The thing that boggles my mind is why on earth the administration would think that was a valid excuse? Is anyone surprised that communications channels are unsecure and can be tapped? Is anyone even remotely surprised by this? Good grief....

I never got an answer on the other threads, so let's try again: How does running this story hamper our security efforts in any way? What harm was done by the airing of this story?

I like your understated yet gutsy style.

Damn. I will have to click yet one more blog everyday now.

I've never understood all of you people asking questions of the form "How can the administration possibly think/believe/say yadayadayada".

You're all like a bunch of mini-Drums - you just refuse to see any evil.

They DON'T believe what they're saying you jackasses. They just say it because they think they can get a large enough portion of the idiotic American public to go along with it.

Sheesh.

How does running this story hamper our security efforts in any way? What harm was done by the airing of this story?

Exactly. It's absurd.

I like your understated yet gutsy style.

Thank you. *blush*

They DON'T believe what they're saying you jackasses.

I see I'll have to lay on the sarcasm even more thickly next time....

I don't know why anybody is surprised by any of this. The attitude of the Bush Administration has always been that laws are for other people, and the only commandment that shouldn't be broken is the 11th.

There was a saying in World War 2: loose lips sink ships. Our Republic managed not just to survive, but to thrive after winning WW2. Let's hope that we win this war without too much damange. But it appears to me that this country does not have the stomach for war. Maybe a nuclear-tipped missile, ship cargo, or airline cargo (not screened) blowing up europe of bits and pieces of the US will make this country realize that as distasteful as Bush is, he is doing what needs to be done. (and I can't stand the guy, or the party that put him into power.....)

In a way, you do have to praise the NYT for not reporting the story and for acquiescing to the request to keep it secret. It does concern areas of national security.

The Republicans will never acknowledge the Valerie Plame incident as an egregious abuse of power and an instance where political considerations led to the smear campaign against Joe Wilson. They write it off as a minor incident.

It can effectively be argued that, in the Plame case and in this case and in a host of others, it doesn't matter which party holds the White House--it's still a criminal matter and it does not protect America from anything to break the laws or leak classified information.

Reverse the political affiliation of all the players and it would still be wrong, no matter how much the trolletariat wants to spin it.

The NYT had a story, the administration told them to hold onto it, so they did. Wanna bet that sort of practice just took a huge hit and that the next news organization is not going to grant this administration any credibility? This administration won't be able to make that case in the future, regardless of the issue.

That ought to terrify Americans--this administration has zero credibility when it comes to defending this country. They don't even have the benefit of the doubt when it comes to giving out the correct time of day.

It was more aimed at the first few comments...

Guess I could quoted...

Shaky:

Okay, now I'm going to probably get attacked for not instantly casting aspersions on Mrs. Lady -- but it might have something to do with new revelations from the leakers they talked to. Maybe it was framed to them in entirely different terms the first time out. But then, closer to the running of this story, several of them came to the NYT and said enough already, this is unconstitutional, I'm ashamed of contributing to this program.

I'm not, of course, saying that this is correct or not. But the impression I got from the piece is that the NSA leakers are, at this moment, exceedingly angry at the government.

Maybe something happened between then and now to change their tune?

I'd just rather suspect a change in the leakers rather than a change in the Times. At least for the moment before we have the full story.

Bob (hobbyist NYT apologist)

The running of this story did not, as published, compromise our security, but it's not difficult to imagine how the running of a different version of the story might have contained enough specifics that terrorists, money laundering rings, etc. might have become aware that some channels they thought reasonably secure were actually not secure. If they were canny enough to know, for instance, that it's supposed to be illegal for US intelligence services to monitor communications inside the US, they might have been taking advantage of that, thinking the NSA couldn't listen to them there.

I am more sympathetic than others to the way the Times describes its decision to delay publishing while firming up the story, as reported by Paul Farhi in the Washington Post. If the government told them that publishing would compromise efforts to stop terrorists, it makes sense to take some time to ensure that everything you're going to publish about techniques is already on the record, and to be double-sure about the accuracy of the claims you're making. It's no accident that the Times's case was so ironclad by the time it published that the President simply had to admit the whole story, rather than issuing one of his typical non-denial denials.

No doubt the fact that the Times reporter was about to publish a book which would have blown the scoop played a role in concentrating the Times's attention on the need to get this story out before the end of the year. But it's not irresponsible to take seriously concerns over compromising national security before publishing, and it's very logical that in the face of administration hostility to a story, you take the time to back it up, particularly in the post-Judith Miller environment. We can't blast the media for shoddy reporting and then blast it again when it takes the time to check its facts. And to those skeptical that doing so could possibly take a year, well, guess what? Doing so could possibly take a year.

Pale Rider:

I think the Boy Who Cried Wolf Effect from this is going to be extremely significant.

The NYT gave them the benefit of the doubt. Remember, this was right after 9/11.

This is doubtless going to change.

Bob

There's no way that it would ever have occurred to members of an Al Qaeda cell that they were being surveilled before yesterday's shameful act by the Times. Really.

rmck1,

As if this needs to be said--

Sure would have been nice to know in October 2004.

If you can ding the MSM for anything, it's the fact that they didn't start trying to do their job until after the election.

brooksfoe:

That's a very sensible analysis. I have yet to read the WaPo piece, but that makes sense.

I also think that some of the leakers themselves may have become more adamant about releasing the information between then and now, but that's, of course pure speculation.

Bob

Pale Rider:

Agreed there -- most painfully.

Maybe the Times is trying to purge the ghost of Judith Miller and -- after an extremely careful vetting process as brooksfoe speculates -- ran with a story that they simply might not otherwise have ran in the earlier days of the war before the admin's credibility turned to dust ...

Bob

I'd just rather suspect a change in the leakers rather than a change in the Times. At least for the moment before we have the full story.

Yeah, the truth is, I'm feeling highly snarky and pissed about the NYT's decision (as I imagine was evident, lol), but I don't know all the specifics, which is, in part, why I chose to solicit comment on the administration's dubious reasoning.

