Porter Goss: Loose Lips Sink Spies

CIA Director Porter Goss writes in the NY Times about press leaks:

Loose Lips Sink Spies

By PORTER GOSS

Washington

At the Central Intelligence Agency, we are more than holding our own in the global war on terrorism, but we are at risk of losing a key battle: the battle to protect our classified information.

Judge Laurence Silberman, a chairman of President Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said he was "stunned" by the damage done to our critical intelligence assets by leaked information. The commission reported last March that in monetary terms, unauthorized disclosures have cost America hundreds of millions of dollars; in security terms, of course, the cost has been much higher. Part of the problem is that the term "whistleblower" has been misappropriated. The sharp distinction between a whistleblower and someone who breaks the law by willfully compromising classified information has been muddied.

As a member of Congress in 1998, I sponsored the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act to ensure that current or former employees could petition Congress, after raising concerns within their respective agency, consistent with the need to protect classified information.

Exercising one's rights under this act is an appropriate and responsible way to bring questionable practices to the attention of those in Congress charged with oversight of intelligence agencies. And it works. Government employees have used statutory procedures — including internal channels at their agencies — on countless occasions to correct abuses without risk of retribution and while protecting information critical to our national defense.

On the other hand, those who choose to bypass the law and go straight to the press are not noble, honorable or patriotic. Nor are they whistleblowers. Instead they are committing a criminal act that potentially places American lives at risk. It is unconscionable to compromise national security information and then seek protection as a whistleblower to forestall punishment.

 

By odd coincidence we had cited this law and made a similar point a while back (but we used more than  three paragraphs) - there is a legal way to "blow the whistle" on abuse in the intel community, and running to the NY Times is not it.

A certain side of the Plame debate will find this next bit to be heartening.  My fingers are in my ears:

Revelations of intelligence successes or failures, whether accurate or not, can aid Al Qaeda and its global affiliates in many ways. A leak is invaluable to them, even if it only, say, prematurely confirms whether one of their associates is dead or alive. They can gain much more: these disclosures can tip the terrorists to new technologies we use, our operational tactics, and the identities of brave men and women who risk their lives to assist us.

Goss tackles the story about Osama ending his use of his satellite phone:

Recently, I noticed renewed debate in the news media over press reports in 1998 that Osama bin Laden's satellite phone was being tracked by United States intelligence officials. In the recent debate, it was taken for granted that the original reports did not hurt our national security efforts, and any suggestions that they did cause damage were dismissed as urban myth. But the reality is that the revelation of the phone tracking was, without question, one of the most egregious examples of an unauthorized criminal disclosure of classified national defense information in recent years. It served no public interest. Ultimately, the bin Laden phone went silent.

Hmm, the critics will hammer this - both Glenn Kessler of the WaPo pointed out that there had been prior reports of Osama's phone habits, and David Benjamin of Slate notes that the Washington Times reporter in 1998 had never been asked to hold the story 9and never thought to ask, it seems).

Well - for any who doubted, the Times seems to be in the crosshairs:

I take seriously my agency's responsibility to protect our national security. Unauthorized disclosures undermine our efforts and abuse the trust of the people we are sworn to protect. Since becoming director, I have filed criminal reports with the Department of Justice because of such compromises. That department is committed to working with us to investigate these cases aggressively. In addition, I have instituted measures within the agency to further safeguard the integrity of classified data.

Comments

[Jim E.]

I'm well aware that Porter Goss says that the wiretapping disclosures have damaged national security. I'm still not clear on *how* national security was actually damaged. Biden brought up this very point with the Attorney General, and look at the tepidness of the AG's "I'm just a lawyer" response:

BIDEN: General, how has this revelation damaged the program?

I'm almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaida folks didn't think we were intercepting their phone calls.

I mean, I'm a little confused. How did it damage this?

GONZALES: Well, Senator, I would first refer to the experts in the Intel Committee who are making that statement, first of all. I'm just the lawyer.

