Whistle-blowers or lawbreakers?

THE OREGONIAN via Austin American-Statesman ^ | January 08, 2006 | David Reinhard

[neverdem]

Self-respecting lefties couldn't come right out and say the Justice Department shouldn't open a probe into the disclosure of classified information about the National Security Agency's surveillance program.

That would look hypocritical and partisan after they spent years baying for the prosecution of anyone who may have intentionally leaked the identity of a CIA employee who may have been a "covered" agent under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That would look absurd, because there are laws against knowingly disclosing information about the nation's classified "communications intelligence activities."

So last fall's tough-on-leakers crowd had to come up with something when federal officials announced recently that they were looking into — what did we call it in the Valerie Plame case? — the "outing" of NSA's top-secret program to The New York Times. President Bush should spend more time justifying the NSA program than investigating who spilled the beans. OK, maybe we have to have a leak investigation — whateverrrrrr — but let's get our priorities straight. We all know the NSA program is illegal and/or unconstitutional and The New York Times' sources are wise, courageous and patriotic "whistle-blowers." And the NSA program is indefensible.

There are a few problems with the left's instant reaction to the Justice Department's leak investigation. The first is that the Bush administration has spent far more effort defending the NSA program than fretting about leakers.

In the days after the Times story, Bush went out on three occasions to defend the NSA program. After devoting his Saturday radio address to the issue, he held a news conference and discussed the program at length. Yes, he called the disclosure "shameful" and noted that the Justice Department probably would launch an investigation, but that was it on the leak.

That same day, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former NSA Director Gen. Michael Hayden held their own White House briefing on the program. A few days later, the Justice Department set out the legal and constitutional case in a letter to Congress. It was thick with court cases and legal precedents.

"Consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, I authorized the interception of international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations," Bush said at his press conference. "I've reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks, and I intend to do so for so long as our nation . . . faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens."

This is not the response of an administration running from the NSA issue. On the contrary, the White House has offered a stout defense of the program from the start. But apparently the republic's Bush bashers missed all this — and the experts who back up the administration on the program's legality.

"The claims are actually fairly modest, and not unconventional," Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor and liberal, said of Bush's claims on Hugh Hewitt's radio show.

Of course, never acknowledging this allows critics to claim Bush acted outside the law and Constitution. And if they convince themselves of this, they can cast the leakers as patriots and whistle-blowers. Yet, if the NSA program is not patently illegal, then they're rank lawbreakers who've exposed a critical classified program designed to protect our national security to further what's basically a policy dispute.

Bush critics are entitled to their opinions about the program and leak investigation. But they're not entitled to their own facts. Not only have the president and his people made the legal and practical case for the NSA's limited surveillance of international communications between al Qaeda types in wartime, but the effort also seems to be paying off. A Dec. 28 Rasmussen Report poll found that 64 percent of Americans believe NSA should intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects overseas and people here (just 23 percent disagree).

Now, let's hope the Justice Department is as successful at prosecuting these lawbreakers — not whistle-blowers — who took it on themselves to violate the laws and "out" one of our most highly classified programs in the middle of a war.

davidreinhard@news.oregonian.com.

[dhs12345]

Interesting irony here.

Those claiming that Bush didn't follow protocol (get approval from a judge) are also guilty of the same.

These same people could have reported their concerns to confidential entities within the government. That way, security would be maintain. Instead, they went straight to the press. Or so we have been told.

[jazusamo]

Reinhard makes a good point, prosecute the lawbreakers. He's the only columnist at the Oregonian that I can stand to read.

[b4its2late]

If you're a democrat and it helps the cause, you're a whistle blower, no matter what you did. If you are a republican, and it hurts the democrat cause, you'll be in jail.

[FreedomNeocon]

What a dumb question.

It simple... a 'whistle-blower' blows NOT to the public and not anonymously a HIGHLY partisan outlet.

A whistle-blower still has official channels to go through to 'blow' the wistle on things. ESPICALLY when they 'want to' blow the whistle on something so highly classifed.

This was LEAKING of HIGHLY CLASSIFIED information. We used to hang people for it... now they want to give awards.

[airborne]

Whistleblowers go through proper channels.

These people have gone to the media with classified information.

That makes them lawbreakers.

[AmericanChef]

I'd say "give me the rope and I'll hang Pelosi myself" except she's the Undead and it wouldn't do a bit of good.

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

"Bush critics are entitled to their opinions about the program and leak investigation. But they're not entitled to their own facts."

Yes. I agree 100%. Fine the lawbreakers, and if they continue with their illegal ranting and raving, throw them in jail.

[p23185]

These same people could have reported their concerns to confidential entities within the government. That way, security would be maintain. Instead, they went straight to the press.

A whistle blower does not get immunity by leaking national secrets to the press - he get a felony out of that one. There are procedures in place for whistle blowers and it in no way entails the press. NEVER. American citizens do not have a right to know US National SECRETS. Period. Doesn't make any difference if it is in a time of war or not - one cannot disclose classified information to someone who does not possess the level of clearance for the data, AND a need to know. The NYT and Risen had neither.