Not all leaks are created equal

January 4, 2006

Late last week, the Justice Department announced that it was launching a criminal investigation, not into Bush’s warrantless-search program, but into the leak that exposed the program. The president’s allies raised a predictable refrain: Dems wanted a leak investigation when it came to Valerie Plame, so what’s wrong with a leak investigation now?

I wrote a bit about this last week, but the New York Times did a nice job in an editorial today highlighting the qualitative differences, in case Bush supporters had missed them.

There is a world of difference between that case and a current one in which the administration is trying to find the sources of a New York Times report that President Bush secretly authorized spying on American citizens without warrants. The spying report was a classic attempt to give the public information it deserves to have. The Valerie Wilson case began with a cynical effort by the administration to deflect public attention from hyped prewar intelligence on Iraq. […]

Leak investigations are often designed to distract the public from the real issues by blaming the messenger. Take the third leak inquiry, into a Washington Post report on secret overseas C.I.A. camps where prisoners are tortured or shipped to other countries for torture. The administration said the reporting had damaged America’s image. Actually, the secret detentions and torture did that.

Illegal spying and torture need to be investigated, not whistle-blowers and newspapers.

I don’t expect conservatives to drop the hypocrisy charge from their talking points — it is, after all, easier than trying to defend the president’s program — but it’s worth remembering why the argument is baseless.

The silliest part of this is that the admin was aware of the Times story for nearly a year. If they truly believe this leak damaged our national security, why did they wait so long to investigate it? The truth is this revelation (further) damages the credibility of King George.

For wingnuts, pointing out the flaws of King George is a treasonous assault on our security. It would be laughable, if not for the size and ferocity of the right wing noise machine.

  • Informing the public that the government is secretly doing something blatantly illegal and something that goes against everything America stands for and what Americans think it stands for, that is what we have freedom of the press for. Torture, secret detentions, and spying on its citizens are some of the most draconian abuses of power that America and its constitution were supposed to oppose and I can’t think of any better reason to have a First Amendment protection for the press to report on government abuses.

    It wasn’t right that journalists had to be jailed to get to the bottom of who leaked the name of an undercover operative and jeopordized not just some vague sense of national security but the lives of people working in service of our country as well. And it isn’t right to persecute journalists now.

    What’s more is, to say, “”Dems wanted a leak investigation when it came to Valerie Plame, so what’s wrong with a leak investigation now?” is shameless. It’s an attempt to turn the investigation of a serious national security matter into politics and to justify gotcha politics. “You lefties got us, but we’ll use it against you!” Forget about the truth. Forget about principles. Forget about national security or peoples’ lives. What’s most important here is scoring some political points against the “other side”. That’s what’s so disgusting about this justification.

  • Joe, I’d like to know why the Times sat on it too, but I suspect it has something to do with Dan Rather. He got forced out in a big shitstorm when it turned out they didn’t have all their facts straight for an election-year story that damaged Bush. The Times were probably very cognizant of this. But what the Times spent that year doing while sitting on the story, I’d like to know. Though I also wouldn’t be suprised if that sound bite factoid was more than a little right-wing spin.

  • As long as the vast majority of the American public believes that the torture, secret detentions and spying were being made against foreign nationals and not U.S. citizens (and I believe that most of them believe this) then Bush will not suffer any ramifications.

    Now, if Congress investigates this properly, it may come out that perhaps the eavesdropping or data-mining may have included some (non-Arabic) U.S. citizens….then the tide will start to turn.

  • It cannot be said enough, the President of the United States broke the law when he circumvented the FISA court and order domestic wiretaps without a warrant. The disingenuous outrage being spewed by the Bush administration toward the whistle-blower of this secret NSA program, and toward the NYT for reporting it, is laughable. Libby is a leaker, Rove is a leaker, most likely Cheney is a leaker. The brave person who went to the NYT with this story is a whistle-blower, a proud supporter of our democracy, and deserves protection under the law, not to be investigated by it.

  • Well, since you’ve all made up your minds, let’s skip the trial and go right for the execution.

    The NSA wiretapping was illegal? Then by all means impeach Bush – I’ll sign the petition. But seeing as he cleared it with the Attorney General, Dept. of Defense lawyers, and members with Congress on a monthly basis, that charge doesn’t hold much water. Even today, Nancy Pelosi released a memo saying it was a swell program but that she wanted to be sure it had Presidential approval.

    On the “shameless” comparison with Valerie Plame: if that was such a blow to national security, why didn’t Patrick Fitzgerald indict Libby (or Rove) for the charge? Because there’s no there, there. But if you think PlameGate rises to the same level of outrage as the New York Times revealing a surveillance plan to weed out terrorists, then go right ahead.

    Soothe yourself in your daily tantrum over Chimpy McBushilter, but remember that while you’re entitled to your own opinions, you’re not entitled to your own facts.

  • if that was such a blow to national security, why didn’t Patrick Fitzgerald indict Libby (or Rove) for the charge?

    Indeed. If enough proof couldn’t be found for THE crime, why charge him with “obstruction of justice,” “perjury,” and “making false statements”? He got away with it fair and square. Lying is part of the game, right? If it can’t be proved that I ripped off people through illegal accounting practices because I shredded the documents, how can I be charged for obstruction of justice relating to a crime when it can’t be proved I committed the original crime?

  • Geez Eric, try to keep up, OK? This is hardly breaking news. The New York Times reported this on 1/1/06.

    WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 – A top Justice Department official objected in 2004 to aspects of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program and refused to sign on to its continued use amid concerns about its legality and oversight, according to officials with knowledge of the tense internal debate. The concerns appear to have played a part in the temporary suspension of the secret program.

    …….

    Accounts differed as to exactly what was said at the hospital meeting between Mr. Ashcroft and the White House advisers. But some officials said that Mr. Ashcroft, like his deputy, appeared reluctant to give Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales his authorization to continue with aspects of the program in light of concerns among some senior government officials about whether the proper oversight was in place at the security agency and whether the president had the legal and constitutional authority to conduct such an operation.

    Sounds to me like another case of Bush only hearing what he wants to hear. Then there’s this, from former majority leader Daschle addressing Bush’s claim that Congress’ use of force resolution included warrantless wiretaps. Via The Washington Post.

    Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words “in the United States and” after “appropriate force” in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas — where we all understood he wanted authority to act — but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.
    ….

    The Bush administration now argues those powers were inherently contained in the resolution adopted by Congress — but at the time, the administration clearly felt they weren’t or it wouldn’t have tried to insert the additional language.

    This is another case of Bush just making up convient ‘facts.’

    If Bush’s spying on American citizens is even 1/2 as limited as he claims, there is one, and only one, reason to avoid getting a warrant – No court would issue one.

    Before you lecture us about facts, you may want to check to be sure that yours are up to date.

    • Comments are closed.