we seem to have a system of government in which our politicians look out for themselves much more than they look out for the good of our country. Only when the American public educates itself on current affairs and speaks out will our politicians be forced to action.
I appreciated your thoughts.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Right on Tammi!
At the moment those on the right are right…in their eyes. But, as Rocky notes, there will be a day when the left is back in office and will think they are right (correct) and when they stretch the law to evesdrop will we all agree that it is O.K., without question, to listen to whomever they suspect (even you?)
What goes around comes around so we should tread carefully.
When I refered to modify and codify the law I certainly didn’t mean the iPod Gary. If the law deals with disclosure of classified information, deal with the discloser, not the media. The liberal media prints what serves its audience and the conservative prints what serves its. Neither is clean but neither is the wrongdoer. If new laws are needed, get on with them and see if the country wants a bigger big brother.
Get off the political ‘blame train’ and get on with serious dialogue.
February 10th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Gary, I disagree with your statement that none of the Senators expressed reservations about the activity:
–www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180149,00.html
I believe that Sen. Rockefeller’s objections were in a hand-written letter to Vice President Cheney. And while I generally don’t like what Rockefeller stands for, when I thought about the fact that the letter was hand-written, it occured to me that it was done so to protect the secrecy of the program. He took the time to write this our longhand — no secretary typing it, no extra set of eyes on it, no chance that the details could be revealed. Sen. Rockefeller deserves credit for this act.
Here, here, Fred. It is time for us to stop acting like everything is a partisan issue, and look at what’s going on from an American point of view. I’m not saying that the Dems are all just great people and can do no wrong… but likewise, we Republicans aren’t saints, either. The NSA spying program is scary, frankly. I don’t want my telephone conversations monitored, and I have done absolutely nothing to cause concern. But I was chatting with a friend who lives in Europe — a fellow US citizen working temporarily there — and when we discussed the politics of the day, I’m sure either I or he mentioned al Queda, terrorists, etc. Now, I feel pretty sure that my calls have been monitored — if not by people, then by machine. And I object.
This gets back to the point I made regarding probable cause. There is no doubt that terrorist cells are here, waiting to release their special kind of hell. And we should be doing everything we can to track them down and put them in jail for a long, long time. Legally, that is. We have well established laws for conducting this kind of serveilance — laws that have served the US well for three decades.
February 10th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Actually, you should note that Rockefeller’s ‘reservations’ didn’t happen until the program was 2 years old. That strikes me as odd. Add that to Pat Roberts, the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman saying that he remembers a number of briefings that Rockefeller, Reid, Pelosi and Harman attended where Rockefeller seemed “pleased” with the program.
Add onto that the fact that numerous intelligence agents think that Rockefeller is one of the leakers and I start thinking that this guy’s smelling like a rat.
After all, this is the guy who wrote an email to other Democrats saying that they’d string out the 2nd phase of the intel report out, then “pull the trigger”, adding that “We’ll only get to pull the trigger once.”
I don’t know about you but I don’t think that Sen. Rockefeller is a trustworthy person. AT ALL.
Finally, I’d maybe trust him more if he didn’t leak this memo to the press. If I recall correctly, he typed it himself on a typwriter, not his computer, because he couldn’t even let his innermost staff know about it because of the secret nature of the program.
That doesn’t just stink, it reaks to high heavens. I wouldn’t trust Rockefeller any further than I could throw him when I had 2 broken arms and a broken back.
February 11th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
So Gary, what’s your point? Your comments don’t add anything except point out your distrust. And your partisanship! So?
February 11th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
If you’re saying that you think I don’t trust Jay Rockefeller, you’re 100% right. I don’t but not because I’m a partisan. (I readily admit to being a partisan.) I distrust him because of the email he sent to fellow Intelligence Committee Democrats, urging them to string out an important report, then blame Republicans for dragging their feet.
Given that this email was published all across the blogosphere and eventually on CNN and in the Washington Post, there isn’t any doubt that Rockefeller has ‘earned’ my distrust.
It’s one thing to play politics with this or that domestic issue but playing politics with life and death issues like terrorism doesn’t cut it with me.
It’s also worth noting that I was trying to knock down the previous comment that said that Rockefeller did have prior reservations about the NSA program. Simply put, I don’t believe that because the information that I’ve seen doesn’t support that.