you mean there ever was hope for them?

What the hell would Bush know about shame?

i sometimes wonder what he's gonna think of himself and his presidency after he leaves his little bubble in 08.

the Administration knew about the leak over a year ago but they quietly waited a year to begin an investigation of it? oviously the leakage didn't bother them, it was the publication and embarrassment that triggered the search...

Ah, but is the investigation itself classified, and thus the anonymous leaks about the investigation are themselves illegal? Who would investigate this leak? Sweet irony.

This probe is sure starting late. The Whitehouse knew about the leak a year ago when they urged the NYT to not print the story. If they are so hot to catch the whistleblower, why didn' they start the investigation back then?

What I'd like to see is ANY kind of account of how exposing the mere existence of these programs might actually compromise anything.

What would terrorists do, or not do, in the face of the knowledge of these programs that they wouldn't do, or not do, otherwise? Wouldn't they already rightly worry that their conversations might be intercepted, under the perfectly legal allowances of FISA?

I have never seen ANY explanation of the supposed risk here to national security. All I've ever heard are dark hints that the terrorists are somehow being mysteriously helped, with nary a word about how that's supposed to work.

Did anyone else notice this in the WaPo story:

Administration officials insisted that Bush has the power to conduct the warrantless surveillance under the Constitution's war powers provision.

There is, of course, no such "war powers provision".

"In a time a war..."

Anybody know where you go these days to buy war bonds?

There is no hope that American Fascists will ever become enlightened with reason.

Inevitably, the right's talking points will tell us that the administration's critics are hypocrites. We wanted the Justice Department to probe the Plame leak, they'll say, but not the "snoopgate" leak.

Where the hell have you been? The trolls in your own forum were parroting this talking point two weeks ago.

But if Bush's political allies can't see the difference between exposing official wrongdoing and exposing a CIA agent to help cover up bogus pre-war claims, there's just no hope for them.

You're only now coming to that realization?

Here's another one. Lame Mainstream Media robots will keep repeating this message over and over, Bush will never be found "wrong" on this in the public eye, and when the leaker is found, he will probably be executed, and if the leaker has any ties to the Democratic party at all, they'll jail Howard Dean.

if the leaker has any ties to the Democratic party at all, they'll jail Howard Dean.

So, maybe some good can come of this after all?

This probe is clearly designed to save the officials who have been or might be indicted in the Plamegate. Say, for example, that Senator X is found to have leaked the NSA information. The President quickly issues a pardon to Senator X. A few days later the officials involved in the Plamegate are pardoned. Now the President can justify the latter pardons with a straight face.

What I'd like to see is ANY kind of account of how exposing the mere existence of these programs might actually compromise anything.

I'm sure Cheney will talk about an evil plot to blow up the hoover dam using truckloads of illegal firecrackers purchased from Mexico by Al Qaeda terrorists, that they were close to catching them, but the terrorists, reading about the link on the NYT, stopped communicating via the personals-ads page, and decided to resort to drums, or carrier pidgeon.

What I'd like to see is ANY kind of account of how exposing the mere existence of these programs might actually compromise anything.

While I agree with you, the right used the same argument for not investigating the Plame leak.

The focus needs to remain on the central difference between the two - that true 'whisteblower' leaks revealing an illegal or fraudulant activity within the government should be encouraged, and the other should not.

The officials, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the probe, said the inquiry will focus on disclosures to The New York Times about warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Heh. Doesn't this constitute as a leak about the secret leak probe?

Drip, drip, drip...

Inevitably, the right's talking points will tell us that the administration's critics are hypocrites. We wanted the Justice Department to probe the Plame leak, they'll say, but not the "snoopgate" leak.

But I do want the Justice Department to do the "snoopgate" investigation.

Well, this will certainly keep the NSA spying story in the news a bit longer. Considering the statements of Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and other Republicans on this already, it looks like a separation of powers battle is underway...within the Republican Party. I say great. Nobody trusts a Justice Department investigation. If the JD wants an independent investigator then somebody will believe it. But still, the real question is whether or not the NSA program is legal, and if not, what are the consequences. Daniel Ellsberg looks like he's got a friend somewhere.

I agree, exhaustive hearings on the entire Snoopgate business sound fine to me. Obviously we'll need a full understanding of what the NSA was up to in order to punish those who leaked about it.

It really depends on how the investigation is handled. A serious "plamegate" style investigation by a career professional would be a good thing for the country and very bad for the Bushies. More threats of perjury, more investigations.

A CYA investigation by a political hack would resolve nothing. I wonder if it would make things worse within the REpublican party.

It's hard to be a right-wing supporter. You have to justify the president and his advisors breaking the law, twisting the Consitution, and lying brazenly and repeatedly every step of the way. At the same time, you have to demand investigations of those who don't support Bush, and do so on the flimsiest pretenses possible.

And while all this is going on, you have to convince yourself and those around you that giving up your freedoms makes you free, that creating historic deficits is fiscal conservatism, that doubling the size of government is actually shrinking government, that warrantless searches and arrests without charges on the basis of secret evidence resulting on American citizens being held indefinitely (and possibly tortured) is all, somehow, the truest expression of American ideals.

All this would make sane people's heads explode. So give the wingers credit for doing the mental gymnastics needed to actually force their minds to think that way.

or this country. david ensor just did a report on cnn, intoning with his most serious demeanor of the grave damage the leak did to the nsa. silly me, i consider spying on americans and evisceration of the constitution maybe trumps embarrassing der chimperor.

I see absolutely no need to give idiot republicans even that much of a talking point, Drum.

I say go right ahead and investigate.

Just don't bitch when whatever the JD digs up gets used against them when the hearings/trials for 4th Amendment violations take place.

But I do want the Justice Department to do the "snoopgate" investigation.

presumably to investigate whether the administration broke the law, not to uncover the identity of those who leaked the story, no?

