On January 24, a federal grand jury in Alexandria issued a subpoena to James Risen of the New York Times, seeking information about who in the U.S. government provided him with classified information that he published in his book, State of War. That book appeared in January 2006, more than two years ago. The CIA may have a hard time keeping secrets, but the Justice Department, we are learning now that this long-running leak inquest has come to light, seems to be very good at it.
There are at least two possibilities why Risen was issued a subpoena. One is that his book badly embarrassed the CIA by exposing incompetence well beyond its familiar inability to keep secrets. In referring the breach to the Justice Department for investigation, the CIA is paying him back. The subpoena, in other words, is part and parcel of a cover-up of agency bungling.
Another explanation is that, thanks to Risen’s book, valuable intelligence sources and methods were compromised, damage was done to national security, and the Justice Department has been tasked with tracking down the malefactors in the intelligence community who broke their oaths of secrecy, violated the law, and dropped classified information of value to American adversaries into the public domain. Because Risen is the only one who knows their identity, he is being hauled before a grand jury.
Which explanation is more plausible? I offer some answers in the latest edition of the Weekly Standard.
Once again, the neocon Commentary misrepresents the issue. The objections to Bush’s surveillance are to their use of legitimate power to intercept foreign communications to also intercept purely domestic trafiic. That’s what your lying president did, and you continue to lie about it.
Delicious revisionism. The court ruling pertains to the Constitutionality of recent Congress-passed wiretapping laws and not the original secret Bush programs. Obviously, if Bush’s original programs were legally defensible, he would not have caved like a cheap tent on his original assertions that the program need not be overseen by the FISA court. Remember, these are the programs that his Attnys. Genl. Ashcroft and Comey deemed illegal.
The article says as much. “The opinion did not directly rule on the legality of the once-secret operation authorized by President Bush between October 2001 and early 2007, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on the international communications of Americans suspected of ties to terrorists.”
But then, reading comprehension isn’t your bag, is it? Didn’t you also claim, based on an AP story that said no such thing, that Biden was in Iraq saying Obama would follow the Bush status of forces agreement for the next three years?
Not according to the New York Times (or anyone else):
“Military Planners, in Nod to Obama, Are Preparing for a Faster Iraq Withdrawal”
WASHINGTON — Military commanders are drawing up plans for a faster withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in anticipation that President-elect Barack Obama will reject current proposals as too slow, Pentagon and military officials said Wednesday.
Blinded by ideology, mabye? Only read what you want to?
Jason:
From the AP:
WASHINGTON (AP) – A special appeals court has upheld a Bush administration program of warrantless surveillance.
In a ruling released Thursday, the court embraced the Protect America Act of 2007, which required telecommunication providers to assist the government in intercepting international phone calls and e-mails overseas for national security purposes.
The decision was made last August but just released in an edited form Thursday to omit classified information. An unidentified telecommunications company had challenged the law.
The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review said that requiring a court warrant would hinder the government’s ability to collect time-sensitive information.
Mr. Greenwald: There is really no need to bother with idiots who insist on being deaf and blind merely on the basis of being dumb.
Jason, you fool, that is a display of disingenuity on the part of the Times, and no doubt, yourself. The fact that the Intelligence Court ruled that the program is legal is all that is needed. Whether it goes back and “grandfathers” in Bush’s years is irrelevant: the question that now remains is, “Why is the program legal now if it wasn’t legal under Bush’s tenure”? What now makes the program legal? The Times is attempting to still cast doubt on Bush’s entire program, but is setting Obama up with full legality because Obama is obviously going to engage in the same behavior. I am willing to bet that the “civil libertarians” and idiot Lefties aren’t going to be crying about the illegality of warrantless wiretapping now that their Favored Son is about to do it.
I only wish that I posted mine before Abe Greenwald came in with the smackdown on the two idiot Lefties.
Civil libertarians like Anthony Lewis complained about Clinton’s policies and I see no reason why they will not criticize Obama’s policies too if they oppose them.