And so, when the director of the CIA says this should really damage our intel capabilities, I would defer to that statement. I think, based on my experience, it is true -- you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance.

But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.

(LAUGHTER)
---------
That's their best answer??

[Appalled Moderate]

Jim E:

I don't think you'd want a precise description of how we think our intelligence was compromised. It might end up compromising more intelligence.

[Extraneus]

Don't you folks find it constraining to argue that since you don't personally understand exactly how, it's questionable and even amusing for the Director of the CIA to claim that disclosures of secret national security programs might help terrorists plot your death? Why take this angle when it's so obviously weak?

[PaulV]

Jim E.,
Just because you and Biden lack imagination does not mean that everyone does. Having seen Biden's grades we know he took the place of a more qualified woman or minority in law school. If as Biden supposes AQ had stopped using electronic communication why do you think NSA has put so much effort into intercepting the communication. Biden is stuck on stupid, I hope you are not.

[epphan]

Thanks, Jim E., I didn't realize Goss was a flat-out liar. Will he be attending Friday night's meeting with Cheney and Bush and Scooter and the Ghost of Nixon?

[Jim E.]

"Just because you and Biden lack imagination does not mean that everyone does."

OK, so tell me how the knowledge of warrentless wiretaps harms national security.

[Jim E.]

"I didn't realize Goss was a flat-out liar."

Of course, i didn't write that.

[skinnydog]

Why is it so hard to figure out that damage might be done? Does anyone think that al Qaida has stopped using phones for communication? What are they using carrier pigeons?

Aren't they likley trying to use intermediaries to make calls or finding ways to route calls so that they think we can't intercept them? Are we going to find Osama talking about a planned attack--No. Will we hopefully intercept lower level al Qaida simply talking people and then want to check those people out? Aren't there money transaction was want to track or calls about money we want to track? Do we have ways of tracking internet communications or even internet calls that they think we can't track, but we in fact can? If it gets out that we have tracked the communications of a particular al qaida member or cell and the only means of communication they used were what al Qaida thought was a very specific and secure method then haven't we in fact let al Qaida know that this method is not as safe as they thought?

[Syl]

Jim E

If we told you, we'd have to shoot you.

Whether it bereaves your little heart or not, you'll just have to accept that there are some things you will never know and that there are some things you do not have the right to know.

[clarice]

Since one of the tidbits leaked was that we intercept communications that go thru US owned networks, don't you suppose they now try to use lines not in that path?

[noah]

Seems we have an avis rara on our hands here. Jim E. the savage critic of Plame's "outing" who will accept no amount of assurance that damage to national security was minimal but clearcut lawbreaking by Risen, et al, will I am sure be excused by same (already has by Risen) because it has served his political interest. I guess tho hypocrisy is prevalent all over so not so rare after all.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

After reading, for the last two years, from the likes of Melissa Boyle Mahle, Ray McGovern, Admiral Stansfield Turner, and Larry Johnson, that leaks are comperable to treason, why is Joe Biden stepping up to defend them?

But can we stop beating up Martin Seiff for the Bin Laden-Sat Phone story. Daniel Benjamin has a groupthink conscience dilemna.

[Lew Clark]

From what I understand from a particular side of the discussion, only one leak damaged national security. That was outing our number one spy, Valerie Plame. But couldn't Goss promote agent 99 to replace Valerie Smart, and then, with intensive training of agent 99, wouldn't we be ok again?

Cause all the other leaks were whistleblowers. Engaged in the noble cause of protecting the civil rights of known terrorists. In the view of Sen Biden "I may disagree with you blowing up my local elementary school, but I will fight to the death (not mine some other people) to protect your civil rights to do so without interference."