Please investigate this and then we'll all realize that nothing illegal took place and this is just yet another red herring thrown against the wall in the left's futile attempt to unseat the republicans absence any real coherent plan for the country. As with Gitmo, Rathergate, Plamegate and the National Guard, the left just can't get any of their "conspiracy" theories to stick though they will attempt again because they are completely void of any real cogent message.

While I agree with you, the right used the same argument for not investigating the Plame leak.

But there's a big difference here. Bush and others are going around claiming that this leak has, in fact, damaged national security -- a claim vital to their actions here.

Bush needs to make claims like that to justify flouting the FISA law in the first place. It is supposedly the importance of maintaining the very secrecy of the methods that drove him to avoid the FISA approach, and generally to avoid anything approaching public or larger Congressional scrutiny in the first place. Take away the need for utter secrecy, and that whole end run around the law and Congress falls apart.

What I'd like to see is any account of how that secrecy was supposed to work -- what in particular terrorists might do or not do in the face of the revelation of these programs that they wouldn't have done or not done otherwise.

"I'm from the government, preview is your friend"

I'm the formatting police and YOU'RE UNDER ARREST!

Good!

Let's get this into the courts. Revealing illegal activity is a surefire defense in a leak investigation like this.

Are any Justice Department personnel investigating the unauthorized disclosure of illegal actions by the President subject to prosecution as accessories after the fact to the President's illegal actions? Do the Justice Department attorneys have an ethical duty to withdraw from the investigation rather than help cover up illegal activities?

presumably to investigate whether the administration broke the law, not to uncover the identity of those who leaked the story, no?

The two goals are not entirely independent. People with the public trust should be held accountable for their actions; if the leak was a betrayal of the security of the nation the leaker should be held accountable, OTOH, if the leak was the only option the leaker had to avoid cooperating with and advancing a criminal conspiracy against the law and Constitutional order of government of the United States, well, that too should be determined, and the attention should then turn to the genuinely criminal parties.

Are any Justice Department personnel investigating the unauthorized disclosure of illegal actions by the President subject to prosecution as accessories after the fact to the President's illegal actions?

No, provide they investigate the potentially illegal disclosures in good faith, nor should they.

Do the Justice Department attorneys have an ethical duty to withdraw from the investigation rather than help cover up illegal activities?

Investigation is the opposite of cover up. If they recieve orders to cover up illegality, particularly if that illegality would be exculpatory to the target of the leak investigation, then they have ethical obligations not to withdraw from the investigation, but to reveal the effort at cover up.

As with Gitmo, Rathergate, Plamegate and the National Guard, the left just can't get any of their "conspiracy" theories to stick though they will attempt again because they are completely void of any real cogent message.

Anyone else notice that this troll omitted the Abramoff sleaziness?

It's not that Bush's political allies can't see the difference (they can and they don't care), it's that they're counting on the fact that the nine-to-five, non-wonkish American voter won't be able to.

i sometimes wonder what he's gonna think of himself and his presidency after he leaves his little bubble in 08.

Why would he leave his bubble? He will claim that either the War Powers provisions in the Constitution or the No Child Left Behind Act gives him the authority to remain in the White House until his mission is accomplished.

...the left's futile attempt to unseat the republicans absence any real coherent plan for the country. ...
Posted by: Jay on December 30, 2005 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Jay: If it doesn't fit on a bumper-sticker, it's not good policy.

But if Bush's political allies can't see the difference between exposing official wrongdoing and exposing a CIA agent to help cover up bogus pre-war claims, there's just no hope for them.

I am in 100% agreement. There is no hope for them.

But I do want the Justice Department to do the "snoopgate" investigation.Posted by: cmdicely on December 30, 2005 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, I want the Justice Department to investigate everybody.

All investigation, all the time.

Careful Edo, the Abramoff debacle will include many Dems. Of course this is strictly a page from Gingrich's 1994 Contract with America coming off of the heels of Democrat Rostenkowski's House Ways and Means corruption scandal, remember that. I am proud of you guys though, you do learn eventually.

Truth be known, the "No Children Left Behind" program is not aimed at school children but designed more for the Democrats. (ok, I don;t care who you are, that's funny).
Proud to be a troll.

I'm not worried about the investigation. We shouldn't just assume without review that any particular case is a whistleblower case. And this leak was illegal. So the Justice Department should investigate, in order to establish means and motive. If the motive turns out to fall under whistleblower conditions, as we all suspect, the investigation will close short of prosecution.

Simple.

If there were no investigation, there would be another can of worms to worry about, in terms of our dedication to upholding the rule of law.

It's not that Bush's political allies can't see the difference (they can and they don't care), it's that they're counting on the fact that the nine-to-five, non-wonkish American voter won't be able to.

More specifically, I think, they are counting on their own ability to produce a smokescreen dense enough to prevent enough American voters from seeing the difference to make a difference.

The constant effort since this administration took office, on a wide range of issues, is to create the impression that policy issues of all stripes are hypercomplex matters where the most fundamental, basic facts are impossible for the average voter to determine, highly controvertted, and that for that reason voters should just trust the authorities, particularly the President, to make decisions for them.

This echoes what the same politico-religious faction is trying to do with science with intelligent design as a wedge -- using asserted complexity as an excuse to get people to throw up their hands and accept explanations on the basis of authority.

It is all part of a widespread, not so much insitutionally coordinated or conspiratorial as simply ideologically unified, assault on the Enlightment, popular sovereignty, and independent thought.

I love the charges they'll be investigating - unlawful disclosure of classified information. Now that we know the Justice Department really does believe this to be wrong, when will the President fire Karl Rove?

Careful Edo, the Abramoff debacle will include many Dems.