I am more sympathetic than others to the way the Times describes its decision to delay publishing while firming up the story, as reported by Paul Farhi in the Washington Post.

That's the story linked and excerpted in the post.

Honsestly, I wondered the same thing. I'm not sure why terrorists plotting against us would think that things were different, now that they knew someone could be listening without a warrant as opposed to with one. But I could be missing something too.

I think it's more likely the Bush administration new that this story would destroy this program, and sought to keep the NY Times from reporting on it using any justification they could come up with. Unlike some of you guys I'm willing to give the Times the benefit of the doubt considering it is an issue of national security, but they really should try to give us a better clue of the specific concerns the administration cited.

Pale Rider : Love the quip "trolletariat". Got one for the Masters of Effrontery ?(Bush et al)

Somehow I can't imagine an effective terrorist who assumes that mere rules and law will keep the U.S. government from tapping their phone and email messages.

Everyone with any sense at all knows that our intelltigence agencies have been doing this since the 1960's regardless of what the law says. Any terrorist who assumes otherwise is a fool who has been suckered by the general propaganda and deserves to be caught.

Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. If the terrorists/subversive agents/whatever assume merely because the public propaganda out there says we don't read their email or listen to their phone calls they are too stupid to be successful terrorists, spies, subversives or whatever.

Paranoia is their first line of defense. Breaking the rules is ours. We just don't let the rule breaking ever reach the courts or the press.

Trying to change the rules to accomadate the rule-breaking is itself stupidity. It demonstrates the naivete and ignorance of the right-wingers.

Alexander:

Agreed there, as well.

Off to read the WaPo story ....

Bob

opit,

No, I can't take credit for that one. Trolletariat was used by someone else.

Pale Rider, opit:

But no-one has yet to use Lumpentrolletariat.

We need to save that one for the extra-extra-EXTRA stupid, like Dougie :)

Bob

Somehow I can't imagine an effective terrorist who assumes that mere rules and law will keep the U.S. government from tapping their phone and email messages.

There are no laws against the U.S. government tapping the phone and e-mail messages of anyone. There are laws against the U.S. government doing so merely on the president's say-so, without a warrant and without judicial oversight.

cdj wrote: "It was more aimed at the first few comments..."

Since I was the author of those two comments, I would have to say that you aren't reading them carefully enough. Of course I know that those excuses were bogus. Mine were rhetorical questions. Not disbelief that the administration would peddle stupidly bogus excuses, but disbelief that the administration would think that anyone would possibly believe them!

The second question was specifically aimed at our right-wing friends, many of whom have expressed deep, deep concern about the awful nature of this security leak, e.g., one of our good friends over at PowerLine blog: "The next step is to appoint a prosecutor to investigate who leaked this important classified information, and begin criminal proceedings against those responsible."

ThinkProgress.org has a good post up exposing the hypocrisy of the Bush administration, which yesterday had the following to say.

Bush: I know that people are anxious to know the details of operations, they– people want me to comment about the veracity of the story. It’s the policy of this government, just not going do it, and the reason why is that because it would compromise our ability to protect the people.

McClellan: This relates to intelligence activities and ongoing intelligence operations that are aimed at saving lives. And there’s a reason why we don’t get into discussing ongoing intelligence activities, because it could compromise our efforts to prevent attacks from happening.

Rice: Well, I’m, again, not going to comment on intelligence activities because intelligence activities, by their very nature, are activities that are sensitive and that should not be compromised.

Of course, the concern for security lasted all of one day, after which the president not only proudly confirmed the program but provided additional details on how it all worked. So much for his firm resolve and his commitment to our national security.

Alexander,

I think it's more likely the Bush administration [k]new that this story would destroy this program, and sought to keep the NY Times from reporting on it using any justification they could come up with.

The real idiocy was for the White House to try to regularize it within the rules in the first place. Assuming that it was effective, it should have been continued as a rogue operation and the source of useful information should have been winked at at least three to ten levels below the White House.

But the conservatives are people who actually believe that rules from on high actually control behavior throughout the government and beyond. As I say, total naivete.

Over on another thread, a poster named Tank brought up something that needs to be dispelled. The program called 'echelon' was used to scare the hell out of the Europeans a few years back.

The term 'echelon' doesn't really mean anything. It is a term that could be used to describe several things that are actually used but are not widely known. Able Danger was a type of 'echelon' collection or reporting.

And the fact that we haven't talked about Able Danger much is also interesting. A US Army LTC lost his career and his security clearance over Able Danger and the fact that this program could likely have prevented the very thing that the Bush administration is using for cover.

Oh wise and benevolent Shakespeare's Sister: I know that you were never in Bananarama but I do know you to be a wise and brilliant person. Why do you suppose there was such zeal to destroy the man who revealed Able Danger? After all, it is 9/11 that justified the monitoring of US citizens by NSA but it was Able Danger that could have prevented 9/11.

Which hand is trying to cover which ass over which screwup?

Maybe Bushie is afraid that the judges who would issue these warrants are terrorists themselves, or too stupid to keep their mouths shut, or worse, liberals.

I don't think there are any "real" newspaper people working at the NYT any more--or, at Pravad on the Potomac (The Washington Post). There may not be any "real" newspaper people in America any more. The MSM just rolls over and plays dead.

Every time I hear about a news organization that withheld some information just before the election because it might impact the elections, really irks me. Ah, duh, that's what the First Amendment right is all about. Americans need all the information possible for critical decision-making before voting for President and Congressional Reps and Senators; and, if the MSM abrogates its responsibility, America ends up with what we have now--people who only care about their power and money. The MSM gave up their first amendment right these past five years without a fight. It is so very sad. It would be even sadder if we didn't have the internet and the bloggers.

What should be the response of the left to the wingnut's call for an investigation by a special prosecutor into the leaking of classified information to the reporters of the NYT? Cuz you know they are going to insist that the NYT reporters be force to divulge their confidential sources. Should the NYT reporters give up the names in a grand jury investigation?

