Leak in Domestic Spy Program Investigated [“ ...could reach high into the White House”]

Los Angeles Times ^ | December 31, 2005 | By Josh Meyer

[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.

[johnny7]

S E N A T E • I N T E L L I G E N C E • C O M M I T T E E

[Bernard]

Every time I read a story like this from the LA Times I keep hearing Dusty Springfield in the background:

"Wishin and Hopin

and Singin and Prayin..."

[libstripper]

By the current MSM standard Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs were whhistleblowers.

[hummingbird]

--This is too funny. It's like they're trying to re-gift 'Fritzmas' to their pathetic readership.

Brilliant, timely and funny, too....regifting Fitzmas!

Good one, Shqipo!

[Steel Wolf]

In a civil suit? Sure they could, if they survived the angry mob.

Hmm. Good point.

[hford02]

Most MSM talking heads are saying that the Plame affair was a worser miscarriage of justice... I ask how can a noncriminal act affecting only one citizen be worse than a conspiracy of treasonous acts that could threat thousands or even millions of citizens?
Much of what the media has "editorialized" (I can't say reported) about Iraq and the WOT was significantly increased the resolve of our enemies while defaming and weakening the security of our own brave troops. I think the Army and Marine Corp should be allowed a two-day operation against the NYT and friends.

[jackv]

"That's it!!! Rove did it. We'll see him frog marched out of the White House for this any day, now"

Let me guess...chris matthews is all atwitter.
I'm afraid to ask if anyone has gotten his take on this. Can't stand to give him any ratings to find out for myself.

[IonInsights]

"Reach into the White House..."

Smacks of desperation, IMO.

[oxcart]

This article needs a....

[Steel Wolf]

Agreed. Bush needs to spend a little time briefing the american people including the Senators names that were briefed, how he worked with the FISA courts. This could be a good teaching moment.

Explaining the proper way for abuses to be reported would kill two birds with one stone. It would give the American people confidence in their intelligence community's safeguards, and it would cement in their minds that leaking to the press is illegal and unnecessary.

[bert]

......Jail the editors.....

They will roll over on the publisher.... Pinch is in Play.

There is conspriacy involved in addition to the overt act.

[jaz.357]

"The lefties in the media are going to be the ones to finger the leakers" ....

I think you hit the nail on the head!

[sgtyork]

excellent point. Explaint to them it isn't Jack Bauer or Three Days of the Condor.

[hummingbird]

I'd prefer a stout piece of hempen rope and a good old fashioned gallows, but that's just me.

I'm more of a stocks-in-the-public-square person. Putting underbritches on their heads would be a nice touch, too.

Of course, that's just for starters.....

I bet that Maricopa County sheriff could come up with some unique punishments!

[Tarpon]

Could well be, especially since it is reported Bush called them in and asked the editors/publisher not to print state secrets at a time of war.

Would be nice . . . but I have my doubts.

[MNJohnnie]

My guess is that the leak came from a Clinton/Powell holdover in the CIA or State Department.

Oh really, then why did the original NY DNC Times story specifically refer to Sen Jay Rockefeller's objections to the program despite the fact that Rockerfeller's "letter" specifically bemoans the fact HE CANNOT TALK ABOUT IT to anyone? So HOW does the NY Time know about it if HE CANNOT TALK ABOUT IT?

[OldEagle]

I'm a Dusty fan, too.

[DejaJude]

If anyone from the administration was involved they would have said current and former administrative officials. This is not going to touch anyone from the administration.

The leak that happened in 2002 was meant to embarrass Bush because it was about an NSA intercept of vague threats on Sept. 10th that weren't translated until Sept. 12th. I think someone on that Intelligence Committee could be in big trouble.

[Cboldt]

Jail the editors and fine the corporation.

IF there has been a violation of 798, the penalty is more than a fine. Note the mandaotry nature of the recitation in the statute ...

§ 798. Disclosure of classified information
Release date: 2005-08-03

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information-- ...

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government ...

(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section--
The term "communication intelligence" means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients ...

(d)
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law--
(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and
(B) any of the person's property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1). ...

18 USC 798

The NYT was a named party in the Pentagon Papers case, which touch expressly on the ramifications of a violation of 18 USC 798. You can bet your house that the NYT has concluded that publication of the existence of NSA surveillance is not a breach of the statute (I agree, because the exsistence of keyword searching was disclosed to the public in Senate hearings and in published court cases), and that extending that knowledge to the use of NSA facilities to target certain people in the US is not meant to be covered by the act.

I haven't researched that argument, but would enjoy seeing it litigated. And charging the NYT does not depend on any investigation - the publication "speaks for itself," and has indisputably occurred. The only question is whetrher or not the publication is in violation of the statute.

If it is, the NYT will be giving up printing presses.