The Justice Dept. will investigate who leaked the NSA spying (1 Viewer)

[aps]

The rumors have been that it was an intelligence professional who leaked the warrantless wiretapping. Does anyone have any suspicions?


Justice Dept. to probe leak of spy program

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10651154/

 

[Stinger]

The rumors have been that it was an intelligence professional who leaked the warrantless wiretapping. Does anyone have any suspicions?


Justice Dept. to probe leak of spy program

Leaky Leahy? Pelosi? Reid?

Someone who puts their political agenda above the security of the country.

 

[TimmyBoy]

The rumors have been that it was an intelligence professional who leaked the warrantless wiretapping. Does anyone have any suspicions?


Justice Dept. to probe leak of spy program

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10651154/

I am sure it was or somebody, probably from the NSA. The problem is that the Justice Department is opening an investigation on the wrong people. They should be opening up an investigation on Bush to determine if he violated the 4th amendment by ordering warrantless searches. Bush should be the one who is under investigation in my view. Whether it be a Congressional investigation or an investigation conducted by the Justice Department. It is as if their is no concern or doubts or questions about the possibility that the Bush Adminstration has violated the 4th amendment and thus threatened the preservation of, the integrity of the constitution, the freedom and democracy of the United States. Their seems to be no concern whatsoever about how Bush could be threatening freedom and democracy and tearing up the Constitution, amazingly, very little concern that this could be the case. The only concern is finding out who told about Bush's possible violation of the 4th amendment. Very little regard for the constitution and the ideals of freedom that this country is founded on.

 

[Lefty]

Leaky Leahy? Pelosi? Reid?

Someone who puts their political agenda above the security of the country.

I'm still not sure how leaking this is hurting national security. How is knowing that our government is knowingly and actively breaking the law a bad thing? I am glad someone leaked this information because I respect democracy and our Constitution, and so should the executive branch of government. The Justice Department is investigating the wrong thing here. The law has been broken, and the Constitution is slowly being pushed away. There is no excuse for anyone breaking the law, and those responsible should be held accountable.

 

[oldreliable67]

TimmyBoy: "The problem is that the Justice Department is opening an investigation on the wrong people. "

In this context, the DoJ opens an investigation when requested to do so by an agency that does not have investigative powers. In the same way that the CIA requested the DoJ investigate the leak of classified info with regard to the Plame affair, the NSA has now requested an investigation into the disclosing of a classified operation. Neither the CIA nor the NSA have investigative or more importantly, supoena powers, hence the requests to the DoJ.

Lefty: "How is knowing that our government is knowingly and actively breaking the law a bad thing?"

This is an unfounded assertion - it is merely an opinion. Yes, it is an opinion shared by others, but nonetheless, as of this moment and given what is known, it is still merely an unfounded assertion.

Lefty: "There is no excuse for anyone breaking the law, and those responsible should be held accountable."

Absolutely. In order to do so - hold those responsible accountable - there must first be a determination as to wrongdoing and whose is responsible. The DoJ investigation may produce evidence to do so, but until then, there is still a presumption of innocence.

 

[TimmyBoy]

TimmyBoy: "The problem is that the Justice Department is opening an investigation on the wrong people. "

In this context, the DoJ opens an investigation when requested to do so by an agency that does not have investigative powers. In the same way that the CIA requested the DoJ investigate the leak of classified info with regard to the Plame affair, the NSA has now requested an investigation into the disclosing of a classified operation. Neither the CIA nor the NSA have investigative or more importantly, supoena powers, hence the requests to the DoJ.

I appreciate your elaboration, but what really matters, and a fair question to ask, is who will investigate Bush's possible violation of the 4th amendment and why hasn't their been such an investigation of Bush? I would think their should be some kind of investigation of Bush to be sure, that he has not overstepped his bounds and violated the 4th amendment. I think such an investigation is perfectly fair.

 

[Lefty]

Lefty: "How is knowing that our government is knowingly and actively breaking the law a bad thing?"

This is an unfounded assertion - it is merely an opinion. Yes, it is an opinion shared by others, but nonetheless, as of this moment and given what is known, it is still merely an unfounded assertion.

