'NYT' Editorial Explains Difference Between Plame and NSA Spying Leaks

Editor and Publisher ^ | 01/03/06 | E&P Staff

[Pikamax]

'NYT' Editorial Explains Difference Between Plame and NSA Spying Leaks

By E&P Staff

Published: January 03, 2006 10:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Declaring that "this seems a good moment to try to clear away the fog around this issue," a New York Times editorial for Wednesday attempted to describe the difference between radically diffrent types of leaks.

Two of the newspaper's high-profile reporters, Judith Miller (who recently resigned) and James Risen, have been at the center of two very serious current leak probes.

"A democratic society cannot long survive if whistle- blowers are criminally punished for revealing what those in power don't want the public to know - especially if it's unethical, illegal or unconstitutional behavior by top officials," the newspaper declares. "Reporters need to be able to protect these sources, regardless of whether the sources are motivated by policy disputes or nagging consciences."

The editorial then examines the Plame/CIA leak, citing "a world of difference between that case and a current one in which the administration is trying to find the sources of a New York Times report that President Bush secretly authorized spying on American citizens without warrants. The spying report was a classic attempt to give the public information it deserves to have. The Valerie Wilson case began with a cynical effort by the administration to deflect public attention from hyped prewar intelligence on Iraq. ...

"When the government does not want the public to know what it is doing, it often cites national security as the reason for secrecy. The nation's safety is obviously a most serious issue, but that very fact has caused this administration and many others to use it as a catchall for any matter it wants to keep secret, even if the underlying reason for the secrecy is to prevent embarrassment to the White House. The White House has yet to show that national security was harmed by the report on electronic spying, which did not reveal the existence of such surveillance - only how it was being done in a way that seems outside the law."

Concluding by mentioning a third leak probe, regarding The Washington Post's revelations about secret prison camps for terror suspects, the Times observes, "Illegal spying and torture need to be investigated, not whistle-blowers and newspapers."

[popdonnelly]

Is "Editor and Publisher" owned by the same folks who publish the Times? If not, they might as well be.

[popdonnelly]

Anyone who has ever handled classified information knows that making such information public can get you canned and probably prosecuted. Everyone is instructed on the rules, everybody signs the same confidentiality agreements. Justifying the leak after the fact is BS.

[popdonnelly]

One other thing, since the CIA provided NSA with data for this project, the leak probably came from one of those "disgruntled" CIA employees.

[p23185]

"A democratic society cannot long survive if whistle- blowers are criminally punished for revealing what those in power don't want the public to know - especially if it's unethical, illegal or unconstitutional behavior by top officials," the newspaper declares. "Reporters need to be able to protect these sources, regardless of whether the sources are motivated by policy disputes or nagging consciences."

The new liberal patriot is currently described as one who illegally spills Government secrets to the MSM in order to "inform the public what the evil Government (i.e. Bush & Cheney) are up to". This is now defined as Patriotism. So you see the whistle blower is a patriot. IMO, and I think the law and case law support, that reporters MUST give up their source when laws have been broken. Secondly, explain to me how a reporter with limited understanding of the US Government classified information system, can ascertain if laws or the Constitution authorities have been broken? Even the experts in Constitution law cannot agree on CIC powers and what constitutes a "authorization to go to war". So we should disclose national secrets because some lowly Government employee decides he thinks a law has been broken? Seems crazy to me - someone has to go to prison and let everyone know this will not be stood for.

[p23185]

You just KNOW those sick scumbags at the NY Times are pretty irate about this mine disaster in WV because it steals the public's attention away from their big "scoop". They were really gonna get Bush this time.

Scumbag Rhodes on Err America was irate with the mine disaster having everyone take their eye off the Impeach Bush and Cheney ball. Truly disgusting - but I say bring it on because they are only going to split the RAT party and we will make a clean sweep in '06 midterm elections. Go ahead and try and impeach - not a prayer. Our current President and Vice President have not committed one impeachable offense. They seem to lack the understanding that you cannot impeach just because you don't agree with the Admin policies.

[p23185]

Risen's book is FLOPPING! It won't even make the NY Times best seller list. And the author is on his way to jail and some hefty legal bills.

He damn well better be.

[LK44-40]

GOP Intelligence chair Pete Hoekstra eviserates Risen and makes strong defense of NSA surveillance program in interview Wednesday morning with Bill Bennett.

Geat interview....loads fast at dialup speed....good quality....

http://www.bennetmornings.com/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp;jsessionid=kPXx2ZxFziEkS-idqodRNw**?dispid=302&headerDest=/site/preview?pid=31373

[Irish Eyes]

The White House has yet to show that national security was harmed by the report on electronic spying, which did not reveal the existence of such surveillance - only how it was being done in a way that seems outside the law."

Please tell me exactly what they are trying to say with this statement. I think that the NYT has totaly lost it.

[Lancey Howard]

I have so little interest in this "impeach Bush" stuff, that I can't even understand why the word shows up around here. No offense! Maybe there's some people who like to chuckle over the loons' talk of impeachment, but it's such a bizarre notion on its face that it just bores me to death. It's not even on my radar screen. Sorry.

Regards,
LH

[RobbyS]

Information to a conservative reporter is illegal. but to a liberal one, not. Yeah, clear as mud.

[festus]

This ones easy. In the plame case bush blew the whistle on the media, in the second the media ( thinks anyway ) they blew the whistle on George.

The important thing to note is that the right way to view any event is in the light that puts GWB on the loosing end of whatever it is.

[joeyess]

this would have never happened under bill clinton.....he was a great president and respected the office.

[Enchante]

NY TIMES:

GOOD LEAKS: illegal releases of highly classified info, the disclosure of which will harm US national security (but be useful to the liberal media) and aid terrorists, communists, socialists, and other depraved self-styled revolutionaries

BAD LEAKS: perfectly legal releases of info such as the fact that the charlatan demagogue Joe Wilson was pushed onto his mission by his wife and not by VP Cheney's office as lying scurrilous MSM reporters had tried to insinuate.

SUMMARY: good leaks are ones that benefit our leftist agenda, bad leaks are ones that we can't twist to fit our agenda

[p23185]

The spying report was a classic attempt to give the public information it deserves to have.

It is my understanding the existence of the NSA program that was leaked to the NYSlimes was highly classified, and the PUBLIC and NYT do not have a "right" to know anything about its existence since they have not signed non-Disclosure Agreements nor been issued Security Clearances. These are SAP programs. A "leaker" goes to the MSM, a "whistle blower" goes to the NSA IG, the DoD IG and/or the Congress if necessary, but they never go to the MSM and general public with classified SECRET SAP information. Pinchie Sulzberger needs to go to jail along with the NYT Editor, Risen and the Leaker. As for Flame and her husband Wilson there is not story there - even Fitz wouldn't indict anyone for disclosing Flame's identity. It is a non-story, and unfortunately Libby got caught in the RATs web of deceit.