8^)
Posted on 12/31/2005 5:05:34 AM PST by johnny7
The Justice Department inquiry could extend into all branches of the federal government
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department disclosed Friday that it was investigating who had leaked classified information about President Bush's top-secret domestic spying program — paving the way for a potentially contentious criminal probe that could reach high into the White House, Congress and the courts. Several U.S. officials familiar with the investigation — which is in its infancy — said it would be conducted by FBI agents trained in probing national security and counterintelligence matters.
The officials said the investigation would focus primarily on disclosures in the New York Times that Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance on people in the U.S. without getting warrants from a special federal court established to approve them.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I'm sure it was discussed in some circles before the NYT published - the question is into the nature of investigations before the NYT publisehd. I just assumed we were speculating on the timing of initiation of the "formal" DoJ investigation; and that would come from an NSA request, since it is NSA activity that was compromised.
Media leaks are not the only ones covered in the above-linked document, and there is a duty to report any known leaks.E4. ENCLOSURE 4
DOJ MEDIA LEAK QUESTIONNAIREE4.1.1. If the media discloses classified information without proper authorization, the Heads of the DoD Components shall submit the DOJ Media Leak Questionnaire through security channels to the USD(I). In coordination with the DoD GC, the USD(I) shall prepare a letter addressed to the attention of Chief, Internal Security Section, Criminal Division, Bond Building, Room 9400, U.S. Department of Justice, 1400 New York Avenue, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20530.
E4.1.2. There are eleven standard questions relating to unauthorized disclosures of classified information to the media that the Heads of the DoD Components must promptly answer to the fullest extent possible:
E4.1.2.1. What is the date and identity of the article containing classified information?http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/d5210_50.pdfE4.1.2.2. What specific statements in the article are classified and was the information properly classified?
E4.1.2.3. Is the classified information disclosed accurate?
E4.1.2.4. Did the information come from a specific document, and if so, what is the origin of the document and the name of the individual responsible for the security of the classified data discussed?
E4.1.2.5. What is the extent of official circulation of the information?
E4.1.2.6. Has the information been the subject of prior official release?
E4.1.2.7. Was prior clearance for publication or release of the information sought from proper authorities?
E4.1.2.8. Has the material, parts thereof or enough background data, been published officially or in the press to make an educated speculation on the matter possible?
E4.1.2.9. Will the information be made available for use in a prosecution, and if so, what is the name of the person competent to testify on its classification?
E4.1.2.10. Has declassification been considered or decided on before publishing the data?
E4.1.2.11. What effect the disclosure of the classified data might have on the national defense?
The only reason this story was published now, was because Senate Democrats needed cover for voting against the Patriot Act. Forget about the Book, it is coincidental and meaningless. What you have here, is a coordinated effort between the NY Times and Senate Dems and RINOs to make it safe for them to vote against the Patriot act.
Why, you say?
FUNDRAISING!
Democratic fund-raising is completely in the toilet. Howard Dean has been a total nightmare, which means that no matter how strong Democrat candidates are for the next election, they will still lose because they will not be able to compete with Republicans.
The new Democrat strategy for 2006 is to trade campaign dollars for an impeachment of George Bush. It is their only change to get enough dollars to stay in the hunt from their crazy, but deep-pocketed supporters. They don't care that they are lying to their minions, because they wont win anyway. All they care about is getting those rabid, DU-Kos jackasses to fork over as much money as they can, since Howard Dean couldn't find a dollar in a stripper's G-string.
So to back up this strategy, the Dems and RINOs need a reason for Bush's impeachment. Plame failed, WMD failed, Iraq is going too well, the economy is roaring, so this non-story is all they have left. The Times provided the reason, now the Dems will go all out to use it as a fund-raising hook for 2006.
But then dammit, the Dems had to go and overreach again, thinking that the Administration would not go after leakers, in order to keep the story from having legs in the MSM.
Bush has got them scurrying like cockroaches in the light, looking for a place to hide. But while they were plotting, planning and scheming, the Justice Dept has been working behind the scenes to find the leakers.
Things are going to happen in 2006 that will change the course of history.
I hope the investigators connect the democrat Senate Intelligence committee members' memo where they outlined their plan to gin up a scandal and then use it to go after the President.