So? Those of us who oppose corruption and betrayal, instead of being blindly partisan as you seem to be and to project your opponents as also being, are glad to get rid of corrupt Democrats, where they exist, as well.

Interesting comment above regarding Rathergate: Although Bush has indirectly said he was in the Natioanl Guard the whole time, Rather was discredited by a falsified memo. He was not directly repudiated by the President. In other words, Rather overstepped his bounds by lunging for evidence he thought was correct. It wasn't. nonetheless, the smoke is there, and I assume, somewhere under the smoke, there is a real fire. Kudos to the Republicans for discrediting the messenger without ever, directly, discrediting the information that the messenger was conveying.

Excellent summary of the (obvious) and crucial distinction that separates the two leak cases: one sought to check the abuse of power, while the other enabled it.

Jay sez:"the left just can't get any of their "conspiracy" theories to stick though they will attempt again because they are completely void of any real cogent message.

funny guy.

I'm lovin it baby! The trolls here having to resort to pretending-to-be-moderate or muddying the waters with oblique inanities such as this one.

Simple message: Blowing the whistle on bad guys in the Government is good. Using security clearances to stab your political enemies in the back by naming covert US spies working on loose nukes is baaaad

Cogent message: Bush and the Pubes are verry, verry bad men!. and traitors too.

Careful Edo, the Abramoff debacle will include many Dems.

Fine. I want all bribe taking, quid-pro-quo, congressmen and congresswomen to be penalized. Harshly. Government should not be for the highest bidder. Abramoff and his ilk apparently disagree.

"Kudos to the Republicans for discrediting the messenger..."

do you mean as in "Well, congratulations to Dr. Evil for such a clever and diabolical execution of his fiendish plans!!!"

Right?

cm, any politician caught in the Abramoff scandal should go down, that's what I meant by "eventually learning".
Secondly, I like the analogy of the administration making things "hypercomplex" to the average American, and this coming from the side of the aisle that claims Bush is too stupid to be President (but yet smart enough to fool the Democrats; of course that may not take a lot.) Finally, if you are so concerned about the "coordinated assault on independent thought", why not allow ID to be taught in philosophy at school. After all, omitting any mention of alternative thought on the origin of life is the beginning of fascism, is it not?

Joey G., "covert US spy"? Right. Considering Woodwards recent statements is appears ol Valerie was quite the publicity whore. BTW, loved the front page pictoral and article in Vanity Fair. Or is Vanity Fair that top secret CIA publication we all don't know about.

elfanko:i sometimes wonder what he's gonna think of himself and his presidency after he leaves his little bubble in 08.
exactly what he thinks of it now. that he does everything for the good and just cause, and everyone who is not with him is against him and just doesn't get it, and is therefore not worth listening to.

jimBOB:I agree, exhaustive hearings on the entire Snoopgate business sound fine to me. Obviously we'll need a full understanding of what the NSA was up to in order to punish those who leaked about it.
perzackly. and as others have noted, if it turns out that this was a whistleblowing leak, then the leaker is off the hook. if not, then the more info the better, re poss Pres abuse of powers AND the leaker should be punished for violating NatSec.

Jay:Careful Edo, the Abramoff debacle will include many Dems
so what, any Dems that should get sunk by the Abarmoff scandal, SHOULD be sunk. we'll just elect better dems (by which i mean LESS corruptible, not more sneaky). i'm not willing to throw my Democracy out for the sake of trying to save a few Senators or Congressmen who happen to nominally be of my party. Corruption kills democracy, and should be stopped, period.

In general, I agree that any investigation that uncovers more about the program is a good thing.

What could be chilling, however, is a situation where the guilt/innocence of the leaker is tied directly to whether the NSA activity is proved to be illegal.

I don't know enough about whisteblower laws, but the problem seems similar to the Abu Ghraib soldiers convicted of mistreating prisoner who thought they were obeying legal orders. Seems like a catch-22. How is someone supposed to make that call without a disclosure and ruling of the courts?

Finally, if you are so concerned about the "coordinated assault on independent thought", why not allow ID to be taught in philosophy at school.

The existence, history, and social context of the religious doctrine of intelligent design can already be taught in philosophy in school, just as the same can be taught for any other historical or current philosophy or religious doctrine. No one on the left objects to that. What the left objects to is allowing what is not, in any respect, a scientific concept to interfere with science education.

Why do you ask questions premised on outright lies?

Jay:why not allow ID to be taught in philosophy at school

ID in philosophy class, sure. ID in biology class, no.

cmdicely:Why do you ask questions premised on outright lies?

what's your definition of "troll"?

Finally, if you are so concerned about the "coordinated assault on independent thought", why not allow ID to be taught in philosophy at school.

ID proponents generally do not want their ideas "taught" as philosophy, but as science. Many people who object to ID in the context of a science class do not object to ID or other forms of religion being discussed in some other context, as long as it is not taught as a form of proselytization.

why not allow ID to be taught in philosophy at school.

sure. Although I think folklore and mythology would be a more appropriate course for that subject. While they are adding it, I'd love for the course to also include other world creation myths--Mayan, Hopi, Japanese, Indonesian, Incan, Russian, Ashanti, Mongolian, Zulu, Persian, Australian Aboriginal, Hindu, Cheyenne, etc. The list goes on and on. And the parallels between those creation myths are surprising and intellectually stimulating.

I'd ensure that my children took that comparitive literature/folklore & mythology elective. Would the propoents of ID do the same? I think not.

What could be chilling, however, is a situation where the guilt/innocence of the leaker is tied directly to whether the NSA activity is proved to be illegal.

While, certainly, you wouldn't want the activity to be proven illegal to the criminal standard for leaking it to be excused, but there needs to be some connection. I think that that there are two different cases at issue where different standards should be applicable -- where the classification serves primarily to protect apparent illegality, and where the apparent illegality is incidentally protected by classification of an operation, etc., which is not generally illegal.