Response 1: Show me the harm, just as I asked in my second post on this thread. On this subject, those on the right appear to be resolutely mute.

Response 2: I'd be interested in hearing which specific statute was violated. This is actually an honest question. I know which statutes were involved in the Plame matter, but they don't apply in this case.

hmmm,

The identity of which covert agent was compromised by the release of the information about secret wiretaps by the NSA?

Who's life was placed in danger?

If anything, the Federal whistleblower statutes might come into play; malfeasance by the executive branch has been revealed to the public by a whistleblower.

Or, you know, we can just say that Clinton got a blowjob three times and click our heels together and talk about Hitlery.

Any of this sound familiar?

FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.

NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

FROST: By definition.

NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.

FROST: So, that in other words, really you were saying in that answer, really, between the burglary and murder, again, there's no subtle way to say that there was murder of a dissenter in this country because I don't know any evidence to that effect at all. But, the point is: just the dividing line, is that in fact, the dividing line is the president's judgment?

NIXON: Yes, and the dividing line and, just so that one does not get the impression, that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate. We also have to have in mind, that a president has to get appropriations from the Congress. We have to have in mind, for example, that as far as the CIA's covert operations are concerned, as far as the FBI's covert operations are concerned, through the years, they have been disclosed on a very, very limited basis to trusted members of Congress. I don't know whether it can be done today or not.

Had Bush43 been a more serious student of history, he would have realized long ago that no President is above the law. He probably couldn't even tell you what Watergate was about. He was out of the Air Force and 'high on life' when Watergate happened. I'll bet he wasn't even talking to his old man at the time. Bush41 was the consummate student of history and foreign policy. Can anyone conceive of Bush41 making a speech like the one Bush43 gave this morning? It amazes me that, every day, the stock of Bush41 and his one term presidency shoots up while the two term debacle of Bush43 slides further and further into oblivion.

I mean, to be totally fair to any Republican out there--no way would Bush41, and as if I need to explain, the first President Bush--no way would that man have done what his son has done. I like to take shots at Republicans wherever possible, but no reasonable person could conclude that Bush41 was as craven and ignorant as Bush43 when it comes to the Presidency, power, and the law.

Bush43 has surrounded himself with fools--Harriet Miers ring a bell to anyone?--who have provided him with the shoddiest legal advice in the history of this republic.

And for that, he shall be impeached. And perhaps then he will learn something about history.

Someone needs to do a photoshop of a memo from Bush43 asking his legal team if it is legal to order NSA to conduct wiretaps without a warrant. At the end, the President asks the legal team of the White House to ensure that the action is perfectly legal.

Scrawled across the reply would be Harriet Miers writing back with:

"You're number one! Go for it!"

with a happy face and a heart dotting the 'i' above the word 'it.'

"opit,

No, I can't take credit for that one. Trolletariat was used by someone else."

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 17, 2005 at 10:00 PM

No, that one is mine. I have coined the odd word or two over the years, but I always thought this one was one of my better ones. From the reactions it has gotten over the last couple of years it would seem others find it so as well. BTW Pale Rider, thanks for not claiming credit for it, not everyone would have been as honest.

As to the topic at hand, it is a bit of a tough call on how to react to the actions of the NYT. As others have already noted there are genuine and good reasons for treating the claim of national security as valid, on the other hand given the credibility of Bushco by now one would have thought there would have been less deference. As for the NYT credibility, that also leaves one with a basis to be suspicious of why they held it, so it is rather hard to know how to consider it. Especially since they are trying to restore credibility after some really serious factual "errors" in the last few years on the security front.

The reason though that Bushco appears to have given does seem somewhat empty, at least in terms of what was in this story. It leaves one wondering just how often the national security claims they have given to suppress other stories have been equally flimsy, and what it says about both Administration and media sources that they appeared to have worked as well as they have until recently. Given the track record of Bushco though I do not find it at all surprising, indeed I would say it is more expected than anything resembling surprise. The question I wonder though is how much of this was truly for domestic political purposes and show much of it was for genuine security causes? If they went around FISA it does leave one wondering what other reason they would need to do so, well aside from their belief that the law truly does not apply to this "war Presidency".

The identity of which covert agent was compromised by the release of the information about secret wiretaps by the NSA?

It was a classified operation. Top-secret. Just divulging details of it's operation by government officials would be against the law, which is probably why no Congress member who was briefed could talk to the press about it.

If anything, the Federal whistleblower statutes might come into play; malfeasance by the executive branch has been revealed to the public by a whistleblower.

Possibly, but I don't believe whistleblower laws cover the divulging of classified materials. Anyway, the Pres hasn't been given his due process yet, so until there is a court judgement saying otherwise, he's hasn't been found guilty of anything, legally.

If Congress decides to hold hearings, perhaps the leakers could be granted immunity. Still, it's going to interesting to see how this is going to play out.

which is probably why no Congress member who was briefed could talk to the press about it.

The same people who did a 'holy shit' when they first found out about it Friday?

We already know that the Congress has never been given the same intelligence used by the administration.

We already know that the standard line for discounting the revealing of Valerie Plame's identity was state by the Republicans in various forms of she was no longer covert, she drove through the front gate of CIA every day, her neighbors knew she was a covert agent, etc.

So, again--who was put in jeopardy by the revealing of this information?

Possibly, but I don't believe whistleblower laws cover the divulging of classified materials.

Yes they do, especially when someone is breaking the law.

Still, it's going to interesting to see how this is going to play out.

Not really. It'll merely end up in impeachment proceedings. Thanks for playing, though.

Scotian,

I just thank God you are still able to show up and post. What you've done recently clarifies and summarizes the information at hand. The 'trolletariat' scurries away like a cockroach with a purpose when you start with your rolling broadside of 96 guns.