[Jim E.]

skinnydog and clarice,

Nothing you said demonstrates the difference between wiretaps *without* warrants as opposed to wiretaps *with* warrents. Try again.

noah,
Actually, I've never jumped into the fray regarding whether or not Plame was in fact covert. So you are wrong about me. But now that you mention it, it is interesting how hypocritical the other posters here are because now they seem to trust the proclamations coming out of the CIA now that it suits their political needs. I thought the CIA was not to be trusted and that it lied about things that undermined national security, such as the outing of agents. Hypocrisy, indeed.

[Jim E.]

I am a little surprised at how touchy people are about my question. It was, after all, just a question. I didn't call Goss a liar. In fact, it is TM's main post, not my comment, that raises eyebrows as to Goss's trustworthiness--the part about Bin Laden's phone use.

No one has yet even imaginatively tried to explain the how the disclosure of the NSA program has harmed national security. The AG laughably said that without media coverage, Al Quada might forget about wiretaps. Will anyone defend that statement? Because if so, I suppose any media report about U.S. technology and wiretaps is harming national security. Do sports stories about the (legal) wiretapping of Wayne Gretzky harm national security, too?

The question is not about wiretaps, but WARRENTLESS wiretaps.

[Syl]

Jim E

You make a common mistake. 'The CIA' is not always 'The CIA'. There are factions within--it is not one monolithic body.

[boris]

the difference between wiretaps *without* warrants as opposed to wiretaps *with* warrents

The ability to defeat surveillance with a warrant is much easier than defeating surveillance without. This is so obvious.

It's far better to have the enemy making risky assumptions than helping them with accurate information.

Does knowing where the speedtraps are help the habitual speeder? Of course. So how is that possible since everybody already knows speedtraps exist.

Does knowing that the new radar speed detectors used by traffic police are invisible to the older fuzbusters help the habitual speeder. Of course. Time for an upgrade. Time to avoid the speedtraps.

Taking advantage of the enemy's mistakes is an essential element of combat. Providing the enemy maximum latitude to make mistakes is always preferred.

[Sue]

It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[boris]

I'll be your huckleberry

[Syl]

Jim E

Let me give you a hint from another direction. Even jihadis follow the rules. Their own rules, of course, but they are rules nevertheless.

One of them has to do with the covenant they have with host countries. If you are a citizen of a non-Islamic country, this covenant protects you from undue hasslement and you, in return, support your cause only outside the host country. In other words, you give money, training, logistics, to carry out terrorist attacks everywhere but inside your own host country. Other jihadists who are not citizens or legal immigrants can, of course, attack inside the host country.

This covenant Islamist radicals have with their host countries in the West is breaking down. Part of that breakdown was illustrated in London in July of 2005. If you read the interview with the jihadist recruiter in Britain (Butt), he lays out this covenant and says it would be a mistake for Brit jihadists to attack inside Britain because they would then break the covenant and lose their protection.

Well, they attcked anyway. But only after one of their revered clerics said it was okay because he felt the British government was beginning to hassle them too much.

And there's the rub. Leave the homegrown jihadists alone and they may not attack you. Start surveilling them beyond a level they expect and it is consered harrassment and cause to break the covenant.

The covenant is breaking down inside America too and this NSA surveillance 'without court order' may just be the last straw.

This effect of the NSA leak may or may not be extremely significant. But it is an effect, nevertheless, and just shows how little people have really thought about the elements of jihad and the framework they operate in.

[Sue]

::grin::

You're a daisy if you do.

[Jim E.]

Syl,
All of the 9/11 hijackers were in the U.S. illegally?

[Jim E.]

Syl,
My above question is *not* asked with hostility. It is a factual question I do not know the answer to.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Jim E.: I think the problem you face is in fact answered by Alberto Gonzales. He is JUST THE LAWYER. Biden's question is best suited for the intelligence communities' Hill hoppers.

[Syl]

Jim E

The ones here 'legally' came to America only for the purpose of the attack. They did not come here, then turn to jihad later.

[Rick Ballard]

Syl,

They lied about the purpose of their visit on their visa applications. The fact that the DoS was running a "we don't ever have time to check on Arabs" visa grant program doesn't make their entry any less illegal.