A leak in the latter case should, IMO, being held to a higher standard of proof of the illegality of the subject of the leak and proportionality of the harm than where the former can be established by credible evidence.

Jay, the troll with the sense of humor (I don;t care who you are, he's a stich) asked "why not allow ID to be taught in philosophy at school."

Well, Jay, I don't think anyone is objecting to that. They're objecting to teaching it in SCIENCE class.

Another troll with limited understanding. Now THAT'S funny!!

I thought the appropriate presidential response to a leak was to throw up his hands and say "we'll probably never find out who the leaker is".

Careful Edo, the Abramoff debacle will include many Dems.

And here's a fourth person saying, "So?" Good governance is what most folks here want -- and it used to be something that at least some Republicans delivered. Only an idiot regrets the conviction of scoundrels who happen to belong to one's own party. Which explains a helluva lot about loyalists to the odious DeLay.....

Speaking broadly about whisteblower situations, even people in the private sector are restricted by their employment agreement from disclosing 'confidential' information, which basically covers all activity incidentally.

So, using another example, is a whisteblower of a questionable accounting activity at the mercy of whether or not the court decides the company violated accounting rules?

...or is it based on the intent of the whisteblower, ie to reveal fraud.

No hope?!!!!There never was any hope for them. We've failed to accept the fact that this bunch had, and has, a plan to do exactly what they're doing! To expect them to act and think like we do, is akin to expecting to understand a suicide bomber from an alien religeous background. It isn't possible, so work around it!

Speaking broadly about whisteblower situations, even people in the private sector are restricted by their employment agreement from disclosing 'confidential' information, which basically covers all activity incidentally.

Speaking as someone who's dealt with literally hundreds of confidentiality agreements, they cannot be used to bar one's right to report criminal activity and/or fraud or malfeasance. Most such agreements also have a clause providing that the subject of the agreement be allowed to disclose the information when required to do so by law, rule or regulation, etc.

Speaking as someone who's dealt with literally hundreds of confidentiality agreements, they cannot be used to bar one's right to report criminal activity and/or fraud or malfeasance. Most such agreements also have a clause providing that the subject of the agreement be allowed to disclose the information when required to do so by law, rule or regulation, etc.

How that logic applies when it is the head of the executive branch and his subordinates responsible for the enforcement of the laws in question that would be breaking the law if the act were illegal is hard to see. A blanket privilege to publicly reveal anything the leaker subjectively believes to be illegal is a recipe for disaster; OTOH, no privilege in this regard makes the executive potentially largely unaccountable.

Most such agreements also have a clause providing that the subject of the agreement be allowed to disclose the information when required to do so by law, rule or regulation, etc.

Yes, but the concern is in situations where the legality is ambiguous. If the activity is eventually found to be acceptable, or at least it can't be proven to be illegal, is the whisteblower subject to civil litigation for revealing it?

And, of course, for gov't employees, how does this logic extend to 'classified' activities?

I thought the appropriate presidential response to a leak was to throw up his hands and say "we'll probably never find out who the leaker is".

Yes, but that is only when the president already knows who did the leak, who is dear to him, and needs to stonewall. This time, they've obviously asked around and don't seem to believe that anyone in their circles is responsible for the leak, so now they can publicly demand to know who leaked the information.

If the wiretaps are, against everything we know, legal, than it seems that the motive of the whistleblower and the reasonableness of his belief that the wiretaps were illegal should play into whether he's prosecuted.

...or is it based on the intent of the whisteblower, ie to reveal fraud.

There are a few elements here to be fleshed out.

One, the whisteblower protection should hinge on intent, in the sense that the whistleblower had a "reasonable" belief of illegality, wrongdoing, etc., and this was the motive for the leak. It should not rely on the ultimate determination of whether the leaked activity was illegal, since this will never be clear, and even if you consult with an attorney before blowing the whistle the outcome will be uncertain.

Second, there is the issue of who you blow the whistle to. If you blow the whistle to the press, whether or not the actual law is looking for "reasonable intent", you are likely off the hook because the onus to force a journalist to disclose a source will likely not be taken by a judge doing the "balancing act" between determining the source and protecting press confidentiality.

So, if we can assure the law operates along the first point, then the second point is just gravy, but even if the first point is not de jure operative, the de facto reality of the 2nd point probably gives you a security policy if you leak with good intent, since to date judges are reluctant to call reporters to give up their sources.

If you start blabbing your national security clearance or confidentiality agreement while drinking with randoms at the local bar, even if it's related to exposing wrongdoing, and the law is not clear on your whistleblower protection in this instance, then you will likely be in trouble, since all the guys in the bar you blabbed to can and probably will be hauled before the judge and ordered to testify.

Any potential Shield Law protections should be a natural extension from whatever whisteblower test is established.

I also think there should be some good faith attempt by the whisteblower to go to some other authority, if possible, before approaching the press. And certainly, sharing the information with competitors or bar-mates should not be covered at all.

How that logic applies when it is the head of the executive branch and his subordinates responsible for the enforcement of the laws in question that would be breaking the law if the act were illegal is hard to see. A blanket privilege to publicly reveal anything the leaker subjectively believes to be illegal is a recipe for disaster; OTOH, no privilege in this regard makes the executive potentially largely unaccountable.

I didn't say it did apply; I was answering the earlier specific statement about private sector employment agreeements.

Christian Charlie's Ghost on December 30, 2005 at 11:57 AM:

Anybody know where you go these days to buy war bonds?

I dunno, but I imagine the Chinese government could help you to find ways to loan money to the US government...

All kidding aside, I see the larger point in asking whether or not the US is participating in a 'Total War' and what are the limits in a 'limited war' to Executive power in order to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States' as per the President's Oath of Office.