Pale rider:

You know, some of you guys here are starting to freak me out a touch, a 96 rolling gun broadside? Next thing you know people will be telling that I deliver time on target posts...:) Last month it was being called an elder statesman and now this, it is a good thing I know just what kind of twit I am otherwise you would be swelling my head with all this. *chuckle*

Back to the original question, re a news story alerting targets. Isn't there a parallel issue of why the government hid the surveillance in the first place, rather than just get a FISA warrant? Is there a technology issue -- something that NSA has that is not yet known almost everybody, not just potential targets? Or is there something that the government wants to prove by way of precedent? I really get the feeling that we do not know half of the story here.

The same people who did a 'holy shit' when they first found out about it Friday?

We already know that the Congress has never been given the same intelligence used by the administration.

Dude, did you read the Times and the Post's articles? This isn't about WMD intelligence, it's about this specific operation. Sen Rockefeller was one of the Congress members who was briefed. However when contacted to comment on the story, he declined. In fact, I believe no Congress member who was briefed has gone on record saying so.

So, again--who was put in jeopardy by the revealing of this information?

Nobody has to be put "in jeopardy" to violate National Security disclosure laws. C'mon. That's a no brainer

Yes they do, especially when someone is breaking the law.

No, they don't. But since you're just playing the idiot contrarian here it doesn't really matter to me whether you believe it or not.

Not really. It'll merely end up in impeachment proceedings. Thanks for playing, though.

Yeah, Merry Christmas to you too buddy.

Scotian,

Sorry. Some of us guys know the real deal when we see it. When I find myself setting a troll's hair on fire in my own evil way, I reproach myself because I know that you would do a better job with fewer cusswords and more substance than I can usually cough up.

I hope your health stays well enough to get you through the next few years. We need you for at least the next twenty, proabably longer.

"May you live in interesting times" is a curse for all of us to think about, I guess.

Sen Rockefeller was one of the Congress members who was briefed.

Uh huh, and he didn't leak it. He also wasn't given the same pre-war intelligence regarding the Iraq WMD fiasco. Can you kind of see a pattern emerging? This administration doesn't really tell the truth to the Congress because they don't accept oversight of any kind. The administration thinks it is above the law. When you think you're above the law, not only do you think you're Steven Segal, you also don't spend a whole lot of time worrying about Jay Frickin' Rockefeller, either.

No, they don't.

If your contention is that the Federal whistleblower statutes would not apply to an individual who observes fraud, waste, or abuse, that is incorrect. A person who observes fraud, waste, or abuse in a classified area is protected from retaliation when they report it. Within each intelligence agency is an inspector general's office responsible not only for maintaining secrecy but also for ensuring that whistleblowers are not retaliated against, regardless of what they 'blow the whistle' on. In this particular case, the leak could fall under the whistleblower law because the crime is such that keeping it classified endangers more people than it actually protects.

Yeah, Merry Christmas to you too buddy.

Happy Holidays. Hey--maybe Bill O'Reilly can shove a loofa-covered Christmas tree up your ass without any lube while the two of you play full contact butt-buddy tag in the shower.

[oooh, sorry Scotian--I'll change my ways tomorrow, I promise...]

National security laws do not condone illegal acts. If the President decided to have Jacques Chirac assassinated the person learning about this plan would have the right and even the duty to divulge it. "Classified" does not excuse illegal.

And of course it's a completely bogus claim that the real terrorists would benefit from that. I mean, what difference does it make for a terrorist if a secret FISA warrant is obtained prior (and as we know even up to 72 hours after) the start of the eavesdropping or the President just "authorizes" it?

It seems to me that most nogoodniks probably try to hide their schemes, irrespective of whether the exact specifics of the government’s attempts to thwart them are widely known.

You probably would have said the same thing when it was revealed that al Qaeda had stopped using cell phones after it was revealed in open court that the US was listening in on them. Only fools would argue that their own ignorance of the enemies is positive evidence that our own government's secrets are of no value to those enemies; you are just such a fool.

The attitude of the Bush Administration has always been that laws are for other people

Please wake up. The Democratic leadership in Congress was informed of the program.

$20 says Woodward will say,"Well I knew all about the secret eavesdropping . You know, this is war. This is how Washington works."

Yeah Bob.

Ok babe. Where's that next book?

Over at TPM, Josh Marshall makes the quite relevant point that there's no reason genuine enemies would know ANYTHING in virtue of the NYT revelation. In fact, ALL of the surveillance of these targets even in the US might have been performed perfectly above board using FISA. It's only the Bush WH that seemed to think that it shouldn't have to deign to go through the trouble of following the procedures outlined in FISA.

What the Bush WH imagines our enemies might have reasonably speculated after the NYT revelation that they couldn't have done so beforehand simply escapes me.

I mean, what difference does it make for a terrorist if a secret FISA warrant is obtained prior (and as we know even up to 72 hours after) the start of the eavesdropping or the President just "authorizes" it?

Dramatic effect.

If we get a terrorist because the President personally authorized an illegal search it makes it look like the tough Sheriff himself stepped in and brought in the bad guy.

Yep, when he's not busy landing on aircraft carriers declaring an end to combat operations -- he's pounding the boards at the NSA, listening for clues to the next terror attack.

"when it was revealed that al Qaeda had stopped using cell phones"

And who did reveal that we knew that they had stopped using cell phones?

Idiotic btw... any half witted guy knew before 9/11 that the gov could tap into mobile phone conversations.

I'm just wondering if I've been spied upon.

I attended antiwar rallies already in Feb. 2003 in Dallas and March 2003 in L.A. I may have e-mailed Bolton via an action alert from the ACLU or some other activist group to which I belong.

I'm pissed off.

This is reminiscent of FDR's secret plan to invade Morocco without a Congressional Declaration of War. Or LBJ's invasion of the Dominican Republic. You guys act as if you believe that Bush invented federal power.

Not federal power.
Unchecked unlimited illegal use of federal power.

So please quote me an example for something the President CAN NOT do even when invoking those powers?

This is reminiscent of FDR's secret plan to invade Morocco

More reminiscent of Nixon's authorization to break into Democratic National headquarters.

Uh huh, and he didn't leak it.
Who said he did?

