Funny you mention Deep Throat in that context. Is that the same Deep Throat that went to prison for authorizing illegal searches, or some other Deep Throat?

I am sure there are some leakers who leak in order to promote higher standards, though I can't think of one off hand. Usually they leak to promote agendas of their own, and usually parochial agendas at that.

He did go to prison for illegal wire taps. As some in the Bush administration should too.

Deep Throat was also a whistleblower who outed the administration for illegal activities. As obviously someone now has, and evidenced by the Justice Dept. search (I'm sure it is a directive from the "top").

Thanks for getting the sublte analogy.

I got that, I am just missing the part where this pardoned felon is an example of a sterling American "who believes the government should be held to higher standards."

I grant that he was a whistleblower and that he did leak information about actual illegalities.

I guess you would be better advised to point out some actual sterling citizens who became leakers for reasons of conscience rather than for parochial agendas. I am sure they are out there. Go ahead and offer some up.

I think parchial agendas are just reasons to become a whistleblower.

I am all for whistleblowers who blow the whistle in illegal activity.

I will say that I agree with Art, generally, that it is much better done openly than as an anonymous leak.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

So, should your opening post have been "I'm wondering where we'd be today without government leakers who leak classified information in furtherance of parochial agendas", than?

The problem with not being anonymous are the possible consequences and retribution. What if no one does anything? In this case, the media withheld the story for ONE year at the request of the administration. This person I'm sure has expenses, maybe a family, and more, and getting fired or worse is a real disincentive for future whistleblowers.

Industry now has laws protecting whistleblowers. I wonder if the apply to government?

The problem with not being anonymous are the possible consequences and retribution.

Yeah, sometimes it costs to do the right thing.

In this case, the media withheld the story for ONE year at the request of the administration.

Not the "media," the New York Times. It's shameful. Wonder if that could have happened if the leaker(s) came out with the info openly?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

So are you saying the leaker in this case did the "right thing"?

The

There is a very compelling legal argument that these leaks are leaks of completely legal, but highly classified actions.

Not wanting to rehash the various Process Matters threads, lets agree to assume for the moment that these NSA wiretaps are found, in fact, to be legal.

What do you think of the leakers and the NY Times in that context, and what consequences should follow?

lets agree to assume for the moment that these NSA wiretaps are found, in fact, to be legal.
What do you think of the leakers and the NY Times in that context, and what consequences should follow?

I thought I already answered that. If that's the case, they should be prosecuted.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

How about the NY Times? What opinion do you have of their decisions?

Maybe you missed my thread about how I think the NYT's actions in this case suck.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

As I recall, your opinions were based upon the assumption that something illegal was done by Bush via the NSA.

I am asking your opinion if the program is found legal. Clearly there are two different decisions to comment upon. The initial decision not to publish, and the later decision to publish.

I am asking your opinion if the program is found legal.

I think that in the context of this case, the legality of the program is (or should be) of less concern with regards to the NYT's decision than to with regards to the action of the leaker. Whether or not it's ultimately decided to be legal, it's important news, and I think the public has a right to know.

That is, if you're a government employee and something is legitimately classified, you should not leak it. If you're a newspaper and you have information pertaining to the constraint of Americans' liberties, whether or not that constraint is legal on some ground, you have a duty to print it.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Wow, not the answer I expected.

If the governments actions are legal, isn't the NY Times conspiring with the dozen or so sources to expose highly classified national security information?

If the leaking is a felony, how is it that the Times is not complicit in those crimes?

What possible justification would the Times have to keep the identity of the leakers secret as they are now doing?

I don't see how such a program could be described as a "constraint on Americans' liberties," if the program is legal. Presumably, if it is legal, those constraints already exist whether or not the government uses its power.

If the leaking is a felony, how is it that the Times is not complicit in those crimes?

As I understand it, only the activity of the leaker is illegal. That is, if you have a government clearance, and then give classified information to a reporter, you've committed a crime. If you're the reporter whe receives the information and then print it, you have not committed a crime. It's the government's job to keep classified information secret, not the newspaper's.

What possible justification would the Times have to keep the identity of the leakers secret as they are now doing?

Their motivation in keeping their identities secret is obvious. Not to say that I like all that secrecy, either.