Does an authorization to use force allow Dubya, with the supposedly implied and broad powers of the Commander in Chief, to admittedly ignore the Fourth Amendment, which he swore to uphold?

Whoever leaked the story of the warrantless wiretapping obviously thought that Dubya had pushed things a bit too far, and blew the whistle. But was Dubya's pushing of the envelope actually illegal? Because of that question, I can see the why the argument is being made that the NSA leak was improper due to the opinion that Dubya was exercising his implied powers as President under the Constitution.

I don't agree with that argument, though...I'm having a hard time reconciling implied authority against the expressly-written intent stated in the Fourth Amendment.

I didn't say it did apply; I was answering the earlier specific statement about private sector employment agreeements.

I wasn't trying to debate you, I was trying to move forward from what you said to discuss the issues in applying the logic from that area to the issue which spurred the question and which is the primary subject of the thread.

Whoever leaked the story of the warrantless wiretapping obviously thought that Dubya had pushed things a bit too far, and blew the whistle. But was Dubya's pushing of the envelope actually illegal? Because of that question, I can see the why the argument is being made that the NSA leak was improper due to the opinion that Dubya was exercising his implied powers as President under the Constitution.

There is great question about this legality right now, and many doubts, so I think the leaker is on good territory, especially when factoring in the president's diametrically opposite public statements about how all searches were "warranted".

There is potentially no greater leak, no greater blowing of the whistle, then to call our attention to encroachment upon our constitutional rights. Much more important than the blowing of the schnizzle in the Oval Office.

good debate here:

http://volokh.com/posts/1135893533.shtml

Assuming that the justice department indicts the person who leaked, I doubt that a jury will convict. For the same reason that the Congress will not impeach Bush: it is not perfectly clear what the exact boundary of the law is in this case.

Note to Democrats: you can not capitalize on this issue without acknowledging the substantial interest that the US has in such cases;

Note to Republicans: you can not capitalize on this issue without acknowledging the potential for the unnecessary expansion of executive power.

I wasn't trying to debate you, I was trying to move forward from what you said to discuss the issues in applying the logic from that area to the issue which spurred the question and which is the primary subject of the thread.

Gotcha, my mistake.

Does an authorization to use force allow Dubya, with the supposedly implied and broad powers of the Commander in Chief, to admittedly ignore the Fourth Amendment, which he swore to uphold?

Simple answer? No.

Note to Republicans: if you make a big stink about "unauthorized disclosures of classified information", careful what you wish for, since both Libby and Rove knew her status was classified, whether they want to admit it or not. Why else would Libby be asking to be identified as whatever silly designation he asked Judy Miller to use for him?

Contentious: Good points.

I'd like to see both a judicial investigation of the NSA issue, and a legal investigation of the leakers.

I suspect that once the "former and current intelligence officials" we keep hearing about have actual names attached to them, we'll find out two things:

First, much of these leaks are coming from the same small group of individuals.

Second, that their motivation may be more about raw politics than an abstract concern about rights of privacy. The timing alone stinks.

Note to Democrats: welcome an investigation, since there should be one, if at least to determine it was a whistleblowing action. Unauthorized disclosures of classified information, whether to journalists or anyone else, when not meant to expose wrongdoing, is clearly illegal and not to be encouraged. If worried about the trends towards classifying more information, deal with that head on, with emphasis on the freedom of information, but don't excuse illegal acts just because journalists seem to think they've earned the right to gossip about national secrets and report them to the public. I've never understood that notion, except for journalists arguing in their self-interest to be able to sell more product.

Jimm on December 30, 2005 at 3:36 PM:

I think the leaker is on good territory, especially when factoring in the president's diametrically opposite public statements about how all searches were "warranted".

Heh. Here's an interesting section from a 2004 speech by Dubya:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

Funny how things change in a year.

Simple answer? No.

Posted by: Stefan

Simple answer is you don't know what you are talking about!

The courts have decided in the administrations favor on two seperate occasions that the president has the authority to perform this type of survielence. So bush has precedent and the constitution in his favor.

As far as leakers go. They have definately broken the law and should be prosecuted.

You have to love the NYT because they will print anything without any vetting or thought of the implications. It is also interesting that the story came out when the reporters book was due to hit the streets. Not when the Times was made aware of it about a year ago. Kind of tells you the importance and urgency attached to it by the Times. I love it!

Where did Jay go?

Second, that their motivation may be more about raw politics than an abstract concern about rights of privacy.

Most whistleblowers tend to have a parallel personal agenda. Sometimes sour grapes over losing a job, or to keep themselves out of prison, or even a profit motive in situations where the whistleblower is entitled to an award.

But it is irrelevant to the underlying issue, no? And part of the standard GOP playbook to distract by attacking the messenger.

Why does the timing stink, tbrosz?

tbrosz on December 30, 2005 at 4:08 PM:

First, much of these leaks are coming from the same small group of individuals. Second, that their motivation may be more about raw politics than an abstract concern about rights of privacy.

And your sources of information that validate your two points are...?

tbrosz, I luv ya like my annoying alcoholic uncle, but please get your head outta your ass.

I say, great! Let's have us a big-assed investigation. Of course, it was the Justice Dept. itself which opined that there was no limitation on Presidential power. If someone is ever charged with the leak, a lot more information about the President's abuse of power will come out. Remember, just when you can't imagine the White House doing anything worse, they do. I am certain that there are alot more secrets to uncover and there's nothing like an investigation and a trial to uncover them. Plus, there's the added bonus of keeping this in the news cycle for months or even years. You know the leaker or leakers know a hell of a lot more than what they told the NY Times a year ago.

The courts have decided in the administrations favor on two seperate occasions that the president has the authority to perform this type of survielence.

