Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama's leak freakout (148 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Just because you divulge information that (14+ / 0-)

    the White House doesn't want to get out doesn't mean you're breaking the law, either.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:08:03 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  What is the standard then? (11+ / 0-)

      With the AP case, it looks like a intelligence/national security investigation was compromised. That seems pretty serious to me. I'm not a lawyer to know if it was illegal or not. I think the admin investigating is warranted though.

      I dont think that's minor or petty, as the cartoon would suggest.

    •  exactly true (4+ / 0-)

      Of course whistleblowing should be protected but not everything divulged is about malfeasance and I have zero problem with there being consequences for wanton release of sensitive information. From getting fired for talking about confidential policy discussions to going to jail for releasing classified information. The blanket Shield Law should be for journalists, not sources.

      47 is the new 51!

      by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:20:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  See no reason to give journalists protection that (3+ / 0-)

        isn't available to the rest of us.

        If sources don't reveal, journalists can't (truthfully) write.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:29:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's what the Valerie Plame leakers argued. (5+ / 0-)

          Robert Novak couldn't have written that story blowing the cover off her operation - truthfully, I cheerfully admit - if Karl Rove and the other goblins in the White House didn't leak to him.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:58:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  So for an extreme example (0+ / 0-)

          some congressional aide has access to the intelligence committee's documents. He/she decides to release the Administration's contingency plans for Israel preemptively striking Iran because he doesn't agree with them.

          If he was a Democrat it may be because the Admin plans to send extra material to reinforce Iron Dome and veto any resolution condemning it in the Security Council. For a Republican, maybe it's because the Admin plans to condemn it in the Security Council and announce they'll be reconsidering current military subsidies.

          Would that be whistleblowing that requires protection?

          47 is the new 51!

          by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:25:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This was classified information, and the person (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shaharazade

            who revealed it was fully aware of that fact?

            That person would be subject to investigation and arrest under any shield law that I've heard about.  Today's shield laws protect journalists, not perpetrators.  That gets stretched in the case where a journalist is the only piece of information that connects a perpetrator to an illegal act, but that is side effect, not intent.

            Restricting the shield to journalists does have the advantage of drawing a bright line that restricts its scope, but those who pass information along to journalists should have the same protection -- freedom from having to reveal their sources.

            Criminals, by the way, already have that protection. If the source is the perpetrator, the fifth amendment is available.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:38:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  exactly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dinotrac

          but only should count if it is a right wing rag that we shouldn't give protection to. Especially with a D in the WH. Now when a R gets back it (hopefully never), we can repeal it and give the journalists protection again.

          Could get complicated, but I think it is workable.

      •  AP is not a source (9+ / 0-)

        neither is Rosin. They are journalists even if you don't like their brand of 'news'. This administration has crossed the line from leaks, whistleblower's to saying that AP and the reporter from fox are aiding and abetting the nebulous terrorist enemy of the state.  'Wanton release' ? lol. Like AP is doesn't ususally carry their bs propaganda water, disguised as a news wire. The first amendment is dead as a doornail and this so called Democratic administration has nailed down the coffin lid.

        Sensitive information in your mind means any info that shines a bad light on what the Spooks and our security state are up to. Sources should not be divulged especially at a time like this. We are no longer a democracy when their is no 4th estate that is not controlled by the state. Journalists and sources go hand in hand always have unless you live in an authoritarian state in which freedom of speech and the freedom to know what's going down is declared a crime.

        Have you no shame? Why are you a Democrat? A free press and information is essential for any democratic system. Lordy we're all supposed to just accept what ever these corrupt liars tell us is the truth?

        'The Law is King'  Thomas Paine

        Where's my freaking habeas corpus?      

        •  Good question! (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shaharazade, 3goldens, JVolvo
          Where's my freaking habeas corpus?
          I realize SCOTUS allegedly declared that part of MCA '06 was unconstitutional, but I have seen no information that anyone is pushing to repeal, in its entirety, MCA '06 to officially give habeas corpus back to us.  I never did figure out why the f##k Obama saw fit to "update" that with MCA '09, and have less understanding for why our Cretinous Congress Critters passed yet another unconstitutional and illegal p.o.s. legislation.

