Probe of domestic eavesdropping leak expands-Times

Reuters ^ | 2-11-06

[Wasanother]

How could the existence of the program be considered classified? That is a good question but I can explain, if a "source" works in the NSA or other agency related to the program and has information of the classified program, no matter how much in the public eye it already is, that source can not disclose anything about it's existence until of which time the program becomes declassified, period. There are exceptions but not the people I'm talking about. A lot of the political posturing right now is because people are scared and want this program declassified to give the leaker's some cover.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

The problem is that that there is always far more leakage of classified information from within administrations (Democratic and Republican alike) than from outside them - Lewis Libby's claims that that he had been "authorized" to disclose classified information to journalists is a good example – and once you get such investigations rolling it’s going to be very difficult to control the directions thay take.

[Alberta's Child]

If I were a Canadian, you might have a point.

See #13. Anyone who thinks the NY Times is any kind of legal trouble over this is really reaching. The Times is going to escape any criminal prosecution in this case for the same reason Scooter Libby wasn't indicted for "leaking" Valerie Plame's identity to the press.

[Alberta's Child]

That's my point . . . the program itself is NOT classified. The identities of certain targets of the program may be, but from what I understand the NY Times did not name any targets of ongoing "secret" surveillance by the NSA.

[Boot Hill]

This is an "I'm-going-to-steal-that-line", bump