Making a false statement on a visa application renders the visa invalid - they were here illegally.

[Jim E.]

Well, in any case, I think the terrorist-covenent thing is pretty dubious. Wiretaps with warrents would not have gotten any media coverage and the terrorists would have been none the wiser. Still, I do appreciate Syl's explanation because it at least attempts a straight-faced answer to my question. Thank you.

Does this mean you have to kill me now?

[Syl]

Jim E

Wiretaps with warrents would not have gotten any media coverage and the terrorists would have been none the wiser.

And wiretaps without warrants wouldn't have gotten any media coverage if there had been no leak.

We have a couple of cases of homegrown jihadis planning attacks inside America--Padilla for one. But most of those we know of who have been arrested have been involved in training or support of attacks abroad.

As to the covenant thing being 'dubious', American jihadis are being recruited in prisons, and there is plenty of reason to believe there are plenty of American jihadis mixed with the population. So how come so few attempted attacks by Americans inside America?

I'm sure there are several reasons, but the 'covenant' certainly is part of it.

[PaulV]

Jim E.,
OBL use Saudis because it was easier for them to get visas and to try to put a wedge between the US and Saudi Arabia. The second part has backfired on him because we were able to move US troops out of SA into Iraq and the huge losses AQ has suffered to SA crackdown on them. Another test for your imagination for you. Many intelligent people think that warrantless searches are important in defending the American people. Do you think they have no reason for that. THe answer is on a need to know basis. If too many people know a secret it no longer is a secret. What is your need to know? What is your security clearance? What are security clearances of everyone that wants to know.

[Syl]

Jim E

LOL

No, I don't have to kill you. ;)

(not yet, anyway)

[Martin A. Knight]

Jim E., I defy you to find me anybody who has ever written and filed a FISA Warrant application successfully in 72 hours.

A cite will do.

Now imagine having to do thirteen within the same timeframe.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Jim E., since we neither know what AQ's comms procedures have been, nor exactly what the program did, it's damn near impossible to tell you exactly how disclosing the intercept program damaged our operational intelligence efforts with AQ. Sorry.

You might consider, however, how you would react if you were AQ, had been using say "disposable" prepay cellphones, and found out that you no longer had some days of use before the bureaucratic procedures could be satisfied and the phone could be intercepted.

[Rick Ballard]

"No, I don't have to kill you. ;)"

Better check that with Jack Bauer.

[Tongueboy]

OK, so tell me how the knowledge of warrentless wiretaps harms national security.

If you were really interested in an accurate assessment, you would ask that question of a member of the professional intelligence community. My guess is that he/she would then provide a brief, but none-too-specific, lecture about sources and methods after which he/she would politely ask you to shut your piehole. But that's just a guess.

Or it could be that you are just baiting Tom's ignorant minions because you are yourself a member of said professional intelligence community and just know their assessment of the damage is flat wrong. If so, please inform us -- without disclosing national security secrets, of course -- why the disclosure of the Al Qaeda signals intelligence program does not compromise national security. If you cannot, I would be inclined to agree with the hypothetical member of the professional intelligence community as to your best course of action going forward. If nothing else, it would save you further embarrassment.

[TexasToast]

Interesting thing about all this - if the Bush crowd didn't give us example after example as to why they were untrustworthy, this would be a lay down hand - but they keep "spinning" even after the truth surfaces - again and again and again.

They keep saying trust us - but keep proving why they are untrustworthy.

[cathyf]

The AG laughably said that without media coverage, Al Quada might forget about wiretaps. Will anyone defend that statement?

Sure, I’ll bite. Perhaps if the Japanese had believed what they read in the papers we wouldn’t have won WWII. From http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/schoenfeld0306advance.html> "Has the New York Times Violated the Espionage Act?" by Gabriel Schoenfeld:

Although it has gone almost entirely undiscussed, the issue of leaking vital government secrets in wartime remains of exceptional relevance to this entire controversy, as it does to our very security. There is a rich history here that can help shed light on the present situation.