Lefty: "There is no excuse for anyone breaking the law, and those responsible should be held accountable."

Absolutely. In order to do so - hold those responsible accountable - there must first be a determination as to wrongdoing and whose is responsible. The DoJ investigation may produce evidence to do so, but until then, there is still a presumption of innocence.

Actually, it's not an unfounded assertion, the president admitted that he had ordered the wiretapping. You may still assert that it is not clear if he broke the law, but it seems very clear that he did. The 4th Amendment protects us against the very thing our president ordered. And the FISA law in which the president and his lawyers keep citing in their defense, in no way gives the president the power to wiretap whomever he wants without any court oversight. And if the president didn't think he was doing anything wrong, why did he continually lie about the court oversight in previous years? He only admitted that such a program existed because of this leak. The question isn't whether or not the president ordered the wiretappings, since it is clear that he did, but whether or not he had the power to do so. In no way does the president of the United States have the power to ignore the constitution and the law. Believe me, I am the first one to say "innocent until proven guilty," but when the accused admits to the offense brought against him, isn't it still unreasonable to assert his innocence?

 

[TimmyBoy]

Actually, it's not an unfounded assertion, the president admitted that he had ordered the wiretapping. You may still assert that it is not clear if he broke the law, but it seems very clear that he did. The 4th Amendment protects us against the very thing our president ordered. And the FISA law in which the president and his lawyers keep citing in their defense, in no way gives the president the power to wiretap whomever he wants without any court oversight. And if the president didn't think he was doing anything wrong, why did he continually lie about the court oversight in previous years? He only admitted that such a program existed because of this leak. The question isn't whether or not the president ordered the wiretappings, since it is clear that he did, but whether or not he had the power to do so. In no way does the president of the United States have the power to ignore the constitution and the law. Believe me, I am the first one to say "innocent until proven guilty," but when the accused admits to the offense brought against him, isn't it still unreasonable to assert his innocence?

The more I hear Bush defend his actions of warrantless spying, the more it seems he has violated the 4th amendment and I think he took his spy program further than simply listening to any international calls. It seems, that Bush is trying to use secrecy as a means to do whatever he wants without having to face accountability like everybody else. And when he gets caught, he tries to make up legal justifications out of thin air that do not exist in the written laws of the land. The fact that the Justice Department hasn't openned an investigation on Bush into possible violations of the 4th amendment while at the same time opening an investigation that was requested by the NSA into who leaked what, leaves me with the impression that their is no concern for the 4th amendment, the constitution or the rule of law when it comes to the NSA and the Bush Adminstration, makes me wonder if the constitution and the rule of law really matters and if everything is just a sham. It's like this "I am the government, I am strongest, because I am strongest, I get to do whatever I want, even if it is illegal and what are you going to do about it? Might makes right. That is where the legality and power comes from doing whatever I want to do without being held fairly accountable like everybody else. Because I am strongest and might makes right. The law is a something I write on a scrap of paper and toss when I choose to and apply to others only when it suits my best interests while not applying those same laws to myself like I do to others." This is the message of the Bush Adminstration.

 

[TimmyBoy]

I like this case, because it demonstrates clearly, clear as day, that George Orwell was correct. That we do not live in a free society and that 2 + 2 = 5 in American society, meaning that when you examine the facts of the situation in America and draw conclusions from the facts, we see that America is not a free society but yet, politicans will talk good game about how "free" America is thus making 2+2 = 5. The good game that politicans talk on TV do not add up with the facts. If politicans were honest, straight up and came out and talked about how unfree we really are and that most americans would fess up to this fact, then we could say that American society goes by the logical mathematical rule that 2+2 = 4. The facts would add up to their talk. But the vast majority of American society is brainwashed and has a false impression of their own country and society. It shows, that in fact, we live in a dictatorship that doesn't respect the rule of law similar to the nation of Oceania in George Orwell's book and that we are tricked into thinking we are "free" when in fact we live in an unjustly overly controlled society.

