Comments on: Did the New York Times’ NSA Leak Harm National Security? (Part 1 – The Scoop)

By: Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Did The New York Times’ NSA Leak Harm National Security? (Part 4 - The Administration, Harman, and Odds and Ends)

Wed, 18 Jan 2006 05:33:03 +0000

[...] In parts 1, 2, and 3 of this series, I gave three reasons to think that the New York Times harmed our nation’s security by leaking the NSA eavesdropping program. The New York Times gave circumstantial evidence that it believed the leak to be harmful by holding the story for a year and only releasing it when it was about to be scooped by an upcoming book, “State Of War” by James Risen, a Times reporter. Further, though perhaps not intentionally, harm was caused to our national security by, at the very minimum, delaying long-term reauthorization of the Patriot Act due to the scoop being released on the eve of the Senate vote. Finally, I relied on arguments put forth by GWU Associate Professor of Law Orin Kerr in naming a third and fourth reason to believe harm had occurred: short-term, we may have given valuable information to terrorists on strategies to bypass our monitoring, and long-term, we may have further encouraged the development of communication networks that are routed and switched entirely outside of the United States. [...]

By: Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Did the NY Times’ NSA Leak Harm National Security? (Part Three - The Orin Kerr Hypothesis)

Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:04:27 +0000

[...] In the Parts 1 and 2 of this series, I put forth the argument that the NY Times’ leak of the NSA eavesdropping program hurt national security because (a) the Times’ own reporting indicated this, and (b) the long-term reauthorization of the Patriot Act was, at the very least, delayed because of the timing of the leak. In the 3rd installment, I want to talk about a statement by Orin Kerr, Associate Professor of Law at George Washington University and frequent contributer to the popular Volokh Conspiracy blog. [...]

By: miriam

miriam — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:24:03 +0000

If Jane Harman was ignorant about the program, couldn’t it be because she’s stupid? Nancy Pelosi, however, is stupid and vicious.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:05:31 +0000

Joe, you’re always welcome here, but I’m not arguing this point anymore with you, because you’re not listening. Jane Harman has been briefed on the program, and you haven’t, yet I’m supposed to take your word over hers. Then you ask for ‘proof’ that national security has been harmed, when you know damn well that such proof would be confidential and not available to you and me. By definition, my ‘proof’ will have to consist of circumstantial evidence.

There is no point arguing with a brick wall. I’m going to finish my series, for my own gratification, if nothing else. Feel free to denigrate it at length…but on this topic, I’m going to start letting my posts speak for themselves…

By: Inside Larry's head

Inside Larry's head — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:00:55 +0000

RINO SIGHTINGS: Three Day Weekend edition

RINO SIGHTINGS: Three Day Weekend Edition

In R.I.N.O Land we have a tradition of tossing out some of the best of our best for a little viewership pleasure every week. And Since Indy was beaten in the playoffs (Curse you god) and New England lost (…

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:42:42 +0000

First she claims it’s essential for national security, without providing any details. Then she goes on to say she is shocked, shocked that this program is being used to spy on Americans. In other words, she has no idea how this program is being used. She is badly informed. If they didn’t tell her they were spying on Americans, what else did they or did they not tell her about the program?

You have a very confused statement from a Congresswoman who admits she had no idea about what was really happening here. In fact, it seems she still doesn’t know.

But I understand why you would like this argument. Because it’s impossible to disprove. You can just say, “you see, she says it was vital to national security, and she knows more than we do.” And there the discussion ends.

So this one statement is now the basis for your assertion that the leak harmed national security. And it is conveniently impossible to refute. We will just have to take her word for it. Even when it’s clear she was, by her own admission, ill informed about the program itself.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:21:22 +0000

Joe, you’re dodging again: Clint didn’t ask you if Jane Harman was satisfied with the briefing; he asked you why she said, in spite of her dissatisfaction, that the disclosure harmed national security. Care to answer the question he asked?

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:45:57 +0000

Because it’s all a lie, Clint:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220014
Summary: Fox News’ Jim Angle misrepresented comments by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) to suggest that she was satisfied with the Bush administration’s briefing of Congress on the use of domestic surveillance when, in fact, she has explicitly said that the surveillance program “goes far beyond the measures to target Al Qaeda about which I was briefed.”

So you are left with Mark’s “circumstantial evidence” as to the timing of the leak, and a big, honking lie.

Next!

By: Clint

Clint — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 01:32:57 +0000

Joe-

Paragraph One: all-or-nothing redux. “NYT editorial board shouldn’t be deciding what ought to be classified” is not equivalent to “The President should have the sole and unfettered discretion to censor all news reports.”

Paragraph Two: What on Earth does FISA have to do with anything that I wrote?? A clean phone isn’t about whether the Government can get a warrant, it’s about whether on not the Government knows that they should be interested in tapping that particular phone. Do you not understand this distinction?

Paragraph Three: The story you irrelevantly attack (Yes, I doubt that this story was really about terrorism — again, what on Earth does that have to do with anything I wrote???) was meant as an illustration of the manner in which terrorists might hypothetically be tripped up. Whether those people in particular were in any way linked to terror, or even crime, is totally irrelevant to the point.

Do you have any response to anything I actually do think, or just irrelevant asides, strawmen, and incomprehension?

Stick with addressing just one thing that I think: If the disclosure of this program has not “damaged critical intelligence capabilities” then why would Congresswoman Harmon — a Democrat, a critic of the program and, unlike you or I, someone who’s received numerous classified briefings on the subject — say that it has?? I can imagine any number of reasons why President Bush might lie about this — but why would she?

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:31:47 +0000

Clint: the crux of the issue we should be debating is whether the NYT editorial board is the appropriate body to be determining what is and isn’t a threat to our national security, and what information should be available to the public (and our enemies).

Which, I suppose the editors of the NY Times would say, is why they waited a year to better understand what they had and how it effects national security. I certainly wouldn’t want a sitting president to have the power to bury any news stories he or she believes will harm national security. Then we’d know nothing. Of course they would abuse this power! Just look at how they try to get away with this now (Katrina and Iraq immediately come to mind).

As to your discussion on the changing habits of terrorists post leak, your entire premise makes no sense. FISA allowed Bush to monitor terrorists at will, so long as he got the warrant. It was almost always granted.

And your link to Michelle Malkin’s shocking (heh) revelation that some brown-skinned people were buying mobile phones in bulk hardly helps your case. The news of their involvement with terror groups has been wildly exaggerated, as I’m sure you know. It’s just another example of how the bedwetter brigade’s paranoia is driving stupid policy.