Probe Sought in Leaked Intelligence

AP Online via COMTEX ^ | JOHN J. LUMPKIN

[PoppingSmoke]

We cannot keep every single detail classified. I agree we need to be careful. But Bin Laden didn't find out about how we do things from the Internet or US Press. He was told this from other intelligence services. Regardless terrorist like Bin Laden will always have some data. He more than likely knew things that 89% of Americans never knew nor were told.

This is an investigation to correct our mistakes. Right now the fox is watching the hen house. I have somewhat a problem with this. Again, protect sources and methods, protect our folk in the field. However Americans still have a right to know some of the details. I do not trust government that much.

[PoppingSmoke]

With all due respect! You are the one with no clue. Please explain how the information that was provided endangered sources and methods and people?

Its people like you who are dangerous. Blindly follow! I have been there done that, try (CCS - Kien Giang Province SVN (1969 - 1971). Now you figure it out. Next time inslut someone else.

[Tom Bombadil]

I used to work with signal intelligence and believe me, when I saw the quotes, I was horrified. Sources and methods are extremely vulnerable to this sort of abject irresponsibility.

In WWII Churchill knew that Coventry was going to be bombed by the Germans but was unable to overtly warn the populace because compromising sources and methods at that point would likeley have LOST THE WAR. Intelligence was the only thing allowing Britain to used limited resources effectively.

The president would be justified in shutting down all access by the committees at this point. Even a well placed sting could be used to get the jerk who is leaking.

[Tom Bombadil]

Please explain how the information that was provided endangered sources and methods and people?

The exact words could be traced to a specific conversation and could reveal the method of communication or the person being spoken to. Either way you lose the source and possibly the life of a friend. This is not a trivial matter.

[Howlin]

Now, help me out here: the reporters KNOW who told them......so why don't they tell us WHO did it.

[Dog]

LOL!!

They are reporters they dont have to .....:-)

If you could have heard some of the reporters when this broke....I swear you would have thought it was them who were being investigated...

[McGavin999]

Well, gee, then I guess that the people making the call are likely to forget what they said and who they were talking to, and how they were talking.

Good grief, use your head. You might not be able to figure it out, but the person MAKING the calls can. As to it being widely reported, that's exactly what the problem is, this should never have been released, never printed, and never repeated.

[PoppingSmoke]

"The exact words could be traced to a specific conversation and could reveal the method of communication or the person being spoken to. Either way you lose the source and possibly the life of a friend. This is not a trivial matter."

Maybe and maybe not, then again, we do not know if these are really the exact words or not. I assume nothing. Then again it is widely known throughout the world that we listen to everything we can. There was no specifics here. This was more than likely something very simple. So the bad guys know we are listening. I have shocking news for you. They have known for a long time.

I will agree that we need to be extremely careful here. To much information can be a very bad thing. But that does not mean that the American people do not have a right to know what really happened on 911. Becareful yes, blindly follow? NO! It can be just as dangerous.

There really needs to be some way to get limited information out in the public domain. Otherwise its going to get out anyway and more than likely a lot more than one wanted. Control the output, not close it down.

[Sandy]

why don't they tell us WHO did it.

Why should they? Giving up sources doesn't exactly engender sources' trust.

[PoppingSmoke]

"Good grief, use your head. You might not be able to figure it out, but the person MAKING the calls can. As to it being widely reported, that's exactly what the problem is, this should never have been released, never printed, and never repeated."

Good grief yourself. The person making the call did not care. Besides there are so many ways this is accomplished its mind boggling. Sorry we disagree, but not enough data was released.

That does not mean we don't need to be careful.

[Moby Grape]

Because the reporters are DEMOCRATS and the leakers are democrats.

[LaGrone]

Re post #6. Leaky Leahy also gets my vote. The guy's crooked smile gave himself away! After all, he's given the store away before; what a loser he is!!!

[PhiKapMom]

You really do not have a clue do you? I worked with this type of information in the past and I know what should never be made public! And this immediately struck me as classified intel information -- you never ever give the information in quotes from anyone! Never, ever!!!! That will track right back to the person who said it so they can find out who is eavesdropping on them. What if it is a person and not a satellite that overheard this -- well that person is a goner or doesn't that make any difference to you. You never ever reveal intel sources, how the information was obtained and quotes of what you have.

All you have to do is think! As was pointed out when it was leaked in 1998 about communications picked up from Bin Laden, he switched his way of communicating. Now does that give you a clue?

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for posting! I am having trouble figuring out why people cannot understand how sensitive intel information is -- there is a reason that in a lot of instances it is highly classified!

[okie01]

"Excuse me? Is this something that we did not know before hand? This has been widely reported. Maybe not the exact wording, but still reported...This release of information is laughable as a threat to national security."

Excuse me, but you're well off base. The specificity that was being objected to was not that it was an "intercept" nor that it came from the NSA. Nor, probably, even the gist of their meaning.

Instead, it was the leaking of the actual verbatim translations. Consequently, the people who were intercepted now know they were intercepted, along with where and how.

And that, my friend, is a flagrant breach of secrecy. A busted source...

[McGavin999]

More then enough data was released. Beyond that we have learned that members of the Intel committee can't be trusted. They need to find out who leaked this and they should be run out of town.

What makes you think the people making it don't care? What if they were making the comment to an American agent? Or doesn't that matter to you either?

[okie01]

"He was told this from other intelligence services."

He heard it on CNN...

[PoppingSmoke]

"He heard it on CNN..."

Says the White House!Mmaybe it was the ISI's version of CNN! Or Maybe the Saudi version of CNN. Try again.... I will make book on this one....

[PoppingSmoke]

Beyond that we have learned that members of the Intel committee can't be trusted.

Shocking! There isn't much that isn't Classified in DC! Both sides have released information. Hell it was just a few months ago when Republicans made TV appearences and released classified data. It happens on both sides.

However this is a minor leak. The VP is trying to head this off before it gets out of control. That is what this is all about. In my humble opinion.

[PoppingSmoke]

Nonsense!