 

[aps]

TimmyBoy and Lefty, Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University Law professor stated the following on Keith Olbermann's Countdown:

OLBERMANN: Which is the most troubling question of the many questions that the eavesdropping program raised for you?

TURLEY: Well, I think the most troubling question is the operation itself. I don't believe that this is a close issue. I think federal law is perfectly clear. It is a crime. This president ordered officials, some who opposed this program, to engage in surveillance without a court order. That's a crime.

Now, the suggestion that other presidents may have done it is not very persuasive. Saying you have precedent for a crime doesn't help much.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10639895/


Scooter Libby: Yes, your honor, I lied to the grand jury. So what? So did Clinton. Doesn't that get me off the hook?

Scott Peterson: Yes I killed my pregnant wife. So what? So did Mark Hacking. Doesn't that mean I'm innocent?

:lol:

 

[cnredd]

I'm still not sure how leaking this is hurting national security. How is knowing that our government is knowingly and actively breaking the law a bad thing? I am glad someone leaked this information because I respect democracy and our Constitution, and so should the executive branch of government. The Justice Department is investigating the wrong thing here. The law has been broken, and the Constitution is slowly being pushed away. There is no excuse for anyone breaking the law, and those responsible should be held accountable.

If someone is breaking the law and you feel the need to whistleblow, you go to the Dept. of Justice to make your case...

Not the New York Times to secretly leak it...:roll:

 

[aps]

If someone is breaking the law and you feel the need to whistleblow, you go to the Dept. of Justice to make your case...

Not the New York Times to secretly leak it...:roll:

Well, when the Dept. of Justice is a co-conspirator and condones the warrantless wiretapping, that pretty much takes away that option.

 

[Lefty]

If someone is breaking the law and you feel the need to whistleblow, you go to the Dept. of Justice to make your case...

Not the New York Times to secretly leak it...:roll:

The press serves it's purpose in our nation, it's not just to keep us informed about the little goings-on in our world, but to inform us of abuses of power by our government. We the People are [theoretically] in control of the government. We the People should be well informed of any illegal activities that are perpetrated by the people that we elect to represent us. The person that leaked this information did this nation a great service at personal risk to his or her life. I'm not saying that Bush is going to kill the person that leaked the information, but the way this president conducts character assassinations... this person is putting themselves, and their families (see Plame investigation) at risk.

And besides, can you honestly tell me that the Justice Department wouldn't prosecute the person that came to them and told them about the illegal wiretappings? The Justice Department would point out the program's "classified" status and throw that guy/gal right into prison. You honestly think that the Attorney General, whom argued that the President had the power to authorize such wiretappings, would work with the person that leaked this information? :roll:

 

[cnredd]

Well, when the Dept. of Justice is a co-conspirator and condones the warrantless wiretapping, that pretty much takes away that option.

A co-conspirator now?...:rofl

According to that logic, you're saying that Bush received the OK from the DoJ...which means he shouldn't be taking the blame for any wrongdoing...

Bush: Can I do this?
DoJ: Yes you can.
Bush: Cool...

Where's the Senate investigattion on them?...:roll:

 

[oldreliable67]

Lefty: "...but it seems very clear that he did..."

It may seem clear to you, but that is nonetheless your opinion, your impression. Others have different opinions, as have been cited on other threads here at DP.

Lefty: "The question isn't whether or not the president ordered the wiretappings, since it is clear that he did, but whether or not he had the power to do so."

Absolutely right. Whether or not he had the power to do so is the question. Your admission that there is a question of whether or not he had the power to do so is an explicit admission that he might have or might not have had the power to do so. Ergo, 'he broke the law" is an unproven assertion.

TimmyBoy:"The fact that the Justice Department hasn't openned an investigation on Bush into possible violations of the 4th amendment while at the same time opening an investigation that was requested by the NSA into who leaked what, leaves me with the impression that their is no concern for the 4th amendment..."

In this context, the DoJ cannot open an investigation unless someone or some agency brings a matter to its attention. Someone or some agency must present to the Justice Dept some evidence of wrongdoing, some reason or probable cause that some wrongdoing has been commited, before they can "open an investigation". In this situation, someone or some agency (perhaps Congress, if it proceeds with its hearings) must petition the DoJ to redress the alleged violation of the 4th amendment (or whatever the alleged violation is presumed to be).

aps: "the suggestion that other presidents may have done it is not very persuasive. Saying you have precedent for a crime doesn't help much."