One of the most pertinent precedents is a newspaper story that appeared in the Chicago Tribune on June 7, 1942, immediately following the American victory in the battle of Midway in World War II. In a front-page article under the headline, “Navy Had Word of Jap Plan to Strike at Sea,” the Tribune disclosed that the strength and disposition of the Japanese fleet had been “well known in American naval circles several days before the battle began.” The paper then presented an exact description of the imperial armada, complete with the names of specific Japanese ships and the larger assemblies of vessels to which they were deployed. All of this information was attributed to “reliable sources in . . . naval intelligence.”

The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from the Tribune article was that the United States had broken Japanese naval codes and was reading the enemy’s encrypted communications. Indeed, cracking JN-25, as it was called, had been one of the major Allied triumphs of the Pacific war, laying bare the operational plans of the Japanese Navy almost in real time and bearing fruit not only at Midway -- a great turning point of the war -- but in immediately previous confrontations, and promising significant advantages in the terrible struggles that still lay ahead. Its exposure, a devastating breach of security, thus threatened to extend the war indefinitely and cost the lives of thousands of American servicemen.

An uproar ensued in those quarters in Washington that were privy to the highly sensitive nature of the leak. The War Department and the Justice Department raised the question of criminal proceedings against the Tribune under the Espionage Act of 1917. By August 1942, prosecutors brought the paper before a federal grand jury. But fearful of alerting the Japanese, and running up against an early version of what would come to be known as graymail, the government balked at providing jurors with yet more highly secret information that would be necessary to demonstrate the damage done.

Thus, in the end, the Tribune managed to escape criminal prosecution. For their part, the Japanese either never got wind of the story circulating in the United States or were so convinced that their naval codes were unbreakable that they dismissed its significance. In any case, they left them unaltered, and their naval communications continued to be read by U.S. and British cryptographers until the end of the war.

cathy :-)

[maryrose]

texastoast What exactly are they spinning about? what have they been untrustworthy on. Everyone thought WMD were in Iraq-for all we know they were moved to Syria or Libya. What other untruths have you mustered up to complain about?

[larwyn]

Same book, different chapter:

CLINTONISTAS GOING AFTER CURT WELDON TO STOP ABLE DANGER'S TRUTHS
FROM GETTING OUT

From AbleDangerBlog today:
snip

....Bryan Lentz, 41, a Swarthmore attorney who volunteered for combat in Iraq, agreed to pull out of the race for the seat of U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon, and run instead for the state House, against Thomas P. Gannon, a 28-year Republican veteran.

Joseph A. Sestak Jr., 54, a recently retired Navy vice admiral who worked in the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, has the inside track to take on Weldon in November.

Paul Scoles, who ran against Weldon in 2004, also quit the race this week and endorsed Sestak. Anyone who has been involved in local politics knows getting two candidates to drop out in one week almost never happens. Someone is worried where this Able Danger story is headed.

A commenter suggests contributing to Curt Weldon's campaign -if you want the Able Danger story to come out. If Weldon loses in November - chances are it will be dropped.

I agree with that.
Rep Curt Weldon
Click here: Able Danger Blog
AbleDangerBlog

That the CLINTONISTAS are beside themselves to
stop the Able Danger story is no surprise.
Nancy Soderberg showed up on Tucker Carlson last night
after long hiatus from cameras after her stunning remark
to Jon Stewart during her book tour.

When Stewart remarked that after the success of the 1st
election in Iraq - "What if Bush is right! My world view (paraphase) would be shattered"
Soderberg responded" We still have Iran and North Korea".

Last night Soderberg told us that Clinton had done a
better job on terrorism than Bush is doing!!!!

So they are sending in the low level troops and Albright's
buddy Wendy also showed up again after long hiatus, on
either CNN or MSNBC.

