Psycho-Babble Politics | about politics | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re:leaks and Goss-who are the betrayers?

Posted by zeugma on February 12, 2006, at 14:19:13

In reply to note on Goss, posted by zeugma on February 10, 2006, at 21:53:34

George Bush is launching his own probe into the leaks of December 2005:

Probe of domestic eavesdropping leak expands: report Sun Feb 12, 3:39 AM ET


NEW YORK (Reuters) - Federal agents have interviewed officials at several law enforcement and national security agencies in a criminal investigation into The New York Times' disclosure of a U.S. domestic eavesdropping program, the newspaper reported.


In a story posted to its Web site to appear in its Sunday editions, The Times said the investigation was focused on circumstances surrounding its disclosure late last year of the highly classified program.

Officials and others interviewed by the Times said the investigation seemed to lay the groundwork for a grand jury inquiry and possible criminal charges, the Times said.

Many described the investigation as aggressive and fast moving, with the initial focus on identifying government officials who have had contacts with Times reporters, particularly those in the newspaper's Washington bureau.

It said an FBI team had questioned employees at the FBI, the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, the CIA and the office of the Director of National Intelligence, and that prosecutors had taken steps to activate a grand jury.

President George W. Bush has condemned the leak as a "shameful act" and CIA Director Porter Goss told a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on February 2:

"It is my aim, and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information."

The Times characterized the case as one that pits the government, for which "the investigation represents an effort to punish those responsible for a serious security breach" and news outlets, for which the inquiry threatens confidentiality of sources "and the ability to report on controversial national security issues free of government interference."

The newspaper's executive editor, Bill Keller, said no one at the paper had been contacted in connection with the investigation, and defended the Times' reporting on the story.

"What our reporting has done is set off an intense national debate about the proper balance between security and liberty," Keller said in the story.

Civil liberties groups, Democratic lawmakers and even some Republicans have called for an inquiry into the eavesdropping program, saying it appears to have circumvented the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval for eavesdropping on U.S. citizens.

Former Vice President Al Gore has called for a special prosecutor to investigate the government's use of the program, and Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) Jr. has said the eavesdropping effort might amount to an impeachable offense.

Among statutes being reviewed by Justice Department investigators are espionage laws that prohibit the disclosure, dissemination or publication of national security information, the Times said.

__________

I, personally, have libertarian sympathies, and do not like governments that tell me what newspapers can and cannot print, particularly since we are talking about the EXISTENCE of a program, a program so secret and yet so vulnerable that Osama bin Laden and friends (whom we have not caught, by the way: there is an interesting book, called "Imperial Hubris", by the former head of the division assigned to catch bin Laden, which implies that President Bush received intelligence which said that the 9/11 attacks were not planned in a terror camp in Afghanistan but in Baghdad: an interesting conclusion, which explains why we have Saddam Hussein's farce of a trial conducted amid chaos, but Osama still a free man- I think that's what bin laden is REALLY laughing about) are laughing about its disclosure at this very moment, according to testimony by Attorney general Aleberto Gonzales. Now Sen. Arlen Specter (R, Penn., head of the Senate Judiciary Committee) said that Gonzales' explanations "[word deleted] logic and plain English." I agree completely.

Now all this has got me thinking. Porter Goss published his essay denouncing the leakers in the very paper President Bush charges is responsible for the leak! That is certainly interesting.

I speculated that Mr. Goss was referring to disaffected CIA members as the leakers, since they would have access to highly classified information related to national security.

or was he referring to Vice President Dick Cheney's alleged involvement in the outing of a CIA operative, allegedly as an atenpt to discredit CIA intelligence which found no evidence of complicity between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda in the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and that cast grave doubt on the claim that Iraq was "the main front in the war on terror," a claim repeated as recently as last week by Karl Rove?

Or- and this just occurred to me- is he accusing the Bush Administration itself of being responsible for this latest leak of possibly unconstitutional NSA activity, a leak made for its own political gain? if you find this most implausible, consider this:
______________
Cheney Says NSA Spying Should Be an Election Issue

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 10, 2006; Page A07

Vice President Cheney suggested last night that the debate over spying on overseas communications to or from terrorism suspects should be a political issue in this year's congressional elections.

Speaking to Republicans gathered for the annual CPAC convention, Cheney said the debate over the National Security Agency surveillance program "has clarified where all stand" on an issue that has drawn criticism from congressional Democrats and some Republicans.


"And with an important election coming up, people need to know just how we view the most critical questions of national security, and how we propose to defend the nation that all of us, Republicans and Democrats, love and are privileged to serve," Cheney said.

His comments reflected the emerging GOP plan to make national security and terrorism the centerpiece of House and Senate elections. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove telegraphed the strategy last month when he told a Republican audience that "we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security."

Cheney's comments were the closest a top White House official has come to calling for the NSA program to be a political matter.

Democrats have criticized the White House for politicizing national security issues such as the USA Patriot Act and NSA surveillance.

Its unclear whether the GOP strategy will work, however.

In a new Associated Press poll, about half of those surveyed favored the wiretap program. In the same poll last month, 56 percent opposed it. White House officials privately argue that President Bush's greatest political strength is the same one that helped Republicans in the last two elections: fighting terrorism.

In recent weeks, Bush has shifted his public focus away from Iraq and trained it on winning public support for the program. Some Democrats argue that Bush is breaking the law by spying on people in the United States without a warrant and without congressional or judicial oversight. Bush contends that the Constitution and the 2001 congressional war resolution give him the authority to take such steps to track down terrorism suspects.

"Some in Washington are yielding to the temptation to downplay the threat and to back away from the business at hand," Cheney said. "That mind-set may be comforting, but it is dangerous."

_________________

Interesting. I wonder who Porter Goss is really pointing the finger at?

And who is really laughing at whom? (per Mr Gonzales).

The New York Times is grossly overpriced, as any New Yorker can tell you. But I don't like the idea of its being put on a leash.

There's a fresh probe into behavior at Abu Ghraib, but I won't go into that now.

-z


Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Politics | Framed

poster:zeugma thread:608261
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060204/msgs/608939.html