Once again, a perverse form of beauty in the eye of the beholder. Implicit in the statement is a statement that something illegal took place. Until there is an adjutication, there is only an allegation of a crime, nothing more, nothing less.

Don't forget that precedents are highly relevant in the legal world. That doesn't mean the precedents will hold up in court, but it does mean that there is a basis for a defense of the actions taken. A successful defense or not is for the courts to decide.

Personally, I'm hoping that the congressional hearings result in a chain of events that lead to the SC, so that the highest court in the land can make a determination on these matters - these questions affect us all and could be highly relevant to our security going forward. A clear-cut, definitive determination is, I think, in all our best interests.

 

[oldreliable67]

Lefty: "can you honestly tell me that the Justice Department wouldn't prosecute the person that came to them and told them about the illegal wiretappings? The Justice Department would point out the program's "classified" status and throw that guy/gal right into prison."

Yeah, I think I can honestly do that.

(1) There are quite stringent laws that protect whistleblowers. The preferred 'path' for whistleblowers is first to the legal authorities (i.e., DoJ in this case). Then secondly, if no redress is available from the legal authorities and the whistleblower still feels strongly about his/her 'cause', then to the media and take your chances with regard to the classified nature of the info that you might be disclosing.

(2) The DoJ has the necessary staff with the necessary clearances for listening to classified information. The media does not. Hence no need to throw anyone into prison for coming to the DoJ with classified info. A large need - perhaps, depending on the situation - for throwing someone into prison for going to the media with classified info.

 

[cnredd]

The press serves it's purpose in our nation, it's not just to keep us informed about the little goings-on in our world, but to inform us of abuses of power by our government. We the People are [theoretically] in control of the government. We the People should be well informed of any illegal activities that are perpetrated by the people that we elect to represent us. The person that leaked this information did this nation a great service at personal risk to his or her life. I'm not saying that Bush is going to kill the person that leaked the information, but the way this president conducts character assassinations... this person is putting themselves, and their families (see Plame investigation) at risk.

And besides, can you honestly tell me that the Justice Department wouldn't prosecute the person that came to them and told them about the illegal wiretappings? The Justice Department would point out the program's "classified" status and throw that guy/gal right into prison. You honestly think that the Attorney General, whom argued that the President had the power to authorize such wiretappings, would work with the person that leaked this information? :roll:

Right and wrong...

In this instance, the only way they can inform us of abuses of government is to TELL them since it was classified information...

Now let's say you the "leaker"...You are under the impression that you have nowhere to turn except the press, which is laughable...

First, if you know of this, you aren't in the mailroom...YOU are part of the program...unless, of course, you got it from someone IN the program, which means the leak goes higher...

Which means that you could've gone to ANY Senator or ANY Representative...

The person who leaked classified information could've easily gone to Schumer, Pelosi, Leahy, Spector or anyone else...

But instead they went to the press...

Here are the two events...

Bush is doing something that many BELIEVE to be breaking the law, but that is still undertermined...There is debate on the laws...

Going to the press with classified information IS breaking the law...There is NO debate...

Your excuse of "I had nowhere else to turn to, so I went to the New York Times" is disgusting...Especially a newspaper that convienently waited until the Patriot Act Extension was being discussed...That's not reporting a story...That's becoming the story...

 

[Lefty]

Yeah, I think I can honestly do that.

(1) There are quite stringent laws that protect whistleblowers. The preferred 'path' for whistleblowers is first to the legal authorities (i.e., DoJ in this case). Then secondly, if no redress is available from the legal authorities and the whistleblower still feels strongly about his/her 'cause', then to the media and take your chances with regard to the classified nature of the info that you might be disclosing.

(2) The DoJ has the necessary staff with the necessary clearances for listening to classified information. The media does not. Hence no need to throw anyone into prison for coming to the DoJ with classified info. A large need - perhaps, depending on the situation - for throwing someone into prison for going to the media with classified info.

