|
Flashback to January 24, 2006
|
| “
|
Exposure
Did the New York Times break the law with its wire-tapping story?
IS THE New York Times a law unto itself? When the Times published its
December 16 exposé of the secret National Security Agency
electronic surveillance of al Qaeda-related communications, reporters
James Risen and Eric Lichtblau noted that they had granted anonymity to
the "nearly a dozen current and former officials" who were the sources
for the story. Risen and Lichtblau stated that they had granted these
sources anonymity "because of the classified nature of the program."
Implicit in the Times's rationale is the recognition that leaks of such
classified information are illegal.
That recognition is, of course, correct. Section 793 of the federal
espionage law prohibits authorized persons possessing "information
relating to the national defense which information the possessor has
reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or
to the advantage of any foreign nation . . . " from disclosing it to
persons not entitled to it. Section 798 of the espionage law prohibits
the disclosure of classified communications intelligence activities to
unauthorized persons "in any manner prejudicial to the safety or
interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign
government to the detriment of the United States . . . " The violation
of these statutes is a felony. Because their disclosures to the Times
may fall within these statues, the "current and former government
officials" referred to in the Risen/Lichtblau story sought the promise
of confidentiality from the Times to protect their identity.
|
” |
I'm
not sure how many joined me in the view that Pinch Sulzberger and Times
mack-a-mucks ought be tried and executed as a timely and warranted
national security marker, but there were some. Ultimately,
it was the failure of the Bush DOJ to prosecute the TIMES traitors, allowing them to escape scot free and sin another day. Which is today. [U.S. Wiretapping of Limited Value, Officials Report].
Powerline assesses Risen and Eric Lichtblau's self-serving reassessment in How much damage did the Times do?
| “
|
The various subsections of the report at pages 31-36 summarize the
classified reports prepared by each of the Inspectors General
individually. I thought it might be useful simply to cull a few quotes
from these pages that are omitted by Risen and Lichtblau in their story
today. (I am typing these quotes myself from the PDF of the report and
apologize in advance for any errors, typographical or otherwise.)
From the NSA Inspector General assessment (pages 31-32): 
Risen and Lichtblau mostly airbrush these assessments out of their
highly selective story today. The reason is obvious. They have a vested
interest in minimizing the damage that their own reporting -- also
unmentioned in today's story -- has done to the national security of
the United States.
Given their own role in this story, the Times shouldn't let Risen and
Lichtblau continue to report on it. They have an obvious conflict of
interest. The conflict is manifested in the lousy job they do fairly
reporting on the IGs' report on the NSA program today. [full] |
” |
|
|