He also wasn't given the same pre-war intelligence regarding the Iraq WMD fiasco. Can you kind of see a pattern emerging? This administration doesn't really tell the truth to the Congress because they don't accept oversight of any kind. The administration thinks it is above the law. When you think you're above the law, not only do you think you're Steven Segal, you also don't spend a whole lot of time worrying about Jay Frickin' Rockefeller, either.

I don't know what you are arguing here. It's completely beside the point. Besides, now that the story has broke, Pelosi has said that she too was informed:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she had been told on several occasions that Bush had authorized unspecified activities by the National Security Agency, the nation's largest spy agency. She said she had expressed strong concerns at the time, and that Bush's statement Saturday "raises serious questions as to what the activities were and whether the activities were lawful."

If your contention is that the Federal whistleblower statutes would not apply to an individual who observes fraud, waste, or abuse, that is incorrect. A person who observes fraud, waste, or abuse in a classified area is protected from retaliation when they report it. Within each intelligence agency is an inspector general's office responsible not only for maintaining secrecy but also for ensuring that whistleblowers are not retaliated against, regardless of what they 'blow the whistle' on. In this particular case, the leak could fall under the whistleblower law because the crime is such that keeping it classified endangers more people than it actually protects.

Got a legal cite for that? I'd like to see it.

Happy Holidays. Hey--maybe Bill O'Reilly can shove a loofa-covered Christmas tree up your ass without any lube while the two of you play full contact butt-buddy tag in the shower.

Ohhh, now with the aggressive homophobic insults. Fuckin' repressed gay basher.

If what the administration was doing was blatantly illegal when the NYT learned about the story, why would they hold off publishing 'in the interest of national security'?

That never stopped the NYT before.

And, 'over a year ago' puts this before the 2004 election. Anyone seriously think the NYT would sit on a story of the Bush administration, acting 'illegally', if they had the goods before the election?

Nope, me neither.

Which makes me think that there is a whole lot less to this story.

That and all the in-house legal review. Even if the DoJ is a total tool of the Bush administration (and it isn't), there's no way the lawyers there are going to pass the program, repeatedly, if it's way over the line.

Keep beating on this story, folks, it'll keep you up late at night.

What the Bush WH imagines our enemies might have reasonably speculated after the NYT revelation that they couldn't have done so beforehand simply escapes me.
----------------------Isn't any rationalisation offered now strictly for the consumption of the American public and not meant to convince whatever it is the methods our 'enemies' were using to pssibly alter them?

Boy does anyone besides Steve cling to the notion that the Times is a liberal person's wet dream newspaper? I am sure there are many. But I guess torture, secret prisons, extraordinary renditions, white phosphorous usage, scores of dead civilians, and targeted journalists murder should all be swept under the rug, after all we are at war and our enemies, those evil terrorist killers are juss waiting for us to let our guard down so they can kil again.

Keep beating on this story, folks, it'll keep you up late at night.

Thanks Steve!

We'll keep beating on this story while you keep beating off.

The wiretapping of citizens opens such a HUGE Pandora's box. I mean is the threat of terrorism that much fucking worse than say drunk driving (which kills far more people)? I can see it now. "This guy is a repeat offender, let's tap his phone and see if he is headed out to party tonight and try to avert potential catastrophe" Now since DD is far more likely to happen than a bomb going off at my local mall which intensive surveillance would be seemingly more justified? How about crys meth labs? Should we bend rules there as well? Are people in this country so fucking scared of individuals who on their absolute best day may be able to takeout 500 people at once? We're supposed to give up every liberty we enjoy for what faux piece of mind? When someone gets behind the wheel of a car they are at a far higher risk of dying than facing down a bomb or a missile? When did Americans become such weak-kneed pussies and WTF is it going to take to awaken from this stupor?

I just want to tell all you idiots who voted for Bush and now regret it:

I fucking TOLD YOU he was rotten.

I said so in 1999 when he was running for president.

I said so a couple years earlier when he was running for TX guv. Rotten to the core, and a crook. These people who call themselves "conservatives" are just fascist crooks. And Bush is their chosen poster-boy.

Times Executive Editor Bill Keller?

The only reason Ms. Miller is unemployed is because she is Keller scapegoat.

Mr. Cocktails with Karl Rove before emailing all the staff at the NYT and to tell them to slant news toward “Republican” ideology, what do we expect?

Someone should ask that stupid piece of shit editor who goes by the name of Keller how it is that a bunch of peaceniks had anything to do with “terrorism”.

Perhaps Keller wanted to have it both ways, in that he could pretend that liberals don’t understand terrorist at all, while Bush, with taxpayer money, investigated those same peaceniks for “terrorism”. Surely Keller was NOT so STUPID as too believe that those same peaceniks were any kind of threat, unless of course, Keller wanted to be purposely obtuse.

It begs the question of if Karl was slipping money to Keller so Kelle would look the other way?

Certainly the man behind miss Run Amok is Mister Run Amok himself. You can’t fire Miller without looking at the management. I mean how hell did Ms Run Amok managing to run so amok?

The Woodward Syndrome

Lie with the powers, get the scoops.
Same goes for the NYT

Cheryl:

That had more to do with her relationship with Pinch Sulzberger than with Keller, I think.

I think the NYT gave Bush the benefit of the doubt in the wake of 9/11.

And now they see Bush as deserving no benefit of anything. The reason this story broke later is because the NSA sources got tired of playing the game in a way that they weren't right after 9/11.

That's my best guess for the moment, anyway ...

Bob

So, Bush informed several Senators he was going to spy on people. Did he also tell them he wasn't getting a warrant to do it?

Re:
Times timing

With a therapy patient timing is all. You have to wait till the patient can hear what you are saying. A year ago the nation could not.
Now it can and the NYT used it to devistating effect to hold off the patriot act. As you post even the right can hear it now

I tend to believe that this revelation comprmised nothing, while - at the same time - disclosing a possible Constitutional or statutory conflict.

As none of the targets, nor the selection process of said targetts was made public - one can assume that no evasion strategy was enhanced by this disclosure.