Perhaps someone did go to the Justice Department. We don't know. None of us have access to that information, and the claim that this person went to the NYT first can't be supported. Perhaps this person did seek to remedy the situtation within the confines of the Justice Department... we don't know, and I doubt any of us can prove such claims.

 

[cnredd]

Lefty: "can you honestly tell me that the Justice Department wouldn't prosecute the person that came to them and told them about the illegal wiretappings? The Justice Department would point out the program's "classified" status and throw that guy/gal right into prison."

Yeah, I think I can honestly do that.

(1) There are quite stringent laws that protect whistleblowers. The preferred 'path' for whistleblowers is first to the legal authorities (i.e., DoJ in this case). Then secondly, if no redress is available from the legal authorities and the whistleblower still feels strongly about his/her 'cause', then to the media and take your chances with regard to the classified nature of the info that you might be disclosing.

(2) The DoJ has the necessary staff with the necessary clearances for listening to classified information. The media does not. Hence no need to throw anyone into prison for coming to the DoJ with classified info. A large need - perhaps, depending on the situation - for throwing someone into prison for going to the media with classified info.

Agreed...also...

The Dept. of Justice is just like the IRS or US Postal...They don't automatically become the same political affiliation of the President...He could fire the head of the IRS right now and put a Republican in charge...That wouldn't make it a "Republican IRS"...

The DoJ stands on its own, regardless of who the big cheese is...If a Democrat wins in 2008 and puts in a Democratic Atty. General, that doesn't shift the tide either way when it comes to the DoJ...They still have the same jobs to do...

I'm really starting to like this double standard...

If the DoJ feels the need to start an investigation on improprieties(Plame), those with a political agenda think the DoJ is a righteous and honest organization...

If the DoJ agrees that no improprieties were involved(wiretapping), then those same people think the DoJ are evil "co-conspirators"...:roll:

 

[cnredd]

Perhaps someone did go to the Justice Department. We don't know. None of us have access to that information, and the claim that this person went to the NYT first can't be supported. Perhaps this person did seek to remedy the situtation within the confines of the Justice Department... we don't know, and I doubt any of us can prove such claims.

So your saying that the New York Times had no problem receiving classified information and making it public, but they DID have a problem finding out from the leaker what other recourse s/he may have taken first...

Wonderful...

 

[Lefty]

Right and wrong...

In this instance, the only way they can inform us of abuses of government is to TELL them since it was classified information...

Now let's say you the "leaker"...You are under the impression that you have nowhere to turn except the press, which is laughable...

First, if you know of this, you aren't in the mailroom...YOU are part of the program...unless, of course, you got it from someone IN the program, which means the leak goes higher...

Which means that you could've gone to ANY Senator or ANY Representative...

The person who leaked classified information could've easily gone to Schumer, Pelosi, Leahy, Spector or anyone else...

But instead they went to the press...

Here are the two events...

Bush is doing something that many BELIEVE to be breaking the law, but that is still undertermined...There is debate on the laws...

Going to the press with classified information IS breaking the law...There is NO debate...

Your excuse of "I had nowhere else to turn to, so I went to the New York Times" is disgusting...Especially a newspaper that convienently waited until the Patriot Act Extension was being discussed...That's not reporting a story...That's becoming the story...

Wait... so there is no debate about leaking classified information, but there is a debate on whether or not the president ignored the 4th Amendment and the judicial process of the FISA law of 1978. That's ridiculous. If this program was classified with the intent of covering up it's illegal nature, which does seem to be the case, then the classified nature of the program is moot point. There is no debate over our rights that are protected by the constitution. The constitution isn't a document where our rights are nullified during time of war or crisis, it's existance serves to protect our rights at all times.

And I say the classified nature of the program seems to be with the intent of covering up it's legality issue because... well... is it really a secret that the government has the power to wiretap your phone? We're not tipping terrorists off by leaking this information, we're merely being informed about illegal activities in the highest levels of government. C'mon really, it's no secret the government can wiretap your phone, but we need to be informed when the government does not obey specific rules and regulations that are put in place to protect and preserve our freedoms.