Really, name one case in which the courts decided (not issued dicta indicating, but ruled on a question before the Court) that the President had the authority to perform warrantless electronic surveillance without adhering to regulations Congress had issued expressly governing that, and in violation of a Congressional statute purporting to criminalize such behavior.

In particular, note that decisions ruling that, where Congress has not acted to regulate them, while they are perhaps interesting and of some relevance, do not speak directly to the issue at hand.

First, much of these leaks are coming from the same small group of individuals.

So? What bearing does that have on the factual, legal, or moral issues raised by the information itself?

Second, that their motivation may be more about raw politics than an abstract concern about rights of privacy.

So? What bearing does that have on the factual, legal, or moral issues raised by the information itself?

I guess I'm in the very small minority that wants the leaks investigated/prosecuted and the President's secret surveillance also investigated/prosecuted. National Security leaks have to be prosecuted, even if the leakers are exonerated by a whistleblower exception. By the same token, a President ordering surveillance on shaky legal precedent also needs to be definitively determined to either be legal or illegal by the courts.

Just as I don't think the right-wing can pre-emptively declare the President has done no wrong, I don't think that the people who believe that the leaking was proper can declare those who did the leaking to be free of blame without an investigation.

Yo Joe,

I guess I'm in the very small minority that wants the leaks investigated/prosecuted and the President's secret surveillance also investigated/prosecuted.

try actually reading the whole thread before you make comments like this. It would appear that most of the people commenting here support investigations into both.

Fat White Grub on December 30, 2005 at 4:23 PM:

Simple answer is you don't know what you are talking about!

If that statement isn't an example of Fat White Projection...

The courts have decided in the administrations favor on two seperate occasions that the president has the authority to perform this type of survielence.

I think that needs a Fat White Citation of those court cases!

So bush has precedent and the constitution in his favor.

Does he now? That's a Fat White Good Question!

As far as leakers go. They have definately broken the law and should be prosecuted.

Does that Fat White Apply to Scooter Libby, as well?

You have to love the NYT because they will print anything without any vetting or thought of the implications.

Yeah, shelving the story for a year just wasn't enough Fat White Time.

It is also interesting that the story came out when the reporters book was due to hit the streets.

It's also Fat White Interesting that the Bush administration asked the NYT to sit on the story in the Fat White First Place.

I love it!

Too bad your Fat White Inflatable Sex Doll will never Fat White Say that back to you...

Well said, Joe Yangtree.

Steve Benen wrote: But if Bush's political allies can't see the difference between exposing official wrongdoing and exposing a CIA agent to help cover up bogus pre-war claims, there's just no hope for them.

Like Kevin Drum, Steve Benen offers the cute but fatuous conceit that Cheney's and Bush's political allies might care about right and wrong but somehow "can't see the difference". Hopefully, he really does know better, and this is just his idea of rhetorical cleverness.

Cheney's and Bush's political allies don't care about the difference between exposing official wrongdoing and exposing a CIA agent to help cover up bogus pre-war claims.

All th Cheney's and Bush's political allies care about is satiating their own insatiable greed for wealth and power, and therefore about establishing absolute rule by a bought-and-paid for authoritarian executive who will run the country on their behalf so as to increase their wealth and power, with callous disregard for the law, or for the well-being of Americans and of America as a country.

So, from their point of view a leak by one or more courageous whistleblowers about Cheney and Bush, which exposes their wrongdoing and undermines their political power -- and indeed, could lead to their impeachment and prosecution -- must be prosecuted and punished; a leak by Cheney and Bush to punish and intimidate whistleblowers who expose their wrongdoing must be covered up.

Thus, to the dumbass, scripted, programmed, neo-brownshirt Bush bootlicking mental slaves whose comments on these threads robotically regurgitate the propaganda talking points that their corporate masters spoonfeed them, Joseph Wilson is an enemy; Scooter Libby is a hero; Patrick Fitzgerald is an enemy; whatever whistleblower(s) revealed Bush's criminal abuse of power in authorizing the illegal NSA wiretaps is an enemy; and whoever leads the effort to find and punish the whistleblower(s) will be a hero.

grape_crush,

That was Fat White Hysterical. Thank you. While I'm at it, thanks to contentious for the link to the volkh thread.

"Second, that their motivation may be more about raw politics than an abstract concern about rights of privacy."

cmdicely:

So? What bearing does that have on the factual, legal, or moral issues raised by the information itself?

Since a number of people here seem to consider motivation behind leaks much more important than the legal issues, ask them.

Why should those who leaked Plame's name be hung from any higher yardarm than those who have been leaking CIA and NSA operations all over the map, unless you think that motivation trumps the legal issues?

Still waiting for the first indictment on that specific "crime," BTW.

The fact of the matter is that there is a political war going on in both the CIA and the State Department, with a lot of toes being stepped on as their leadership changes and "inside" guys are becoming "outside" guys. Much of what we are seeing now in terms of "leaks" is a result of that warfare. When names are attached to these leaks, we'll know a hell of a lot more about this than we do now.

When names are attached to these leaks, we'll know a hell of a lot more about this than we do now.

Sad to say, I don't think you will ever know more than you do right now.

someone:
"But I do want the Justice Department to do the "snoopgate" investigation."

Edo wrote:
"presumably to investigate whether the administration broke the law, not to uncover the identity of those who leaked the story, no?"

Posted by: Edo on December 30, 2005 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

It's entirely obvious to me that it was the administration who leaked this story. when someone argues against investigating it they can turn it around and say that's why they can't or shouldn't investigate the Plame leak or the NSA spying leak or any leak. It's obviously a Karl-ism tactic.

That it will always come full circle and show the administration to be full of cronies, criminals and crudballs is the funny part.

