Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Leakers 12

Journal by pudge

From Fox News Sunday:

CHRIS WALLACE: Congresswoman Harman, let's change subjects. I want to talk to you about leaks, because the CIA dismissed a senior officer this week, apparently reportedly a veteran named Mary McCarthy, for leaking classified information to reporters including material about secret U.S. prisons overseas for terror suspects.

Congresswoman, after it came out that the president had authorized the disclosure, partial disclosure, of the National Intelligence Estimate about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you had the following to say, and let's put it up on the screen. "The president is revealed as the Leaker in Chief."

Congresswoman, do you really see any comparison between these two actions?

REP. JANE HARMAN (D-CA): You bet I do. I don't know this woman, and I do not condone leaks of classified information. However, while leaks are wrong, I think it is totally wrong for our president, in secret, to selectively declassify certain information and empower people in his White House to leak it to favored reporters so that they can discredit political enemies.

That is wrong. That is unprecedented. I've never, ever heard about that happening in another administration, and it's a double standard.

WALLACE: But, Congresswoman Harman, isn't there a big difference? She was breaking the law. He wasn't.

HARMAN: Well, he wasn't breaking the law because the president claims to have power that no one else has. And he should be reminded that the Constitution starts with Article I, not Article II.

The inherent powers of the presidency are not unlimited. He's been ignoring Congress. He's been refusing to brief the full Intelligence Committees on the NSA program. I think that's a violation of law.

Presumably he's doing that because he's afraid we will leak, and yet he and his administration are the ones who leak selectively. And so I am not condoning what this woman allegedly did in the CIA. Of course, I'm not condoning that. But I think having a double standard is absolutely wrong.

It goes on, and on.

First: it is not unprecedented, and you damned well know it. And even if it were, so what? How is it actually wrong, apart from being "unprecedented"?

Second: it is not a double standard. In one, you are legally declassifying out-of-date information about a past action in order to provide support for U.S. policy to the general public, and in the other you are illegally releasing classified information about a future action in order to undermine U.S. policy at home and abroad.

To say these are the same thing is equivocative nonsense.

Third: to bring in the NSA program in this context is to intentionally distort the issue. In the case of declassifying this information, Bush actually did have that legal authority. Period. Bush can declassify that information. End of story.

What Bush did clearly was not wrong, there clearly is no double standard, and there is no question that this authority belongs solely and entirely to the President.

Harman and the Democrats won't let this go, though, because they think they can really convince the voters that Bush did something wrong. That is, the Democrats are putting into action the aphorism about not going broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

Also, there's no transcript for this, but pundit Juan Williams on the same show said what the CIA officer did in leaking the Iran information was justifiable. He saw no problem with it. The other pundits, and the host, were, of course, shocked by this, as most of the viewers surely were (said Wallace: "send your cards and letters to Juan Williams, C/O Fox News Sunday ...").

There is no justification for what she did. Even if this is a terrible policy that endangers America, in your view, it's a policy that our elected representatives knew about it, and they can work to bring it to light if it should be brought to light. There's no excuse for undermining the Presidency, the Congress, and the Constitution by releasing it.

We know her real motivation, anyway: she is close friends with many anti-Bush former CIA officers, and a significant contributor to the Democrats. Her reason was obviously political, not merely about policy.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Leakers More

Leakers

Comments Filter:

  • HARMAN: ...He's been refusing to brief the full Intelligence Committees on the NSA program. I think that's a violation of law.

    Emphasis mine...

    It's the old "I think it's wrong, so it must be a violation of the law" routine.
  • So you support secret CIA prisons in EU nations, along with extraordinary rendition to countries that torture (also a secret until people started to figure it out)? What do you say to Maher Arar of Canada then?
    • P.S. I think the leaking issue is largely a red herring. The issue of secret prisons and torture is NOT. If the GOP were more interested in turning up the heat on the latter, they would do the nation a great service.
      • I think the leaking issue is largely a red herring.

        I don't think so at all. Someone who has no authority to release classified information, and does so, harms our country, subverts our Constitution, is guilty of a crime, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

        The issue of secret prisons and torture is NOT. If the GOP were more interested in turning up the heat on the latter, they would do the nation a great service.

        I don't know anything about these supposed prisons, and as such, I have n
    • So you support secret CIA prisons in EU nations, along with extraordinary rendition to countries that torture (also a secret until people started to figure it out)? What do you say to Maher Arar of Canada then?

      How is this not off-topic to this journal entry?
      • Oops, forgot to close the em. Trying again:

        So you support secret CIA prisons in EU nations, along with extraordinary rendition to countries that torture (also a secret until people started to figure it out)? What do you say to Maher Arar of Canada then?

        How is this not off-topic to this journal entry?
        • Secret prisons are what the fired CIA officer is alleged to have disclosed.
          • I don't understand the relevance. Are you saying that somehow the leak was justified because of what was leaked? I can't agree with that. I didn't agree with it when people tried to use that line to defend the alleged leak of Valerie Wilson's identity, and I do not agree with it now, over something much more consequential.
    • So you support secret CIA prisons in EU nations

      The EU has looked hard, and so far found no evidence whatsoever that they actually exist, besides this one woman's illegal and unsubstantiated claim to the media.

      Put it this way: if I tell you I abducted somebody and beat them until they confessed to the JFK assassination, would you be jumping up and down in excitement at finding JFK's killer at last, or upset that I kidnapped and tortured somebody to get that "fact"? I think the logical thing to do would b

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close