Their A list is busy with convincing Americans that
the NSA & CIA jails/renditions leaks were by "whistleblowers" and that Plame was covert and that
Bush lied about WMD.

Hope many will support Curt Weldon - we need him
in Congress.

[Extraneus]

I wonder if the Feds have figured out a way to handle the graymail defense in the case of the NYT. Seems pretty cut and dried when you read the statutes, but of course there must be more to their planned defense than "They couldn't convince us that this would hurt national security, and considering how many people say Bush was technically violating some sort of law, we figured we'd print it even though we'd read the Espionage Act and Title 18-798 and knew we might be screwed."

(Good post, Cathy. That was an excellent article.)

[cathyf]

I don't know how much greymail room the NYT has on this one. First of all, there's the issue that during WWII the laws were not nearly as specific, so that these things were going to generate lots of litigation. After the war they wrote statutes specifically designed to remove the ambiguity. So the NYT's fig leaf is a lot smaller than the Tribune's was in 1942. And there has been a much bigger s***storm around this story than there was in 1942 -- even though the story was published the Japanese in fact didn't seem to get the message, and the government knew this because they knew that the Japanese were continuing to act like they thought their codes were secure. So in the 1942 case the government knew that drawing more attention to the story in fact would make a difference and make the leak worse. In this case it's hard to imagine that any prosecution would draw any more attention to the story than the NYT has already drawn without government help. And finally, we have some better procedures for holding closed proceedings and doing a far more limited disclosure during a trial and have less patience for greymail.

I think that Risen and the NYT are in pretty hot water. Especially if there is another attack somewhere and people accuse the NYT of being an accessory. Then there will be relatives of the dead holding nasty protests in front of the NYT offices, and all of their politician buddies will desert them in, as they say, a New York Minute.

cathy :-)

[Rick Ballard]

I wonder what sort of liability tail the NYT would be dragging around if the government stated (subsequent to an attack) "we had those guys under surveillance until the day after the Risen article appeared" subsequent to an attack?

Ah, the excitng life of a liability underwriter. So many things to think of.

[Rick Ballard]

Damned Preeviw.

[Cecil Turner]

If you were really interested in an accurate assessment, you would ask that question of a member of the professional intelligence community.

If you're looking for how it impacted subsequent intercepts, that'd be the right person to go to. But they aren't going to answer that one, so it's a waste of time. If you're wondering how it could help 'em, ask an operator. And as it happens . . .

I can't count the number of exercises I've been in where the OpFor comm weenies intercepted our communications and debriefed us. (Generally: here's the links we monitored successfully, here's the info we got.) Why was that helpful? 1) It told us our CommSec procedures needed work; and 2) it highlighted the links at risk. Knowing their comm might be monitored is not the same thing as telling them they were intercepted successfully. The idea that this isn't helpful to them is absurd. Further, this issue can only continue to hurt liberals, as it becomes glaringly obvious they're clueless on national defense every time they discuss it. (And Biden would have been well-served to use Gonzalez's "I'm just a lawyer" line, rather than holding forth with such nonsense.)

[Gary Maxwell]

I am thinking the court should invoke the Arthur Andersen remedy on the NYT. It worked well in the Enron case, all the other accounting firms shaped up once the Marine Corps of the profession was eliminated. Lets try it in the journo world.

[Neo]

The whole thing sounded pretty good until I got to this line ...

A view broadly held in the United States and even more so overseas was that deterrence of Iraq was working, that Saddam was being kept "in his box," and that the best way to deal with the weapons problem was through an aggressive inspections program to supplement the sanctions already in place.

It was quite obvious from this statement that the CIA doesn't spy on the UN.

The "box" was falling apart under the Clinton Administration and continued so under Bush 43. The whole Oil For Food scandal points out the many ways that the "box" was becoming virtually non-existent. Even the French and Russians were looking forward to making even more when the sanctions were removed. Talk about revisionist history, wow !!