If I drive a car into a person, motivation matters. If I did it because they leaped out in front of my car in an attempted suicide, I'm guilty of nothing. If I did it because I was changing the radio and not paying attention, I am guilty of manslaughter. If I did it because I just saw my lover kissing someone else and ran one or both of them down, I am guilty of murder. If I did it because I hate my boss, I'm guilty of premeditated murder. If I did it because I was paid to, I'm guilty of the more serious murder for hire. Five different crimes for the same fundamental act.

Why remind everyone of the obvious? Because we are infested with morons like tbrosz who thinks that motivation does not trump legal issues. If you can't tell the difference, you are too stupid to vote.

If I drive a car into a person, motivation matters.

Maybe so, but you still probably have to go to court to show that motivation. With the leaks, we have the situation where there's a guy on the road with tire tracks on him, and nobody willing to say they were driving the car.

In other words, to continue your analogy, the intelligence leakers are currently in the status of hit-and-run.

Tbrosz: The timing alone stinks.

And when exactly did the leak occur tbrosz? Do you know something we don't?

This is from an earlier thread, but it's a dustup of r-ather d-ense w-ingnut and the subject's tangential to this one one, so I'm lettin' it fly.

I also give my opinions of all the NYT columnists who've been Times Select-ed out of the discourse. Enjoy ...

rdw:

> You've trashed the Times amlost

"amlost." I like that. Freudian typo? :)

> as well as I have.

I don't "trash" the NYT. Like most sensible news junkies I have sharp
criticisms of them, but I'm not out to delegitimate them whole cloth
the way you are and the way some of my leftier friends seem to be.

> Pinch is a disaster.

He certainly seems to be. I think his relationship with Judy Miller
was inappropriate (not implying anything sexual) and blinded him to
the contradiction between calling for an investigation of the Plame
affair and not allowing reporters to be be the major witnesses.

To me, that issue is cut and dried. When anonymous sources use
reporters to mislead the public, they don't deserve protection.
Whistleblowers deserve protection. Deep Throat was never
about preserving the perogatives of stenography to power.

I like Kat Kinsman's anonymous source
nickname for Karl Rove: ReachAround :)

> Daddy even had to come back and fire Raines. This
> is far more than a bad year. This has been a rotten
> century and it's not going to be better anytime soon.

Well once again, Wooten, you are indulging in the very sin you love
to bash lefties for -- taking a bad situation and squeezing it for
every last drop of partisan/ideological advantage, and in the process
discrediting your view in the eyes of less ideological observers.

The NYT has won more Pulitzers than any other newspaper. Howell
Raines may have made an unforgivable mistake with Jayson Blair,
but his tenure also produced the 9/11 coverage, which was a triumph.

> I can't imagine who you deem influencial among their columnists.

Well of course not, Wooten. You're an ideologue. You hang out on
PowerLine and InstaBloviator. It doesn't matter whether or not you
agree with a columnist to call them influential. The point is, prior
to TimesDefect, the entire blogosphere buzzed with those columnists.

> Thomas L. Freidman would qualify as a 1st tier
> columnist but he's hardly influential anymore.

Because of TimesSelect.

> He also is as furious with the Dean/kerry/Murtha wing of your
> party as he is of Bush. Thomas may have influenced Clinton a
> great deal but the last camp david talks were a disaster that
> blew up in both their faces. Tom and Bill got it exactly wrong

You can't blame the guys for trying.

> The only person Thomas had any cred with in this
> administration was Colin Powell and I'd argue Colin
> used he more effectively than Freidman used Powell.

You know, Wooten, one of the most objectionable things about
you to people here is your constant evaluation of everything
in terms of who "used" whom. As if using people somehow wasn't
highly morally objectionable. It makes you come across as a
cold and unsympathetic person. The sort of guy who'd kick a dog.

Neither Powell nor Friedman "used" each other. Powell's Pottery
Barn Rule was probably the key argument that kept lefties aboard
for the occupation no matter how much they opposed the war, and
Friedman was a strong advocate for it. Problem is, that view is
beginning to fray coming into the fourth year of the occupation.

> One other thing about Thomas. He took time off to do a
> series on Globalism and espeically as regards India and
> Asia. He is in fact supportive of the tremendous progress
> GWB has been making in the region and with India specifically.

Friedman also realizes, in a way that you never do,
that globalization is supranational. Oddly enough, the
more globalization encroaches, the less relevant will
be national borders and huge chunks of foreign policy.

> The NYT's wants to make outsourcing a national scandal.

Once again, it's Wooten the Dog-Kicker. Let's say a red-state
guy (and some of those Family Values Republican Congresscritters
have a fierce protectionist streak; witness their resistance
to CAFTA) with a 10th-grade education works in a textile mill
all his life and gets cashiered at 52 with no pension, cuz his
plant moves to fill-in-the-blank. Oh, it's the global economy.

Well, okay. But there's a human story there, Wooten. A tragedy.
It might well break your heart, Wooten, if you had one to break.
And it's the business of the press to tell these human stories.

I'm not a big fan of Friedboy, btw. I think he's glib, annoyingly
rhetorical and very much in love with his own access to power, which
often causes him to completely misread the so-called "Arab street."
He's a "big picture thinker" who squeezes all his data into whatever
paradigm du jour that he's cooked up a would-be buzzword for. He's
incredibly naive about soft power and the inevitability of "progress,"
and stone-clueless about the reasons that free market capitalism is
so destructive to traditional societies. Iraq develops a version
of American Gladiator on TV, and to him that's a wonderful sign.

Because he's so fixated on soft power, he takes his eye off hard
power altogether. This opens him up to charges of grotesque
hypocrisy, of conscience-salving apologism for precisely the sorts
of authoritarianism that he's supposed to boost soft power to oppose.

> Freidman is on the exact opposite side.

