I'm glad they're investigatinng the leaks and, hopefully, rounding up the leakers. Hang'em all, I say!

Hang'em all, I say!

Good thing Lewis Libby got that commutation before this latest decree.

Because, you know, we have punish people who tell the public what is going on in their government.

I wonder how those FBI agents can look at themselves in the mirror. But maybe they drink the same koolaid that Bush and Cheney do.

Lincoln must be rolling in his grave right now....

Dunno about Lincoln. Maybe Milligan, though....

The first good news I have heard all day. Until a few of the these "whistle blowers" and a few NYTimes editors (I am looking at you Keller) do some hard time, the US will not be safe.

Randy R.: "Because, you know, we have punish people who tell the public what is going on in their government."

Is this a challenge to the notion of any secrecy in government, even for national security? Many liberals loath to admit national security can be imperiled, but hypothesize an undercover investigation into neo-Nazis who are planning spectacular acts of terrorism (Nazis being the one group some Liberals might be willing to fight). Would it be OK to keep that investigation secret while it's ongoing?

If so, you've bought into the idea that sometimes government secrecy is called for. So what you're complaining about is that, in your view, it wasn't called for this time. Platitudes about people having the right to know what's going on in government obscure the policy and judgment differences that underly your disagreement with the administration.

Good thing Lewis Libby got that commutation before this latest decree.

Sorry, I must not have been paying attention. Remind me when Lewis Libby was convicted of leaking?

It sounds good, as in about time they went after the leakers, but I'm sorry, I've not trusted Isikoff's reporting for quite some time now, so will take a wait and see position until more reliable sources weigh in.

It was Franklin who said that those who would give liberty for security deserve neither.

Actually, that's not what Franklin said. The actual quote is:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Obviously the real quote is a lot more nuanced. I'm getting pretty sick of the number of people who misquote him.

What statute has potentially been violated here? We should all know from the Libby/Rove/Armitage situation that there's no generic law against disclosing classified information.

Or that maybe the Vice President had been delegated authority to declassify the material.

If I remember right though, the problem with this disclosure is that it involves release of "communications intelligence activities", and that is covered by 18 U.S.C. 798(a)(3). And to make matters more interesting, it is quite easy to make the statute apply to the newspapers that first broke the story:

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

NicholasV-where's the "nuance" in Franklin's quote that makes "those who would give liberty for security deserve neither" an unacceptable paraphrase?

I'm not detecting the closet authoritarianism you apparently see in there.

You need to read more Franklin.

Sorry, I must not have been paying attention. Remind me when Lewis Libby was convicted of leaking?

So far, NOBODY has been convicted of leaking. If you believe Libby did NOT leak, I'm sure he'll welcome you to his defense team. He's going to need all the help he can get now that it's a death penalty offense.

I'm sure you all "hang the leakers" are going to make sure that Republican Boehner will be hung?

From CREW:" Today, CREW filed a complaint with the Department of Justice asking that the Counterespionage Section of the National Security Division initiate an investigation into whether House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-OH) violated the law by leaking classified information. Our complaint can be found here.

In a July 31, 2007 interview with Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto, Rep. Boehner disclosed an aspect of a Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court’s decision regarding warrantless wiretapping:

There's been a ruling, over the last four or five months, that prohibits the ability of our intelligence services and our counterintelligence people from listening in to two terrorists in other parts of the world where the communication could come through the United States.

By telling a reporter that a FISA court has restricted the U.S. intelligence community's surveillance of suspected terrorists overseas, Rep. Boehner appears to have transmitted information relating to the national defense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(d).

18 U.S.C. § 793(d) provides that anyone with lawful possession of information relating to the national defense, which could be used to the injury of the United States, who willfully communicates that information to any person not entitled to receive it, is subject to up to ten years imprisonment.

Rep. Boehner apparently made his remarks to Mr. Cavuto in an effort to blame Democrats for failing to pass legislation overriding the court's decision.

Sure, Crust, easy enough to read: Executive Order 13292:

Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall information be classified in order to:

(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;

cathyf:

So, do you think Boehner read it in the Wall Street Journal on July 27, 2007?

And that voids the classification how, precisely?

Hint:

Although the fact that Ms. Wilson worked for the C.I.A. from 1985 to 2006 has been published in the Congressional Record and elsewhere, the judge, Barbara S. Jones of Federal District Court in Manhattan, said Ms. Wilson was not free to say so.

“The information at issue was properly classified, was never declassified and has not been officially acknowledged by the C.I.A.,” Judge Jones wrote.