Though its possible that foreign agents will ressurect the Forsythe/LeCarre exposed methods of relaying hard-copy communications - I beileve its highly doubtful. Further, reverting to ponderous, written transmissions - pased through a heavily structures and over-choreographed system - would only serve to slow said communiques. Mission accomplished one might say.

FWIW, having intersected with MIT Lincoln Labs Encryp/Decryp at one point in my life - I'd always assumed that NSA was using key-phrases and words to trigger their communications intercepts. Decrypting takes time, but they've got the "acknowledged" capacity to intercept, store and review an extrordinary amount data.

Given my affliction with Turrets Syndrome - and my less than respectful coments regarding GWB, Cheney and many others who have turned to the dark side - I just assume the mine are amoung the 500Tb of communications intercepted dailly. I would expect nothing less of the Administrations surveilance of those researching the travesties and affronts of our government. To be subjected to this intrusion and the routine questioning of one's commitment to the republic is an outstanding way to turn the uniniated into actors on the grand stage (the French Film "The Battle for Algeirs" is a perfect example of quasi-totalitarianism and its deleterious effect on the "comfortable classes" support for said reqimes.

The time may be comming for a number of progressive Cities to concede that there is little future without radical change. Secession perhaps.

Anyway, drunken ramblings from someone reading to many books on radical political thought these days... Take it for what it is.

Viva la fratenatie e democracy!

Con respeto,
David

Terrirst I: I just read in the New York Times that Bush is monitoring our phone calls and emails.
TerristII: Oh shit, I never thought they'd do this; now we'll have to resort to exchanging messages by using pigeons again.

I LOOK FORWARD TO REVIEWING THE PAST POSTS BY MR. DRUM ET AL. AS THEY RATIONALIZE PURSUING THE PLAME LEAKERS TO THE UTMOST BUT NOT THE LEAKERS OF THE THE RECENTLY REPORTED NSA SURVEILLANCE POLICY. NATURALLY, THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTERS ARE REQUIRED TO REVEAL WHO BROKE THE LAW HERE BY LEAKING TO THEM; OTHERWISE THAT WOULD NOT BE THE MANIFESTATION OF JOURNALISTIC PRIVILEGE, BUT RATHER AIDING AND ABETTING A CRIME. IF THEY DECIDE TO AID AND ABET A CRIME, THEY SHOULD BE JAILED.

The Objective Historian

It sucks that the NYT sat on it for a year, but I give them points for bringing it out at exactly the right moment vis-a-vis the "Patriot" Act....

Objective Historian,
Wow. All caps and everything.

Almost makes your rabid tirade appear to make sense.

Almost.

Oh, and fuck you, in case I hadn't mentioned it.

This White House thought that America's security would be threatened it Kerry was elected. So the people who now know they are being spied on are the people for whom a warrant would not have been approved -- Democrats.

"How does running this story hamper our security efforts in any way? What harm was done by the airing of this story?"

They just say it, get it out there, Fox lathers, Russert rinses, and Tweety commences to repeat.

They did this a couple of weeks ago with the Black Site Prison story. Soledad O'Brien (I think, some lovely animatron on CNN) asked a rather incredulous Ken Bacon (I think) if, essentially, a free press was a threat to the United States. She didn't seem to pick up on his muted shock at her breathtaking ignorance.

That's the real damage that Osama anad his neo-con allies (useful idiots) have done to this country: They've put to rest, hopefully not forever, the notion that the United States of American is not a place but an idea, that it is our Constitution that needs to be defended more than our borders. They didn't set out to do this, and don't know they've done it, because neither Osama nor Bush nor Cheney nor certainly that halfwit Jon Cornyn really understands the principles this country was founded on.

And, suffused with a sense of my own futile righteousness, so to bed.

Okay, one more thing and I'm probably walking on somebody's heels here:
How the hell does that nitwit Keller keep his job after this. Howell Raines lost his job because Jason Blair filed some phony stories about what? quick...you neither...I thought so.

With Keller, unlike with Raines and Froomkin, the right--ahem--the Right people haven't complained. Yet.

Mr Keller, there's a Patrick Ruffino for you on line two...

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958
CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
.
.
Sec. 1.8. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.
(a) In no case shall information be classified in order to:
(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
...

Leaking information regarding an illegal activity hidden behind a security clearance? Probably not a crime.

JUST GOT BACK FROM MARS STOP IS EISENHOWER STILL PRESIDENT STOP HOW DOES LIBERAL HYSTERIA MANFEST ITSELF THESE DAYS STOP LETS MAKE JOKES ABOUT RUNNING PLANES INTO BUILDINGS STOP

Pheww!

For a momemt I was beginning to think that USA really meant to put us out of business.

But now that we understand what your president means by 'democracy and freedom' I am relieved.

Hell, so long we can spy on our own citizens without telling them, we can have 'democracy' too. just like the USA.

I have considerably difficulty imagining the sort of fear that would lead anyone to condone any breach of civil liberties. The notion that a majority of Americans is chickenshit enough to approve something like this, and also torture, and also invading weak countries, is intolerable.

But, on present evidence, undeniable.

I'm go to throw a spanner in the works and say I don't see how even telling terrorists that they might be being spied upon decreases our security. Doing that (if it has any effect at all) will tend to break down their lines of communication. Surely, that makes us safer. Sure we might not catch as many of them red handed, but they will be less effective which is what we want. And the more under pressure they feel, the more likely they are to make mistakes. I'm all for increased openness, AS THE BEST DEFENCE AGAINST TERRORISTS. If society in general is open, then those strange secretive types stand out like a store thumb. If everybody is paranoid, then they look normal.

How does running this story hamper our security efforts in any way? What harm was done by the airing of this story?

Well maybe Bush is assuming that it will eventually leak out that all email correspondence with anyone over seas is being monitored.

RE: Objective historian:

If i'm a terrorist, I'm going to assume that my communications are being monitored. sadly, real terrorists are mostly at least this smart, or at least theleaders are. Finding out that this is true doesn't change what i already do much. If i'm dumb enought that it would, I'm probably already caught.