 

[Lefty]

So your saying that the New York Times had no problem receiving classified information and making it public, but they DID have a problem finding out from the leaker what other recourse s/he may have taken first...

Wonderful...

Actually... I don't believe I ever said that. I said it's not possible to know if the leaker did seek other sources of help before going to the NYT.

And besides, your missing the point that the leaker informed us about an illegal program. See previous post for discussion on classified nature of program.

 

[aps]

A co-conspirator now?...:rofl

According to that logic, you're saying that Bush received the OK from the DoJ...which means he shouldn't be taking the blame for any wrongdoing...

Bush: Can I do this?
DoJ: Yes you can.
Bush: Cool...

Where's the Senate investigattion on them?...:roll:

Based upon my assessment of this situation, the warrantless wiretapping is illegal--hence, the use of the word co-conspirator. Glad you like it. :lol:

Are you saying he didn't receive the okay from the Dept. of Justice? I believe that is the case; however, if it is not, he received the okay from someone who works in the White House. We all know that Alberto and the guy who has replaced Libby drafted the memos regarding whether the Geneva Conventions applied to the prisoners in Abu Graib. At that time, Alberto was working in the White House.

Do you really think that someone should go to an executive office to complain about actions the president is conducting? I wouldn't. Why do you think that Mark Felt went to Woodward regarding Watergate?

You know very well that Spector has stated that they will be holding Senate hearings come January 2006. I can't wait......

 

[oldreliable67]

Perhaps someone did go to the Justice Department. We don't know. None of us have access to that information, and the claim that this person went to the NYT first can't be supported. Perhaps this person did seek to remedy the situtation within the confines of the Justice Department... we don't know, and I doubt any of us can prove such claims.

Oh, come now! Given this story, to use your words, do you honestly think that the NYT would not have trumpeted the unsuccessful seeking of redress from the DoJ by the leaker? Its the NYT for heavens sake! Ok, thats an unproven assertion on my part. But given the timing of the NYT story (book release, Patriot Act hearings) and their history, I'm as confident with that assertion as others seem to be about 'Bush lied'.

As far as 'doubting any of us can prove such claims': There are provisions in the whistleblower laws for maintaining the confidentiality of the source/identity of whistleblowers. But the allegations of whistleblowers cannot be kept secret, once the DoJ has decided to investigate.

Furthermore, in this environment, if you think for a minute that such a complaint to the DoJ would not have been leaked to a 'friendly' news source or senator or congressman, there is bridge right near here that I wish to sell to you. Talk about leaks!

 

[cnredd]

Wait... so there is no debate about leaking classified information, but there is a debate on whether or not the president ignored the 4th Amendment and the judicial process of the FISA law of 1978. That's ridiculous. If this program was classified with the intent of covering up it's illegal nature, which does seem to be the case, then the classified nature of the program is moot point. There is no debate over our rights that are protected by the constitution. The constitution isn't a document where our rights are nullified during time of war or crisis, it's existance serves to protect our rights at all times.

And I say the classified nature of the program seems to be with the intent of covering up it's legality issue because... well... is it really a secret that the government has the power to wiretap your phone? We're not tipping terrorists off by leaking this information, we're merely being informed about illegal activities in the highest levels of government. C'mon really, it's no secret the government can wiretap your phone, but we need to be informed when the government does not obey specific rules and regulations that are put in place to protect and preserve our freedoms.

Farcical...

Senator Rockefeller has already said publicly that he knew of the program in 2003...It has already been made public that the President has discussed this with Senators from both sides of the aisle on a dozen occasions...

If they didn't agree with it, they could've opened their yap at any time...But they didn't...In fact, Rockefeller himself publicly told of a letter he wrote to Cheney questioning the program, but conveinently left it in his desk until the story went public...:roll:

Now how can you trust a Senator that says "I had problems with it, but I kept my mouth shut"?...The answer?...You don't...If it was truely illegal, he would've gone public in two seconds...

If for some unforeseeable reason something does become of this, expect ALL participants(Yes, even the Democratic leadership) to crumble just as quick...