Senators Rockefeller and Durbin May Take Lie Detector Tests (Don't forget Leahy, etc.)

Sierra Times ^ | 3/7/2006 | Jim Kouri, CPP

[FerdieMurphy]

The United States government and its intelligence community are adopting a series of initiatives to discourage government employees from leaking classified information to journalists, The Washington Post reported in its Sunday edition.

The efforts include several FBI probes, a polygraph investigation inside the CIA and a warning from the Justice Department that reporters could be prosecuted under espionage laws, the Post said.

During the Bush Administration, a nexus of politicians, government workers and members of the news media have worked overtime in leaking classified information. From the secret terrorist prisons to the National Security Agency's super-secret surveillance program, intelligence officials and the Bush Administration have had to watch their counterterrorism efforts neutralized for political reasons.

Special agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation recently interviewed dozens of employees at the CIA, the NSA and other intelligence agencies as part of an intense and wide-reaching investigation. Many employees who possess security clearances at the CIA, FBI, the Justice Department and other agencies received letters from the Justice Department forbidding them from discussing even unclassified intelligence programs.

But people such as former deputy-undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin don't think the Justice Department investigators and prosecutors have the guts to indict a US senator. Babbin said it would cause a battle royal on the Hill, if not a constitutional crisis.

He did say however, that any senator or Congressional staffer that holds a security clearance can be asked at any time to take a polygraph. The individual can of course refuse to take the test, but failure to do so is reason to remove that person's security clearance. Babbin further said that Senators Rockefeller, Durbin, and Wyden, and some on their staffs will soon be requested to take polygraphs.

Even FBI field offices are involved in the leaks investigation. For example, special agents from Los Angeles have already contacted Sacramento Bee reporters about their coverage of a terrorism case that was based on classified court documents. In that case, some suspect that court personnel might have leaked the documents to reporters with whom they may have congenial relations.

At CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, their internal security office has been conducting numerous interviews and performing many polygraph examinations of government employees in an effort to discover whether any of them have had unauthorized contacts with reporters, the Post said.

Some media watchers, lawyers and editors told the Post the incidents perhaps represent the most extensive anti-leak campaign in a generation and that they have worsened the already tense relations between mainstream news organizations and the White House.

But it's not only the Bush Administration that is frustrated with all the leaks and news stories. Recently Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA) said straight out that the New York Times, which ran a frontpage story on the top secret NSA spy program, should be prosecuted for their actions.

Some news stories have pointed fingers at Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), co-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, as a possible leaker. Others cited sources that pointed to senate staffers. Still others believe that liberal politicians in both parties are secretly leaking information to the news media for political reasons.

The debate over how much classified information the White House should share with lawmakers flared up when Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) defended himself against charges he leaked sensitive information.

Durbin actually took to the Senate floor to deny accusations that he disclosed classified information on Iraq after CIA Director George Tenet briefed the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2003, which led many observers to say, "He doth protesteth too much."

But don't expect too much to come from these leak investigations. When the leakers are Democrats, they are called whistleblowers; when they're Republicans they're called leakers. Also, no senator has been disciplined for leaking since 1987, when Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was forced to give up his seat on the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee. It was discovered he leaked classified information to reporters. Now he's on the Senate Judiciary Committee which is currently investigating top secret information regarding the NSA surveillance activities.

[Cboldt]

Forum
Presidential Impeachment Proposals
[Harper's Magazine]
New York, New York (United States)
ID: 191420 - 03/02/2006 - 2:03 - $60.00

Conyers, John Jr. U.S. Representative, D-MI
Holtzman, Elizabeth U.S. Representative (1973-1981), D-NY
Dean, John W. Counsel (Fmr.), White House
Lapham, Lewis H. Editor in Chief, [Harper's Magazine]
Ratner, Michael President, Center for Constitutional Rights
Seder, Sam Talk Show Host, Air America Radio, Majority Report, The

Harper's Magazine hosted a forum titled "Is There a Case for Impeachment?" Former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, a member of the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate, and John Dean, White House Council to President Nixon, participated. The town hall forum was moderated by Sam Seder.