          The more time passes with these "temporary" laws in effect - and, adding insult to injury, extensions added to them - the more people will think this state of affairs is normal and won't understand why us oldsters see all the more reason to "rush" to give us back our constitutional rights.  What legislator in her/his right mind passes "temporary" unconstitutional laws with expiration dates?!?!?  Those things were all wrong right from the get-go, and extending their expiration dates just adds insult to injury.  [Really, how stupid do our Cretinous Congress Critters think we are?!?]

          Needing instant and total repealing:  AUMF, Patriot Act, MCA '06, FISA fiasco '08, MCA '09, and throw in 'office of faith-based initiatives' for good measure since that violates the separation of church and state and its existence as a branch of the executive office means religions have a toehold in the door, and that's just all kinds of wrong.

          I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

          by NonnyO on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:14:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Do you even know what you're talking about? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jazzence

          Habeas Corpus involves arrest and charge with a crime and the right to a trial, not investigation.  In the case of Fox News and AP, NO REPORTERS were arrested or charged or forced to divulge their sources.  Their phone records were subpoenaed and investigated to find the leak, and their movement INSIDE A FEDERAL BUILDING were monitored.

          It has nothing to do with being in an authoritarian state or free press.

          Did the Justice Department censor AP?  Was any reporters silenced via intimidation or bogus charges?

          False equivalence is false equivalence, and it has nothing to do with being Dem or GOP.

        •  You would've defended the MSM reporting the (0+ / 0-)

          date of D-Day, I guess.  Or, at least you would've opposed diligent investigation to see who leaked it to the media.

          Look, nobody in the AP is being charged with anything.  The phone company was subpeoned for phone records (a very common law enforcement practice).  And the phone company decided to comply with the subpoena.  The phone company owns the phone records, not the AP.  The phone records were subpoenaed in order to try to find out who the leaker was.  If the leaker is found, then the leaker is the one facing prosecution or whatever, not the AP.

          In the Rosen case, I've barely read about it, but my understanding is that he outed our North Korea insider.  For absolutely no reason.  And a court granted a warrant to investigate Rosen (or his contacts, or whatever; as I said, I barely skimmed this story).  If so, then what's the problem?  A court granted the warrant.  Isn't that what civil libertarians demand, that DOJ should always seek warrants from courts?  Well that happened.  What, are you pissed that the court granted the warrant?  Are you pissed at the process (which was followed according to civil libertarian prescription) or pissed at the result, and so lash out at the president?

          And lastly, do you oppose getting to the bottom of the outing of our lone NK insider?  Do you not understand the seriousness of that leak?  Do you not understand that it had nothing to do with "whistle blowing" nor did it have anything to do with an urgent need for the public to know that we had an insider in the NK government?

          Put your ideology aside and look at the real world.  This isn't a freakin' game, it's real.  And a playing around with people's lives over some purist ideological stance is foolhardy, reckless, and selfish.

    •  Ummm... (7+ / 0-)

      I'm pretty sure that leaking classified info about a classified intelligence operation (involving multiple allies' intel services), that is in fact very illegal.

      You make it sound like the White House was trying to hide some embarrassing info.

      •  Given events of late, you never know. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skyounkin

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:54:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well, no we do know (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joe from Lowell, Trix

          We do know what info was leaked to the AP.

          Put it another way: if info on the Bin laden raid had leaked ahead of time, would you consider that serious enough to warrant an investigation?

          •  I am so confused. So -- is the administration (0+ / 0-)

            for investigating things that might be wrong or against it?
            It's so hard to keep track.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:06:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I dont know what you are talking about (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban, Janet 707

              specifically.

              I think it's ironic that the admin is aggressively investigating a national security leak that came from within the admin, and they are being criticized for that.

              •  Well, no. They are being criticized for (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                3goldens, JVolvo

                grabbing call records for 21 AP phone lines.  They are chanting national security, but rifling the AP, not the leaker.

                The AP, by the way,  acted responsibly, holding their story while the interested agencies assessed the risk and protected their people.

                One nice thing about subpoenas -- somebody's got to make the case that the desired action is appropriate to the task.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:29:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Fine, the AP did the 'right' thing (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jj32, jazzence

                  But that doesn't absolve the person who gave them the story in the first place. AP didn't break the law, but the leaker did. The subpoena wasn't about prosecuting AP but rather finding the person who called the AP and gave them the story. Subpoeaing information from third parties is not police state tactics but rather a common law enforcement tool. Sealing the subpoena is also not unheard of.

