You have commented 274 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Administration planning to get tough with leakers
2006-03-05
The Bush administration, seeking to limit leaks of classified information, has launched initiatives targeting journalists and their possible government sources. The efforts include several FBI probes, a polygraph investigation inside the CIA and a warning from the Justice Department that reporters could be prosecuted under espionage laws.

In recent weeks, dozens of employees at the CIA, the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies have been interviewed by agents from the FBI's Washington field office, who are investigating possible leaks that led to reports about secret CIA prisons and the NSA's warrantless domestic surveillance program, according to law enforcement and intelligence officials familiar with the two cases.

Numerous employees at the CIA, FBI, Justice Department and other agencies also have received letters from Justice prohibiting them from discussing even unclassified issues related to the NSA program, according to sources familiar with the notices. Some GOP lawmakers are also considering whether to approve tougher penalties for leaking.
Posted by:Dan Darling

#6  Powerline notes:
One of the deepest secrets in the exposure of the National Security Agency surveillance of al Qaeda-related conversations by the New York Times is that the publication of the story is itself a crime. Publication of the story violates, for example, one highly specific provision (18 U.S.C. section 798) of the Espionage Act that prohibits the disclosure of communications intelligence. Violation of the statute is a felony punishable by imprisonment up to ten years.


they also note that the NYT and WaPo never metion that law nor the fact that the NYT is aparently guilty - along with their sources (who are not protected by the US Constitution) - of violating that law. Time to uncover these traitors and hard jail time - including the reporters. Bill Keller too, if possible
Posted by: Frank G   2006-03-05 13:44  

#5  On July 21, 2004, the FBI taped Weissman and Rosen telling ‘WaPo’ reporter Glenn Kessler about an Iranian plot to kill Americans and Israelis in Iraq. They assured him that their "American intelligence source" was "100 percent credible". The next month Weissman was taped telling Laura Rozen, a correspondent for the ‘American Prospect’ magazine about more classified information. The FBI has sworn testimony from Larry Franklin that during same period the that two AIPAC employees passed on similar information to Naor Gilon, the former political officer at the Israeli embassy in Washington and Rafi Barak, the former deputy chief of Mission. As it turns out the information was bogus and all part of a sting operation.
Consider for a moment had the information been valid and it was reported. One could assume that in light of the information made public there may be some high-level policy changes. Another job well done for the AIPAC boys. On the other hand, one could also assume that intelligence sources could be compromised or threatened. One could imagine that covert operations might also be compromised.
Now nearly two years later the defense theatrics want us to believe this is a First Amendment case. Some even suggest that if Rosen and Weissman are found guilty, not only reporters, but even readers, could be accused under the same Espionage Act. Oooohh chilling! . And of course everybody in DC passes this kind of information around…right. Besides, we are allies…were on the same side…were buds! You know like if you catch your wife cheating on you it’s so much better when it turns out to be one of your friends.
I hope the lot of these Rat-Fucks get convicted and thrown in a cell right next to that waste of skin Pollard.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2006-03-05 13:38  

#4  No Leftists are going to disappear. In an open society such as we have, citizens have the opportunity to judge and, based on falling circulation figures and ad revenues, they are judging as wisely as we could wish. That's one reason the other side has become shriller and more blatant, hastening their fall.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-03-05 11:21  

#3  "Some media watchers, lawyers and editors say..."

In other words, professional propagandists (like the asshole author of this article) working for the Democratic Party...

"...that, taken together, the incidents represent perhaps the most extensive and overt campaign against leaks in a generation..."

Well, golly, I should fuckin' well HOPE SO. But whatever the Administration is doing, it doesn't even begin to approach anything that I, personally, would call a "crackdown on leaks." A "crackdown on leaks" is when you round up the leakers, try them for treason, convict them, sentence them, and then line them up and execute them by firing squad. THAT is a "crackdown on leaks."

"...and that they have worsened the already-tense relationship between mainstream news organizations and the White House."

You lying son of a bitch. Anti-Bush, anti-Republican employees of the NSA and CIA illegally sneak highly-classified information to their leftist buddies in the press who use it to concoct anti-Administration hit pieces whose purpose is to undermine our struggle against a mortal enemy-- and you have the chutzpah to gripe that the Administration, in trying to stop those leaks, has "worsened the already-tense relationship" you have with them????

Fuck you.

Frankly, the way the MSM has been behaving since 9/11, I find it damn hard to criticize those who've started to make lists of Leftists who need to be "disappeared" just so we can have a fighting chance against Islamic imperialism.

Posted by: Clort Sleagum7390   2006-03-05 10:58  

#2  You break the law. You pay. I don't give a rat's pitoot, if you're a politician, a reporter, an editor, an alderman, a choirboy.

As the Constitution says "... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." We're equal before the law. The profit making business of media/entertainment does not qualify for special privilege.
Posted by: Glomort Claviger7613   2006-03-05 09:30  

#1  Faster, please.

While the government may claim not to be pressuring journalists, the legal expenses in a time of falling circulation will. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of liars and traitors. Let then look at Cunningham's sentence.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-03-05 08:47  

00:00