Washington Post:
“Although the specific case involves a law that has since been amended, the ruling essentially supports the Bush administration’s long-standing claim that foreign intelligence information can be collected inside the United States without court orders. The opinion focused specifically on provisions of the “stopgap” Protect America Act passed by Congress in 2007 that authorized the government to conduct warrantless surveillance in national security matters on people, including U.S. citizens, “reasonably believed” to be outside the United States.”
what could be more conservative than expanding the size and scope of the federal government?
seriously, I don’t support our policy of hegemony in the middle east and i’m not going to put up with fascist tactics just so it can be carried out.
get out of middle eastern countries and you won’t have to wire tap anyone. sorry, you bump up against he constitution you made a wrong turn.
no wire tapping for bush obama or anyone. those who sacrafise liberty for security deserve niether
“no wire tapping for bush obama or anyone. those who sacrafise liberty for security deserve niether”
#9, you need to understand what you are saying before you say it.
“get out of middle eastern countries and you won’t have to wire tap anyone. sorry, you bump up against he constitution you made a wrong turn.”
Putting your head in the sand won’t make your enemies go away. Everything has costs and risks associated with it.
10- exactly there are risks that go along with having liberty, but we believe in it so we practice it .
John Hartland is back and Jason posts again. It is so interesting to see the disconnect with reality in their posts. Thank you to Abe Greenwald for posting the reality check. Its a clear example of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but it makes my blood run cold to think of Obama’s political associates being unsupervised in their use of this power.
I have never advocated unsupervised, unaccountable wiretapping of Americans. No administration can be trusted with that. The real issue all along has been the standards of probable cause in the obtaining of warrants — a procedural issue, and not the generic question of whether the executive should be able to wiretap Americans without being accountable to someone, at some point.
A warrant obtained on probable cause is not the only conceivable way to hold the executive accountable. But we have been proceeding, including in our public dialogue, as if it is. This intelligence court ruling ought to concern us all. If Obama’s administration doesn’t have to account for its actions to some other entity, when it monitors your phone calls with the cousins in Brazil or China, what will stop it from abusing that power?
Surely no one can look at the history of executive abuse of wiretapping, which goes back to Woodrow Wilson and includes FDR, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, and Clinton, and blithely assume that it can’t happen now. I suppose those suffering from BDS can contort their minds at will — but a sober assessment of Obama’s associates and cabinet choices, from Rahm Emmanuel to Rod Blagojevich, Eric Holder to Hillary Clinton, must give a sane person pause.
if they didn’t pursue such stupid polcies they wouldn’thave any reason to wire tap anyone. our foreign policy is the reason peole want to kil us. I don’t approve of the foreign policy so no, you can’t wiretap people to make it easier for you to invade more countries and spend more tax dollars on it.
no wars no wiretaps
#11, practicing liberty and being able to live to practice liberty are two separate things. And our foreign policy isn’t why they want to kill us, lester. Maybe, just maybe, our enemies want to kill us because they literally HATE us. As I mentioned before, all decisions in life have costs and risks associated with them.
J.E. Dyer, terrorists depend upon people such as yourself to constantly worry that the government is out to get you. You have to have faith in the people you elect to protect you, otherwise, this entire thing we call “democracy” will fail.
bolt- I’m a conservative. I don’t trust the government. I never will. I’d rather die than give away my right to privacy
Bush’s original program, which we forget the Congressional leadership was well informed about, was constitutional. But the Bush adminstration never showed the capacity to defend itself and responded to all manner of criticism by caving into it. Thus just when supporters were prepared to dig in on a point, the Bush adminstration would hit you in the proverbial knee cap with a shovel.
“bolt- I’m a conservative. I don’t trust the government. I never will. I’d rather die than give away my right to privacy”
Even though privacy is not constitutionally protected, but I digress. I agree with you that government shouldn’t be trusted, but the Constitution does charge the government with protecting the citizens of this country. However, this is one of those glaring holes that must be addressed to ensure that people’s constitutional rights are not violated. I, for one, don’t worry about the government tapping my phones. In order for them to do that, I have to be using one in the first place.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but it makes my blood run cold to think of Obama’s political associates being unsupervised in their use of this power.
I was actually kind of hoping he’d have appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of Homeland Security, but I suppose we’ll have to settle for an informal advisory role.