Loose Lips Sink Spies

New York Times ^ | 2/10/06 | Porter Goss

[conservative in nyc]

AT the Central Intelligence Agency, we are more than holding our own in the global war on terrorism, but we are at risk of losing a key battle: the battle to protect our classified information.

Judge Laurence Silberman, a chairman of President Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said he was "stunned" by the damage done to our critical intelligence assets by leaked information. The commission reported last March that in monetary terms, unauthorized disclosures have cost America hundreds of millions of dollars; in security terms, of course, the cost has been much higher. Part of the problem is that the term "whistleblower" has been misappropriated. The sharp distinction between a whistleblower and someone who breaks the law by willfully compromising classified information has been muddied.

As a member of Congress in 1998, I sponsored the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act to ensure that current or former employees could petition Congress, after raising concerns within their respective agency, consistent with the need to protect classified information.

Exercising one's rights under this act is an appropriate and responsible way to bring questionable practices to the attention of those in Congress charged with oversight of intelligence agencies. And it works. Government employees have used statutory procedures — including internal channels at their agencies — on countless occasions to correct abuses without risk of retribution and while protecting information critical to our national defense.

On the other hand, those who choose to bypass the law and go straight to the press are not noble, honorable or patriotic. Nor are they whistleblowers. Instead they are committing a criminal act that potentially places American lives at risk. It is unconscionable to compromise national security information and then seek protection as a whistleblower to forestall punishment.

[conservative in nyc]

Note: This is an OP-ED piece by CIA Director Porter Goss printed in the New York Times. It does NOT reflect the views of the New York Times.

There's more at the link. In particular, Porter Goss says that contrary to the MSM's belief, disclosure that we were monitoring Osama bin Ladin's satellite phone calls was extremely dangerous to our national security. Not surprisingly, the phone went silent.

In other news, more leaks to the Washington Post from a former CIA bigwig: Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq.

[TheSpy]

In my eyes, anyone who leaks info is a traitor to his/her country.

[goodnesswins]

Where did I hear that the "leaks" came from ....drum roll please.....CAPITAL HILL...i.e. Senators or Representatives.....(Tony Snow, I think.)

[etcetera]

Time to get tough, indict for treason, and hang a few...

[Wormwood]

CAPITAL HILL

Typo or irony, you be the judge.

[Wolfhound777]

Totally agree with you. Until that happens, people will not hesitate to get away with whatever they can.

[conservative in nyc]

Numerous FReepers, including myself and Mo1 have been stating that some of the intelligence leaks have been coming from members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (*cough* Rockefeller *cough*) since before the 2004 election. NYT or Washington Post "bombshell" stories on intelligence matters have usually been printed the day after closed door briefings of that committee.

For example, the committee met behind closed doors on Wednesday. The WaPo reported details of the so-called NSA "domestic spying" program yesterday. Many of the New York Times' Abu Ghraib "bombshells" were also reported the day after that committee met.

[conservative in nyc]

That doesn't mean that some of the leaks haven't been coming from the CIA or (in many cases) disgruntled former CIA employees. There's a group that was formed in August 2004 (i.e. conveniently before the 2004 election) called the National Security Whistleblower's Coalition (NSWBC). Their members are the most likely suspects whenever the MSM cites an anonymous "former intelligence official". Howlin posted a list of their members here.

[nopardons]

It's far more than an OP-ED, it is a blast across the bow, at the N.Y. Times, itself! :-)

[nopardons]

Exactly!

[wickedpinto]

I agree, The hard part is picking the example. Theres a lot of people who are just plain stupid and think this isn't really illegal, after all, they are being told that they are "leaking" rather than "engaging in internal espionage which is an act of treason" so for an example to be made, when all of the precedent is that they can get away with this is. . . .

To find someone who is definitely guilty, and who is the closest to "most innocent" to clarify that this is really treason. I would love to see the partisans who know damn well what they are doing to be the firsts, but for it to be an example, it has to be a thorough example. So likely for treason to be approached as treason, it would be best to find a young, stupid fool with either republican, or no political ties.

Unfortunately, that is how twisted our nations opinion of its own security has become, that we must find a way to be most outright cruel to prove that this is a real thing.

[RichardW]

This kind of stuff won't stop until we make "treason" a respectable word again. There are those among these agencies with a political agenda and even if their self-serving motives result in millions of dead Americans they will continue their evil ways. We need these traitors prosecuting and modeling those pretty orange jump suits. And a few of them need to be shot or hanged for their treachery.

[John Valentine]

In my eyes, anyone who leaks info is a traitor to his/her country.

That's not just your eyes, my friend, that's the Federal Code. Indictments and federal prosecutions are in order.

[John Valentine]

The hard part is picking the example...

Well, here are two excellent candidates for a start:

- Arthur J. Sulzberger, Jr.: CEO and Publisher, New York Times

- James Risen: Reporter, New York Times

As these guys go down, hopefully they will implicate others in their spy ring.

[wickedpinto]

re-read my comment.

For it to be truly affective/effective, whatever the proper usage is. . . .it MUST be a republican or a non-partisan to REALLY prove a point. A media member, as a starter, will make the administration look like inquisitors.

If it's to be either of those two? the only choice is to indict shortly before 2008, and to surrender to hillary, and see if she has actually read the constitution.

[madconserv]

Or bring back the sedition act: "incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority ". It was easier to convict under those laws. Leaks are against the lawful authority of homeland security.

[John Valentine]

If you want to indict someone for treason, it has to be someone who actually committed the crime. That limits your universe of candidates very substantially.

Now, I'm not saying that a Republican couldn't commit treason, but I'm saying that looking for a treasonous Republican would be like looking for deacon in a whorehouse.

Meanwhile, how many are going to get away with aggregious treason without the public coming to feel that what they did wasn't, after all, so wrong?

Society needs examples, and the examples need to be guilty, and seen to be guilty. These guys are as guilty as sin, and everyone knows it. Letting them get away with it is demoralizing to society.

[SR 50]

ping

[A CA Guy]

You are correct.

[OldArmy52]

No, you just aren't "with it".

If the leaker is a Republican, then it's treason.

If the leaker is a Democrat, then it's patriotism.