| |
|
"Leak" or "whistle blowing"? From the Washington Post
Online:
The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into recent disclosures about a controversial domestic eavesdropping program that was secretly authorized by President Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, officials said yesterday.
Federal prosecutors will focus their examination on who may have unlawfully disclosed classified information about the program to the New York Times, which reported two weeks ago that Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international telephone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens and residents without court-approved warrants, officials said.
The Justice Department's decision to reveal the opening of a criminal investigation is rare, particularly given the highly classified nature of the probe. White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy told reporters in Crawford, Tex., yesterday that the department "undertook this action on its own" and that Bush had only learned about it from senior staff earlier in the day.
But Duffy reiterated earlier statements by Bush, who had sharply condemned the disclosure of the NSA program and argued that it seriously damaged national security.
"The fact is that al Qaeda's playbook is not printed on Page One, and when America's is, it has serious ramifications," Duffy said, reading from prepared remarks. "You don't need to be Sun Tzu to understand that," he added, referring to the ancient Chinese general who wrote "The Art of War."
Heard about it on NPR recently. The Justice Department investigating the "leak" concerning the NSA eavesdropping program even as critics argue that the program itself is unlawful and unconstitutional.
So if the NSA doemestic surveillance program is found lawful and constitutional by the courts, the guilty party/parties will be up for jail time, because they leaked classified information regarding national security. But charging the whistle blowers (and maybe the Times, who printed the information) will involve the courts deciding wether or not the program is constitutional, because naturally the defense will claim that the program is not constitutional, nor actually legal in any sense really, therefore no crime has been committed. So at least there will be a definitive decision on this one on way or the other.
So...leaking or whistleblowing? Does Trent Duffy have a point? Do you think that the safegaurds that Bush claims keep the program from violating personal rights are actually working? Or even there at all, for that matter? Can one trust the system to take care of this?
There's always the chance that no one will be charged, that they just want to know who did the all the blabbin'... |
|
|