The unspoken strategy exercised by that Bush White House following the 9/11 attack was simply ... settle all scores. This meant Afghanistan, of course, but it meant even more so Iraq, even if the intelligence function was inverted.

The "ceasefire" from the 1991 war was frayed. The cat and mouse of the "no-fly" zones with missiles fired and missile launchers destroyed showed that Sadaam was thumbing his nose. This war needed to be finished, not held in eternal "ceasefire."

The CIA seems to have a myopic view of the political universe. First, they are not at the center. Secondly, WMD was just one of the many reasons in the Congressional resolution for (the resumption of) the war with Iraq and therefore the need for CIA inteligence analysis. Policy is not driven by intelligence, and there was a new policy .. Watch out for the Big Stick.

[maryrose]

DiGenova and Benveniste on the Situation Room Digenova presents Libby 's ability to share declassified info as Ok and any superiors are allowed to give him permission to talk to reporters. Says Fitz has had the info for 3 years and has not charged anyone with any violation. Benveniste of course disagrees and feels it was wrong dragging Plame's name in and is rebuked by Digenova as being off topic.

[maryrose]

Neo- Speak softly and carry a big stick-good old TR Bush reminds me of him in a way.

[larwyn]

On CNN Paul Pillar went into the song and dance of Cheney's misleading on Iraq's nuclear program.

What has happened to all the reports on the Lybian nuclear program that is was a co-op venture
with Saddam not only suppling OFF scammed $$$$$ but 42 NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS????

This from the Pincus column:
"The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Clarice has great post at American
Thinker on Mr. Pillar.

But I still ask - where is the info
on Saddam's 42 Iraqi Nuclear scientists working in Lybia on their program????

[maryrose]

New Rules: all former employees sworn to secrecy for 5 years after leaving the administration. Every time someone leaves they feel compelled to shoot their mouths off about what they don't like and then -write a book Be quiet already and go find a new job.

[larwyn]

LIBYA not LYBIA!

[clarice]

Pillar is the gormless idiot who said terrorism wasn't such a big deal--More Americans died in bathtubs than by terrorism.
He also wanted the intelligence services--in contravention of the Constitution--to be independent of the executive. In other words, these unelected incompetents would be in charge of national defense.

Every ex agency whiner will be crying on Pincus' shoulders on the front pages of the Wash Post from now thru the election.

And yes, Larwyn, I see the Dems have wheeled out that creaky spokewmoan Soderberg again. All part of their new push to prove they do TOO care. (Is this all a Clintonista or a DNC effort?)

[Sue]

I read the article on Mr. Pillar and was struck by the cherry picking that was done to write the story about cherry picking. There ought to be a law against cherry picking.

[maryrose]

Nancy Soderberg last night on some show " we are not safer since 9-11. I'm tired of that tired expression. We are safer-no thanks to you Nancy . Uh Oh another in-
effective Nancy.

[richard mcenroe]

Gary Maxwell — The NY Times the Marines? Not hardly, pilgrim. More like the complacent, out of shape, half-trained garrison troops MacArthur splashed on the teeth of the North Koreans in 1950...

[kim]

I think G meant AA as the grunts.

Why does it sound like Paul Pillar is speaking from the bottom of the ocean?
============================================

[kim]

What, might I ask, is to prevent our combined intelligence capabilities from becoming politicidal?

Warping the intelligence by repeatedly asking questions? Maybe the questions had to be repeated because the answers were not only lacking in substance, but were contradictory. Business as usual, perhaps, under Clinton, but not adequate for understanding what was going on in the world. I can only hope that Goss finds an effluent of adequate volume to sanitize the stables.

Who's to keep them clean? Well, Rice, who else?

A big opportunity was missed in the investigation and prosecution of Berger to demand candid answers from Clinton's national security team, an opportunity that may not come again.
================================================

[maryrose]

I agree Kim, that whole Berger fiasco was swept under the rug pretty quickly.