I wouldn't however, assume that this woman who works for Brewster Jennings was actually a CIA anti-WMD proliferation operative, or that many of her overseas contacts were also probably spooks, or cooperating with spooks. this is news to me, useful news, which changes what I do.

In a way, you do have to praise the NYT for not reporting the story and for acquiescing to the request to keep it secret. It does concern areas of national security.
. . .
But it's not irresponsible to take seriously concerns over compromising national security before publishing
. . .
Unlike some of you guys I'm willing to give the Times the benefit of the doubt considering it is an issue of national security

National security, national security. With all of the Bush administration's huffing and puffing about how necessary it is to expand police powers to protect us all, with all its thousands of warrantless wiretaps to date, how many terrorism cases has it brought since 9/11 that have resulted in convictions? Very few.

The real threat to our national security comes from ourselves here. The doctrine that the President can do anything he pleases is a serious threat to us, not to Osama bin Laden.

In the 1960s and 70s the national security establishment was convinced that the antiwar movement was instigated by the Soviets. How many peace groups were infiltrated, how many thousands of phones were wiretapped in an effort to prove that thesis? How many spies did the feds turn up? Not one.

The spineless acquiescence of the Times to the administration's wishes shows that we can't even rely on those who are supposed to be watchdogs.

I have been reading over Shakespeares Sister posts and I have to say it is the sorriest, most pitiful work I have yet encountered in the left wing fever swamps.

How about a few facts, maybe an actual TRUTH or two. Can you really get your kicks off these ridiculous attacks on the President who is actually fighting war, unlike Clinton who pretended to fight terrorists when he wasn't pardoning them.

To SS, somehow a five year old briefing that Bin Laden intends to strike US, is MORE THAN enough information for SS to stop Bin Laden, but she doesn't explain just how she would go about that?

PLEASE, SOME LIBERAL CLUE US IN TO YOUR PLANS TO WIN A GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR:

LET'S SEE:

1. YOU CAN ONLOY ARREST TERRORISTS, AFTER FINDING SUFFICIENT LEGAL REASONS TO CHARGE THEM WITH A CRIME.

2. YOU CANNOT HOLD TERRORISTS AS ILLEGAL COMBATANTS.

3. YOU CANNOT DEGRDE A TERRORIST, YOU CANNOT MAKE THEM LISTEN TO LOUD MUSIC, SIT IN A AIR CONDITIONED CELL, ETC. ETC.

4. YOU CANNOT EVEAVES DROP ON AL QUEDA CELL COMMUNICATIONS WITHIN THE US.

5. YOU CANNOT OVERTHROW TERRORIST LED COUNTRIES WHO HARBOR THE TOP TERRORISTS IN THE WORLD.

I think it is getting more and more clear to the American public that the left is incapable of actually fighting a real war and protecting the UNited States.

REMEMBER WHEN LIBERALS STOOD AND APPLAUDED THIS LINE:

"""Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (Standing ovation from Democrats and Republicans)""""""

There isn't a single Democrats today who still wants to achieve this goal.

Patton,I like your convenient classification as "terrorist" anyone the Bush administration decides to treat in the ways you list. That's real "national security" thinking.

AND HERE IS AN INTERESTING NEW TWIST TO THE LIBERALS HATRED OF AMERICA:

"""Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program,"""NYT Article

The New York Times states outright that they
made the people anonymous simply because they KNEW they were breaking the law!!!!

Since when does a newspaper become an accomplice to law breaking and then openly tell its readers that we are covering up for these criminals???

Would a HUGE story be:

12 Government Officials Openly Break Law in Time of War...and name the names.

NO PREFERENE ,,,its better then YOUR definition which is anyone Bill Clinton feels like pardoning to help get his wife elected.

Liberals LONG for the good old days:

February 8, 2000
Web posted at: 6:08 p.m. EST (2308 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton's controversial pardons 16 members of a Puerto Rican terrorist group last summer prompted Republicans Tuesday to introduce a measure to reform the pardon process.

President Clinton granted pardons to the FALN terrorists over the objections of law enforcement officials, and after the Justice Department consulted representatives of the FALN prisoners, but not the victims.

Outraged citizens include the widow of one victim and the son of a second victim killed in the 1975 FALN bombing of a New York restaurant.

BOMB NEW YORK CITY,,GET A PARDON FROM THE LIBERALS

IS THERE ANY DOUBT ANOTHER LIBERAL PRESIDENT WOULD PARDON THE AL QUEDA TERRORISTS FOR THE SEPT 11TH ATTACK 25 YEARS FROM NOW.

THATS WHY WE NEED TO KILL THEM IN A WAR, NOT TREAT THEM AS CRIMINALS, BECAUSE LIBERALS WILL FIND A WAY TO PUT THEM BACK ON THE STREETS.

There was a saying in World War 2 : loose lips sink ships. Our Republic managed not just to survive, but to thrive after winning WW2. Let's hope that we win this war without too much damange. But it appears to me that this country does not have the stomach for war . Maybe a nuclear-tipped missile, ship cargo, or airline cargo (not screened) blowing up europe of bits and pieces of the US will make this country realize that as distasteful as Bush is, he is doing what needs to be done. (and I can't stand the guy, or the party that put him into power.....)

My sense is that falling poll ratings for Bush emboldened the Times to take him on. It was basically just cowardice and fear that held them back last year.

I work in law enforcement and I know that most cops are good guys who want to do a good job bringing the bad guys to justice. I also know that they tend to follow whatever parameters are set by their leadership. Give them a sheriff/chief who believes religiously in following the rules of Miranda, of going through the steps of receiving legal warrants, of obtaining rock solid probable cause, etc. and that is what they will do. Give them a sheriff/chief who thinks corner-cutting is okay and soon you will see them cutting those corners. And that is why I am horrified by a president (who in many areas) is our Corner-Cutter in Chief. Because it isn't just the bad guys who get caught up in the misjustice.

papageno: Please wake up. The Democratic leadership in Congress was informed of the program.

and that prevented the president from complying with the law...how exactly?

