Slashdot Mirror
Ex-NSA Official Indicted For Leaks To Newspaper
Hugh Pickens writes "The Baltimore Sun reports that in a rare legal action against a government employee accused of leaking secrets, a grand jury has indicted Thomas A. Drake, a former senior National Security Agency official, on charges of providing classified information to a newspaper reporter in hundreds of e-mail messages in 2006 and 2007. Federal law prohibits government employees from disclosing classified information which could be 'expected to cause damage to national security.' The indictment (PDF) does not name either the reporter or the newspaper that received the information, but the description applies to articles written by Siobhan Gorman, then a reporter for The Baltimore Sun, that examined in detail the failings of several major NSA programs, costing billions of dollars, that were plagued with technical flaws and cost overruns. Gorman's stories did not focus on the substance of the electronic intelligence information the agency gathers and analyzes but exposed management and programmatic troubles within the agency."
Adds reader metrometro: "Of note: the government says the alleged NSA mole uses Hushmail, which is all the endorsement I need for a security system." Perhaps Mr. Drake was unaware of Hushmail's past cooperation with the US government?
The information given is also consistent with leaks to the New York Times that destroyed (hopefully temporarily) our ability to move captured enemies safely, and destroyed (probably permanently) our best tools for intercepting enemy financing, and destroyed one of our best tools for monitoring enemy communications. IIRC, there were some other similar leaks. Yeah, the government sometimes uses classification to hide embarrassments, and that should be rooted out. But it also uses classification to undertake its constitutionally mandated duties. For the former, leaks are not the answer: whistleblower statutes and notification of congressmen on the intelligence oversight committees are the answer. For the latter, leaks are treason in time of war, though we seem to have discarded the notion of treason lately at least in terms of prosecuting people for it.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Was he cultivating a member of the press with real info only to leak in something NSA/CIA creative years later? :)
Or he thought the NSA does not like to listen for any mention of its projects in US emails
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
From what I know, the exposure of Plame's identity did not "decimate" anything. It ended her effectiveness as an agent.
Basically, you are arguing that two wrongs make a right, specifically that because the bozo who got away with exposing Plame's identity this bozo should not be prosecuted for violating his oath of service and federal law. That is a fallacy. Using that reasoning, no murderer should ever be prosecuted because other murderers have gotten away with their crimes.
The Plame incident is not related to this incident. Two separate incidents, two separate crimes, two separate perpetrators, two separate trials.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Then, what exactly did you mean by "Can anyone say Valerie Plame?"
So, your idea of a direct relationship is "They both involve leaked information"? That is all it takes? Well, hell, we can just give everyone ever convicted of passing on classified information a pardon. /sarcasm
Again, you are arguing using a fallacy, specifically, two wrongs make a right.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
That is not what you said, nor is it what your original post implies.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
It is not hypocrisy. If the two cases were similar, which they are not, then you might have an argument. As it is, it appears Libby was authorized by the President to release the information. Libby did not break the law in that regard. He was tried for obstruction of justice and perjury.
As Drake was not authorized release the information and Libby apparently was authorized, the cases are not similar, let alone the same.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I am afraid you need a refresher in reading comprehension and a course in logic. The program you mention "had the promise of collecting communications while protecting Americans' privacy" but it does not say that any information he provided showed a violation of anyone's privacy nor does it say that the information he provided showed any injustice. Evidence for (or against) one thing is not evidence against (or for) something else.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That is also a false dichotomy and a red herring. If the NYT stated that person A did thing X and Wikipedia said person B, not person A, did thing X, then I would believe the NYT over Wikipedia. If the NYT stated what you claim, then I would require independent validation of such an extraordinary claim and event.
So, Boosh back at you, dumbass.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.