[kim]

I repeat, he only risked the shame he should have gotten and didn't, in order to conceal some large foul up in national security, the knowledge of which would probably contribute to our security still. I say, string him up by his thumbs, barefoot. And I don't say that lightly. Please don't let it be necessary for historians to painfully reconstruct that and just as painfully contend with each other about it.

What is it. Tell us.
=======================================

[kim]

Dollars to doughnuts it's foreknowledge of 9/11, knowledge that was treated as blithely as the rest of Bill's foreign policy.

Bah, humbug, why must just it be speculation? That Sunshine Patriot. He and his.

I'm going to be sick.
=============================================

[Gary Maxwell]

Richard

You either misread or more likely I was perfectly unclear. No sir the Marines reference was to Arthur Andersen. Anyone in the CPA profession referred to them in this manner. They were the straight arrows, and so it is even more amazing that they were the ones tripped up by the Enron mess. The NYT is more likely the dockside Merchant Marines trying to get their leaky boat seaworthy again.

[clarice]

Anderson was "tripped up" by an over zealous prosecutor, a ridiculous federal obstruction statute, and a judge who permitted jury instructions so outrageous anyone of us could be convicted under that statute. It was vacated by the SCOTUS but only after this fine company went under and its 39,000 employees put out on the street.

[Lou Grant]

"Inquiry Into Wiretapping Article Widens

By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: February 12, 2006

WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 — Federal agents have interviewed officials at several of the country's law enforcement and national security agencies in a rapidly expanding criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding a New York Times article published in December that disclosed the existence of a highly classified domestic eavesdropping program, according to government officials."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/politics/12inquire.html?ei=5094&en=bec57e8374e374e4&hp=&ex=1139720400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

[Gary Maxwell]

Can we get the same judge and the same jury instructions for the NYT?

[clarice]

When I can get off my duff, I'm writing an article on the Libby obstruction charge. I'll post it when it's up--

[clarice]

Does the FISA Court count as a national security agency? If not, I suggest this be added to the list--

[Extraneus]

The NYT suggests a defense in Inquiry Into Wiretapping Article Widens:

For news organizations, the inquiry threatens the confidentiality of sources and the ability to report on controversial national security issues free of government interference.

and, naturally,

There is an extremely strong public interest in this information, and the public has the right to understand this controversial and possibly unconstitutional public policy.

Bring it on, AG.

(Is he the first one whose initials = the title, btw?)

[clarice]

They are clinging to the hope that there's a commn law right to protect sources. So did Pincus and he's appealing a contempt citation. Such a case will be brought here, and the Court isn't buying it.
Here's my quick take. http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4434

Macsmind says Rockefeller is in big trouble and his aides have been talking.

[maryrose]

IF Rockefeller is found to have leaked information will he be censored by the Senate?

[kim]

When Rove saw Cheney's copy of Rockefeller's note he said "Let's keep it and use it if he doesn't".
===================================================

[clarice]

At a minimum he'll lose his security clearance and seat on the Intel Committee. I'd expect he'd be censored. He may even be indicted.

[Rick Ballard]

He's a Democrat. Democrats don't get censured, they get re-elected (in WV).

Unless they're in Leavenworth.

[clarice]

censored..censured..Maestro:After Midnight, please..

I think the DoJ is serious about this. Being censured may be the least of his problems..Harman's already setting out the defense--there was no other way to deal with this..I think at least one and maybe more FISA jusdes may also be in trouble.

[clarice]

JUDGES..*urgh* talk about your hands losing their cunning..

[kim]

Well, Harmon knows she's wrong that this was the only way to deal with this. That's the deliciousness of Jay's little note to himself, documenting his self endowed impotence.
==============================================

[Aaron]

Jim E,

Why not spend some time thinking about what you would do if you knew they could track your cell phone...

Hmmm, perhaps VOIP, or use encrypted e-mail, messages in porn photos...etc.

Zarkawi also uses PGP software I believe.

So, if it is revealed with enough info to explain it, obviously they just change methods.