C-SPAN Program ID 191420

[Mo1]

Harper's Magazine ??

Geez

Thanks for the info!

[STARWISE]

I caught it near the end and I was so stunned .. I mean it: my jaw dropped. It's Conyers .. a bunch of legal scholars .. a very very crazed mob audience chiming in. One lawyer was former Democratic congresswoman, Elizabeth Holtzman.

One fellow in the audience asked that, if the President is speaking with the presidential seal in front of the podium, could it be established that he was automatically under oath!!

These people are dead serious ... unbelievable.

[Cboldt]

I am not sure that it is a federal crime for a sitting senator to leak classified intel, the crime might be when the person receiving the leak makes it public.

The only out for a Senator is for words spoken on the floor of the Senate, for which he can only be question by the Senate.

The law has independent criminal provisions for leakers and publishers. When the law is broken on leaking, it may or may not ALSO be broken (by a different person) by publication. But publication is not a prerequisite to finding a crime for leaking.

[Mo1]

These people are dead serious ... unbelievable.

Yes I know

They are the Dem base .. which is why you are seeing many Top Dem Leaders sounding just like the loons over at the Daily Kos

Heck a few of them are even posting over there

Though .. last week when asked at a news presser, Nancy Pelosi said she would not back an impeachment of the President

That these things should be decided at the polls on election day

[FerdieMurphy]

...intelligence committee.

Nelson? Intelligence?

I find that hard to believe.

[FerdieMurphy]

Remember when the Republicans won control of the House...

I vaguely remember.

When was it that they lost control?

[Just mythoughts]

Thank you for the distinction.


What does leaking mean legally speaking?

Does the leaker have to know they are leaking classified material, to break the law?

[Just mythoughts]

"When was it that they lost control?"


When the Republican controlled Senate refused to hold a real trial on the articles of impeachment.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

Babbin further said that Senators Rockefeller, Durbin, and Wyden, and some on their staffs will soon be requested to take polygraphs

It's about time.

[johnny7]

If the lie-detectors expose them... the Dem's will say that the company who made them was a big Bush donator.

[FerdieMurphy]

Let's see. Who was the ringleader and the one who wielded the broom while the Democrats lifted the carpet?

Oh. I remember now. It was Trent Lott!

[FerdieMurphy]

If they fail will it mean the firing squad?

I mean, like, after all they are treasonous rat traitors!

[kevkrom]

""Jerry, It's not a lie if you believe its the truth."

[justshutupandtakeit]

Fortunately the RAT refusal to convict means that we do not have President Gore in office. As sitting president he would have beaten Bush I have little doubt.

[Just mythoughts]

Well one does not use a cheerleader to win a war, and the cheerleader was elected to be the leader by the majority. Says much about what the majority stood for.

[Cboldt]

What does leaking mean legally speaking?

There are multiple laws in this regard. This list is not exhaustive ...

18 USC 1905 - General prohibition against release
18 USC 793 - Espionage Act
18 USC 794 - Illegal communications
18 USC 797 - Transferring photos or sketches of military installations
18 USC 798 - Publication of classified information
50 USC 421 - Outing the Covert Agent Act

Does the leaker have to know they are leaking classified material, to break the law?

It depends on the statute. "Yes," for "outing the covert agent" and for 18 USC 798. Note the "knowingly" and "willingly" language.

But for 18 USC 793 and 18 USC 794 (and others), the information need not be classified in order to find the elements of the crime.

[Just mythoughts]

Thanks.

[onyx]

BTTT!

[prairiebreeze]

Nancy Pelosi said she would not back an impeachment of the President

Nancy knows there are no grounds. She may even suspect such action would blow up in their furry RAT faces.

Let's have PJ Comix send ol' Bug Eyes a Kewpie Doll for having a brief moment of mental clarity.