I don't see how such a program could be described as a "constraint on Americans' liberties," if the program is legal. Presumably, if it is legal, those constraints already exist whether or not the government uses its power.

Meaningless semantics. (And let's do keep in mind that I do NOT think these activities are legal.) If this program is legal, it at the very least represents a constraint on liberties which was not previously exercised.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

OK, I have the part that maybe the leakers could be felons, but the Times might not be breaking any laws.

I didn't ask what the Times' motivations were. Yes, those are obvious. What justification could they have for keeping the leakers names secret? If you need to assume that the Times concluded the NSA's actions were legal, as I believe they did (thus the delay), that is fine.

What justification could they have for keeping the leakers names secret?

??? The justification goes as follows, I think:

• We have a source with important information that won't reveal it unless he can remain anonymous, because he fears reprisal, probably reasonably.
• We'll promise to maintain his anonymity.
• If we break that promise, it represents a serious breach of trust with our source, and would be unethical.
• Further, it would directly compromise our ability to gather important information in the future.

As I've said before, I think the media in general is far to quick to rely on anonymous sources, and they should go to much greater lengths to get the information on record, openly. They might even go so far as to let the source know that they won't run the story without being able to attribute the information to him. I think that should happen in almost every case. But having agreed to the condition of anonymity, they can't very well go back on it now.

If you need to assume that the Times concluded the NSA's actions were legal, as I believe they did (thus the delay)

I refuse to assume that. Sorry. If I were to assume that, all the more reason for them to protect their source, I guess.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Call me an idealist, but I think whistleblowers protect democracies.

If we didn't have whistleblowers, where do you think we would be today? How many whistleblowers did you think they had in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Zimbabwe today?

We talk about having transparency in government, but we give little thought to how that actually plays out. We seem to believe that everybody has everybody's best interests at heart, whilst that is patently untrue. Without the consciences of people to drive them to out bad practices, we would end up with a government where people go along to get along, at the considerable detriment of the American people. But then again we have a government now that justifies everything by saying they are doing it for our own good. Where have I heard that one before?

As for anonymity, I think it's pretty clear why people stay anonymous. Because doing the right thing can be very personally costly, and while society may benefit a hundredfold of what it costs an individual to come forward, it is still a heavy cost to ask somebody to bear on behalf of democracy. As for personal agendas, I don't get terribly concerned for two reasons - if they are lying, then the truth will eventually come out, unless of course you hire the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to do your talking. And likewise, the crux of the issue is not their agenda, but whether their charges are fundamentally true.

If a secretary exposes her Senator-boss' bribery and corruption, do we really care that she did it because he wouldn't leave his wife for her? Perhaps if you're a partisan looking for any excuse to discredit her without bothering to investigate the charges, then you might. But that would make you an intellectual fraud and not worthy of an enlightened democracy, something I don't think anybody would admit to.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

Hell yeah. That "pal" of Monica's who helped get the goods on Clinton was a whistlerblower. If America spends millions of dollars to find out that a president was getting a BJ from an intern, I think we ought to go the extra mile to find out that Bush 2 and his Swift Boat buddies are tapping ajfranke's line.

Art,

Based on your answers on this & other similar threads, I take it that you believe that whistle-blowers are traitors, or at least should be subject to legal ramifications for their actions?

Do you really believe that if our governments (whether led by Dems or Repubs) should be able to operate with impunity?

Its funny that you are screeching about the whistle-blowers who turned on/out the Repubs (Nixon, Bush & Scooter/Rove come immediately to mind); wouldn't be that you have turned into little more than a political hack?



mdo

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

Of course whistle blowers should be subject to legal ramifications for their actions. You don't think calling yourself a whistle blower places you above the law, do you?

We have a system of checks and balances. It works really well most of the time. Yes, it failed in Watergate because the corruption extended to the Justice Department, but I can think of no other comparable situation in my lifetime.

If you think something is wrong, there are proper channels not including the NY Times. They work. I am guessing in this case they were tried and also worked, but the whiners didn't like the answer. So they went to the Times. Or maybe they just went there directly.

I hope we find out.

I am betting Judge Robertson is one of them. Hopefully, we learn one day whether I am right or not.

Once in a while you have a whistle blower step up publicly, rather than scurry around in the shadows. They are very rare, but worthy of respect.