"I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." - King George III

.

The Democratic leadership in Congress was informed of the program.

Bob Graham and Nancy Pelosi say that they were not.

"There was a saying in World War 2: loose lips sink ships." Yadda yadda yadda.

But the point of WW2 was to protect us from government thuggery like this. Ever think of that?

Someone needs to compile a list of what the administration attempted to keep quiet until after the Nov. 2004 election. I am prepared in advance to be quite disgusted but not in the least bit surprised. I'll start the list:
The senate intelligence committee's decision to postpone phase II of it's WMD investigation regarding the use of intelligence by the administration.

CLINTON'PENIS IS ALL YOU LIBERALS WANT TO DEFEND, NOT AMERICA! CLINTON'S LONG, HARD, VEINY COCK, WHICH HE SLID INTO A TIGHT SPACE AND THRUSTED BACK AND FORTH, BACK AND FORTH, AND SOMEONE WORKED THEIR HAND AND MOUTH OVER. IT'S ALL ABOUT HIS COCK. YOU LIBERALS, JUST CONCERNED ABOUT POUNDING AWAY WITH YOUR COCK, BALLS SWINGING AND SLAPPING AN ASS CHEEKS. JUST THE TYPE OF THING YOU LIBERALS WOULD DO AT A REST STOP MENS ROOM. MAYBE AT A REST STOP ON I-95, LIKE THE ONE OFF EXIT 56, NEAR WOODBRIDGE. THIS AFTERNOON AT 4:00 WHEN MY WIFE IS AT HER SISTERS.

LIBERALS ARE EVIL and want nothing more than to punish conservatives and true AMERICANS like ME by tying them up with ROPE and JUST LIKE CLINTON, BENDING THEM OVER THE BACK SEAT OF THEIR PLYMOUTH MINIVAN WITH VIRGINIA PLATES AT A HIGHWAY REST STOP AND POUNDING THEM UNTIL THEY BEG FOR MERCY. I KNOW WHAT YOU LIBERALS WANT.

When will you sick liberals get it? Terrorists want to sneak up behind America when our guard is down, and hit them with a HUGE MISSILE FROM BEHIND. THEY WANT TO GIVE IT TO CONSERVATIVES HARD FOR HOURSE AND HUMILIATE US. OVER THE HOLIDAYS IS A PERFECT TIME FOR THIS, WHEN PEOPLE's GUARDS ARE DOWN AND THEIR SPOUSES ARE OUT SHOPPING TODAY WITH THEIR SISTER FROM 3:00 UNTIL AT LEAST 7:00. TRUE PATRIOTS WILL BE DEFENDING AMERICA IN THEIR SILVER PLYMOUTH VOYAGER MINIVAN FROM 4:00 ON AT the REST STOP NEAR WOODBRIDGE ON THE I-95 SOUTH SIDE.

Er, Patton. Mind if I bring a friend?

I have a hypothetical even better than the "ticking atomic bomb" scenario:

Imagine that the government wiretapped the numbers they were interested in, but instead of the flouting the law, they went ahead and asked the FISA court, within 72 hours, to grant the retroactive warrants so provided under the law.

Then, they tell those nosy NYT reporters - "please don't report this story, it's a matter of national security, and as you can see, it's all on the up and up, we are following the law."

No story, no worries, mon.

The fact that they didn't do it this way tells you all you need to know.

"the Administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security.”

Anybody familiar with the law knows that this statement is truly laughable from a legal point of view.

But it is positively juvenile from a logical point of view as well. Your typical terrorist, like your typical citizen, is not even aware of the NSA. If they were aware of NSA, they could care less. They know what they are doing is illegal, they know the FBI, and who knows else, will be trying to stop them, and they try to operate secretly; like all criminals.

It should not be necessary for all of us adults to start from square one and try and justify and revalidate all of our existing laws to the Bush Administration. This idea that September 11 gives them an excuse for any and all behavior is absurd.

People forgot why we needed special prosecutors in the first place. Some chief executives are just too abusive. They need to be checked. A President can appoint an Attorney General who will not hold him/her accountable. Simple as that.

I hate to break the mood set by Patton (or should I say "PATTON!!!!").

I think there's a fairly good case to be made for witholding publication, sad to say. That is, it's plausible that publishing could do material harm to national security.

The critical datum is the recovered laptop. It had lots of email addresses, I presume, some in the US. Espionage would want to monitor those addresses to gather more email addresses. And monitor those to find more.

I expect that no terrorist of any brains would put any compromising material into an email. AQ seems to be this smart. But what the emails indicate is relationships. Who is talking to whom. Who is a good target for further surveillance and investigation.

If I were a terrorist and I read that article, I would immediately realize that me and all my friends needed to stop using any email address that had been used in the past 5 years. They were all burned. All of them. And I would not tell my new email addys to anyone who didn't understand email security to the highest degree.

But it might be that they have a system that they believe defeats surveillance, but doesn't. And so they kept using the same email addresses, and so on. Just how effective the program was, we'll probably never know, because it's classified.

I would like to see the leak of this material prosecuted, just because then maybe we'd know more about the Administration's credibility. How much damage was done by publication? Well, that's classified, so we'll never know; but a judge would get to see it at least.

I say if the adminstration doesn't prosecute, it means that either little or no damage was done, or they made a political discussion that in spite of the serious breach, they don't want to take the political heat.

"SOME LIBERAL CLUE US IN TO YOUR PLANS TO WIN A GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR"

There is no global war on terror, except in your head. You can't have a war on a tactic. There are some bad guys out there, but thwarting them and apprehending them is a law enforcement problem. If the administration would pay some attention to that problem, we might make some progress.

Kelly Davis and Chris,

Thank you all for posting identical posts. Schaife and Rove will appreciate your fine work. I'm sure that more of the same will appear throughout the day.

Alice/Patton, old gal, glad to see the Shelter has let you out for the day. Always love to see your fine work so early; reminds me that it is time to change the litter boxes.