No, he's not, Wooten. Give the devil his due; Tom Friedman has
never advocated a Social Darwinist approach to the human costs
of globalization. At the end of the day, he's a liberal.

> When Reagan was President he felt it was important to meet
> with the editorial board and publisher of the Times fairly
> regularly. He wanted to suck-up. He thought they mattered.
> In 1981 he was correct. This ain't 1981. This ain't even 2001
> and in 2001 Bush gave then NOTHING! NADA! Cheney made it a point
> of kicking them off his plane 1st when he went to smaller planes.

Then don't be surprised when Bill Keller ok's running a story over
the fierce private objections of the Bush war cabinet in a hastily
called White House meeting. I wonder if they served them coffee.

> There are no other columnists at the Times with much of a
> National reputation save for David Brooks and he's fairly new.

The UberPutz David Brooks is my least favorite columnist of all time.
Mr. Sociology. He's trying *so hard* to do the Tom Friedman thing
and find some new trend among the upper middle class that he can give
a catchy name and write a book around. It didn't work with BoBo.
Everybody in his exurban target audience thinks that's just who they
invite to their child's sixth birthday party along with the magician.

He's like "Damn! Why couldn't *I* be the guy who named yuppies."

> Dowd and Grubman are embarrasments.

Paul Krugman is a Princeton professor who knows more about economics
than you have a prayer of being able to coherently synopsize. And
he has a critique of free market fundamentalism. Since you're a
free market fundie (who are as loathesome as any other flavor of
fundamentalist), this offends you. But you can't cogently rebut
him, so you call him names and try to character assassinate.

Dowd is a mixed bag; definitely an acquired taste. I find myself
engaged by her wit literary allusions about two thirds of the time
(which is a fairly decent batting average, considering). The rest
she annoys me with her whiny self-absorbtion and refusal to recognize
how very rarefied is her position as femme fatale on Murderer's Row.

> Herbert and Rich went off the deep end a long time ago

What you guys consider "extreme" is pretty laughable. Bob Herbert
is an old-school civil-rightser who has no trouble taking his own
people to task on cultural issues where appropriate. Frank Rich
is an outrage groupie to be sure, but he's also a personal favorite
because he's so good at tying politics together with culture. Since
he's often a mouthpiece for gays (being a longtime NY theater critic
will do that to one), I'm sure this makes you highly uncomfortable.

> and are more valuable to the right because they are so extreme.

"Valuable," of course, the way we find HeadRush, O'Loofah and
InSannity valuable. And since their market penetration is so
much deeper, we're laughing at them along with vast segments of
the entire American public, not just right-wing blogophiles :)

> The NYTs is not done downsizing.

You have some insider information you'd like to share?

> Going to Times select was a business decision made from a
> position of weakness. It will dramatically reduce their exposure.

Sadly, Wooten, I have to agree with this. I think the WSJ got
it right: charge for their news coverage; leave their opinions
in the public domain. This is a war over the country's direction.

> The big problem is they still have serious echo
> chamber issues that come from living in a bubble.

Spoken like an ideological prisoner of the right-wing blogosphere :)

> Pinch poses a unique problem. He is a
> disaster. how do you fire the owner?

Negotiate a prisoner exchange for Rupert Murdoch :)

Bob

Sorry tbosz that wasn't an analogy. It was an example to demonstrate out that the law makes distinctions between crimes based on motive. There is no "hit and run" component here. What we have is an administration that has fairly clearly broken the law and someone who called them on it. This is clearly different from exposing a CIA agent for partisan political purposes. Your previous comment wondered why this should be since (as you implied) the underlying act was the same. To any sane person those exposing official corruption are objectively good and those committing official corruption are bad. Your personal views apparently differ.

bob,

why didn't you just go into the archives and continue with the original thread? I've responded there.

Hey,

Speaking of archives, did you accept my $10,000.00 wager, rdw?

obscure,

I didn't see it.

Paul Krugman is a Princeton professor who knows more about economics than you have a prayer of being able to coherently synopsize.

But you can't cogently rebut him, so you call him names and try to character assassinate.

Paul forget more economics than I ever knew but Paul left the planet some time ago. He is consumed by Bush hatred and as a political pundit is awful. He's frequently selects inacurrate data and goes to bizarre lengths to demonize what is a terrific economy. My own suspicion is that Paul is bitter at having been passed over by Clinton for a top economics post and distraught at seeing the WH in GOP hands. Today he could never pass Senate scrutiny. Any ambitions for a top economics post are history.

When the Times 1st ombudsman, Daniel Okrent 'retired' he blistered Paul for sloppy work and a refusal to acknowledge obvious errors.

I never try to rebut Krugman. But the WSJ does every day. Paul is going to have an especially hard 2006. His paper isn't doing very well but GWBs economy is. Look for even stronger jobadds heading into the election.

Who gets to decide which leaks are good and which leaks are bad.

Seems to me you have to throw them all in jail.

Freidman is on the exact opposite side.

never advocated a Social Darwinist approach to the human costs of globalization. At the end of the day, he's a liberal.

I meant to limit Toms opposition with his newspaper to the need to act in Iraq. Tom is deeply frustration the democrats have no counter-proposal for dealing with terrorism. He agrees with conservatives that this is NOT a police issue.

Tom is unabashedly liberal. I know he's a smart man but about two years ago I saw him do a series of tirades on TV in different interview because GWB after 9/11 didn't raise income taxes and gasoline taxes and start a massive energy independence program. Tom was at one point almost screaming at Tim Russert.

Did Tom really think GWB was going to use 9/11 as an opportunity to implement the liberal agenda? That's just stupid. If GWB believed any of that crap he'd be a Democrat.

I think Joe Yangtree has it almost exactly right. I would add that there are many "chutes" in the criminal justice system where a morally correct, yet criminal, action