***The new Democrat strategy for 2006 is to trade campaign dollars for an impeachment of George Bush.***
Dem talking heads have already said this on air: "If we regain the House, we will start Impeachment Proceedings."
What a promise! What a scintillating campaign message! We can turn this around on them and get an even greater majority in the House, and keep our majority in the Senate next November.
I heard last night on the John Batchlor Show that the California Dem Party will not send any of their donations to the national party because they think Dean is bad news for them.
Apparently, the DNC is very worried about this turn of events.
You just made my day.
Good. We should write more such letters.
Things are going to happen in 2006 that will change the course of history.
Sounds like the plot line from Shakespear's Julius Caesar.
You may be right. And it very well could change the course of history.
8^)
Hillary doesn't want to tap your phone...she wants to tap your wallet......Big Time!!
Happy New Year to you both, and to your loved ones. As for the Los Angeles Times, don't give it a second thought. It's circulation here in Los Angeles is plunging lower than the cheapest starlet's neckline.
If Valerie was classified...like Novak said, he would have gotten a call from Tenet. Novak apologized for using the word operative...saying that around DC it was a common term. It did not say she was a "Secret Agent, a former spy or anything else except that it looks like BOTH Joe and Valerie were in on the Niger Tea Party.
William Shakespeare Julius Caesar
The CIA has been Jekyll & Hyde on the Plame case, and I expect the NSA will be too, on the domestic surveillance charge.
On the one hand, when Novak contacted the CIA regarding Plame, the CIA didn't express any concern about publication of her association with the company. But after her association with the Niger mission was published, the CIA forwarded a referral for criminal investigation to the DoJ.
With regard to NSA surveillance, the only prudent approach is to assume that surveillance is occurring - the propriety/legality/constitutionality of the surveillance will be settled only after the fact, in the context of litigation or Congressional hearings. And regardless of the outcome of the litigation or hearings, the surveillance will continue; unabated. Scan these, balancing sureveillance, technology and the 4th amendment is an old issue.
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities : Oct 29, 1975 ...
http://cryptome.org/nsa-4th.htm
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities : Nov 6, 1975 ...
http://cryptome.org/nsa-4th-p2.htm
Here is a snippet ...
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY
GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH
RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-FOUR CONGRESS
FIRST SESSIONVOLUME 5
THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY AND FOURTH
AMENDMENT RIGHTSOCTOBER 29 AND NOVEMBER 6, 1975
TESTIMONY OF LT. GEN. LEW ALLEN, JR., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY
AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY BENSON BUFFHAM, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NSA; AND
ROY BANNER, GENERAL COUNSEL, NSA... Between 1967 and 1973 there was a cumulative total of about 450 U.S. names on the narcotics list, and about 1,200 U.S. names on all other lists combined. What that amounted to was that at the height of the watch list activity, there were about 800 U.S. names on the watch list and about one-third of these 800 were from the narcotics list.
We estimate that over this 6-year period, 1967-1973, about 2,000 reports were issued by the NSA on international narcotics trafficking and about 1,900 reports were issued covering the three areas of terrorism, Executive protection and foreign influence over U.S. groups. This would average about two reports per day. These reports included some messages between U.S. citizens with one foreign communicant, but over 90 percent had at least one foreign communicant and all messages had at least one foreign terminal. Using agencies did periodically review, and were asked by the NSA to review, their watch lists to insure inappropriate or unnecessary entries were promptly removed.
I am not the proper person to ask concerning the value of the product from these four special efforts. We are aware that a major terrorist act in the United States was prevented. In addition, some large drug shipments were prevented from entering the United States because of our efforts on international narcotics trafficking. We have statements from the requesting agencies in which they have expressed appreciation for the value of the information which they had received from us. Nonetheless, in my own judgment, the controls which were placed on the handling of the intelligence were so restrictive that the value was significantly diminished. ...
It just makes me crazy to hear so-called conservatives complain about the NSA over-reaching our civil liberties.
Our Declaration of Independence puts Life ahead of Liberty and I approve of that message.
Oh, to see a Dem Senator in shackles and an orange suit. Beat still my heart.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.