The NY Times has this to say about "whistle-blowers" in an editorial called "On the Subject of Leaks".

A democratic society cannot long survive if whistle-blowers are criminally punished for revealing what those in power don't want the public to know - especially if it's unethical, illegal or unconstitutional behavior by top officials. Reporters need to be able
to protect these sources, regardless of whether the sources are motivated by policy disputes or nagging consciences. This is doubly important with an administration as dedicated as this one is to extreme secrecy.

At first glance, this seems like a reasonable argument. It sounds and feels right. However....

First of all no one has been criminally punished yet for the leak regarding NSA surveillance. Second of all, no one is a "whistle-blower" until the offending party can be proved to have done something wrong or illegal, until then they are just traitors. In fact, regardless of the nature of the supposed crime by President Bush or others, it is certainly illegal to reveal the details of a classified effort to surveil enemy activity in wartime and the revelation of those secrets (we are allowed to keep secrets from the enemy, aren't we?) is certainly damaging to national security. In a war against terrorism, intelligence gathering is just as important as traditional battlefield maneuvers, maybe even more so. To let the enemy know what we are doing to gather intelligence on them is the same as an old fashioned revealing of our field position and troop strength in a traditional war. Loose lips sink ships and all that.

(None of this takes into account that senior congresspersons were aware of the NSA's stepped up domestic activities and chose to keep their concerns to themselves.)

Yes, would-be whistle-blowers do get indicted. And many had uncovered real concerns that it was in the public interest to know. But they also have to play within the bounds of the law. Whoever leaked the details of the NSA program was almost certainly not acting within the bounds of the law. If there was a crime involved in leaking Valerie Plame's name to the press, the leaker should be discovered and punished. The same holds true here. The Times seems to be advocating the position that of you think you are doing the right thing, you should use every avenue available to you, legal or not. I thought that's exactly what they are fighting AGAINST concerning Bush's handling of the war. Bush can't push the boundaries of the law to defend the nation (no reporter has claimed that he was doing otherwise), but others can break the law to stop him. No hypocrisy there.

It's all about the concept of leveling the playing field. That's why suicide bombers are OK in some far left circles. What other weapons do the poor Islamists/insurgents have? Who are we to demand any kind of moral standard from them when they are the weaker party in the conflict?

I'm not sure what's all this talk about "doubly important" and "extreme secrecy" is? Is that something like "double-secret probation"?

I wonder if James Risen will reimburse his leaker friend(s) with a percentage of the money he receives from his new book.



And you know what else - since no one in the mainstream media or on the internet that I've seen has the balls to do it - maybe they think it will jinx our luck - I'm going to say it -
IN THE LAST 4 YEARS, 3 MONTHS AND 25 DAYS THERE HAVE BEEN ZERO SUCCESSFUL ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR IT'S EMBASSIES AND CONSULATES OVERSEAS BY ANY TERRORIST GROUP MUSLIM OR OTHERWISE. This is almost a year longer than it took for us to fight WWII, and yet many consider us "not as safe". Thank you President Bush. Look at this list to find a list of terrorist attacks against US interests in almost every year since 1979. Almost 4 1/2 years without an incident is NOT dumb luck. ESPECIALLY when liberals have claimed since the day we stepped foot in Afghanistan that the Muslim street would rise up against us and a wave of hatred would sweep across the world.

I feel much better now.