In his recent radio address the president stated:
In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.
This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies.
Defending its decision to reveal that intercept program, the New York Times stated (HatTip to JustOneMinute):
The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted….
Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.
Now, one of the complaints often heard swirling about the Valerie Plame affair is the horror of revealing the classified information that she worked on weapons matters at the CIA (this seems much more likely to be a criminal violation that revealing her name, for all the reasons discussed here and elsewhere). Now the Times has gone and revealed some important classified information, actually, “highly classifed,” according to the president, and information “that is crucial to our national security.”
I wonder if the Times thinks a special prosecutor should be named to investigate and prosecute the “current and former officials” who leaked to it.
“I wonder if the Times thinks a special prosecutor should be named to investigate and prosecute the “current and former officials” who leaked to it.”
The difference to me seems in actual harm done. Plame’s revelations could hurt people who still had cover and had been associated with her cover, or were never under cover but were sources that had met her cover.
The NYT? all it did was reveal that some intelligence gathering that statute already authorizes may not be done quite correctly according to that statute. I don’t know how much the terrorists count on us actually following our laws.
I wonder if the officials that might be questioned in potential investigation will be as honest and cooperative as Scooter Libby.
–Cobra
Or Sandy Berger. Or Bill Clinton. Or Marion Barry. Or Julian Bond. Or Al “33% APR” Sharpton.
Uhh, not really, actus, that could have been the reason the missus was brought in in the 1st place, don’t know if Ames or Hanssen passed on her status.
She was sitting around for a long, long time.
“She was sitting around for a long, long time.”
Sure. but she still had people that were connected to her.