                  47 is the new 51!

                  by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:37:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You don't know that, actually. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    3goldens

                    You are presuming that the information came directly from somebody who had reason to know that it was classified and that they were breaking the law.

                    That's probably (not certainlY) the case.  It's unlikely, but not impossible, that the AP's source was actually an intermediary who relayed information along without intent to disclosed classified material.  In such a case, the source would not be breaking the law.

                    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                    by dinotrac on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:41:21 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  But we don't know (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            quagmiremonkey, dinotrac, JVolvo

            the press conference planned for the next day was certainly going to disclose some of that information, but we don't know how much.  The part useful to our enemies had already been disclosed by the current CIA chief.

            What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

            by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:23:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  because AP had the story (0+ / 0-)

              and was going to report it. There is no evidence that, barring the leak leading to the story that the CIA would have said anything. In fact every bit of evidence says the opposite, the primary one being that an agent in place is not someone you pull out right when he's the most useful.

              47 is the new 51!

              by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:29:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, bullshit (5+ / 0-)

                This theory just keeps getting more and more convoluted.  Now the operation was cut short - miraculously just in time to intercept the bomb - but actually on a time scale set by the AP's reporting?  

                That's a humdinger of a CT.

                What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:39:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  go back and read the timeline (0+ / 0-)

                  it's pretty well laid out. The bomb was stopped well before AP got the story. The agent was still in place and unsuspected at the time of the leak.

                  The point of the leak was that the Admin was saying there had been no danger while there actually was a real plot that was defused.

                  After the AP contacted the CIA the agent was hustled out.

                  47 is the new 51!

                  by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:44:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Um, no. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JVolvo
                    The agent was still in place and unsuspected at the time of the leak.
                    Wrong.
                    NPR's Dina Temple-Raston reports that the reason the CIA was upset was that the AP's account had  blown the cover of the double agent who was posing as the underwear bomber who they were hoping to reinsert in the field.
                    Which is itself a load of crap, especially in the context of the information that the administration had already disclosed.

                    What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                    by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:05:10 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  obviously you have a desire (0+ / 0-)

                      to twist because you're moving away from your original thesis that AP story was about the bomb to pick away at a minor detail. The essence of this story is leaking of secret information that shows the Admin telling the public there was no plot active when it new well it was. A purely political leak of secret information.

                      Have a nice day.

                      47 is the new 51!

                      by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:04:05 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  That part is actually right, except for the (0+ / 0-)

                  miraculously part.  The AP did not keep national security people out of the loop and held the story at least 5 days when informed there were national security concerns.

                  The agencies pulled their people in that time frame.

                  I haven't heard about any threat by the AP to reveal sensitive info regardless of consequence.   Instead, I'm sure the agencies protected their people on the theory that they couuldn't know who else had the information.

                  LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                  by dinotrac on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:19:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  which people? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JVolvo

                    the undercover guy had already left the country, that's how we got the bomb.  There might have been support personnel with their asses exposed, but that's (a) speculation and (b) not of lasting consequence given that they had ample time to do so.

                    What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                    by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:10:22 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sorry, I thought I was done (0+ / 0-)

                      but gee, just because he didn't die you seem to think no harm done. No lasting consequence? How do you know that? What else might he have learned if he hadn't been blown? This is not an academic question since he'd already shown his ability.

                      47 is the new 51!

                      by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:22:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  ???? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        JVolvo

                        He volunteered as a suicide bomber.  The idea that he might go back and offer to blow himself up again is a stretch.  Add to that the contemporaneous disclosure that the CIA had possession of the device, which as far as I know is not being investigated.  Add to that the contemporaneous disclosure that the CIA had control of the operation from the beginning, which John Brennan has not been disciplined for.  

                        What are the chances that al-Qaida would have still been oblivious of the infiltrator, with all of that information but without the AP leak?

                        What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                        by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:31:56 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Brennan (0+ / 0-)

                          should be disciplined for having control over the operation? That is his job. Infiltration of al-Qaeda. And you want him disciplined. On what basis?

                          Clutching at straws, are we? Suicide bombers don't grow on trees. I'm sure that there have been many that tried more than once. Or, it may be, that every covert action run by people other than the CIA is always an unqualified success.

                          47 is the new 51!

                          by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:35:34 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  On the basis (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JVolvo
                            Brennan (0+ / 0-)
                            should be disciplined for having control over the operation?
                            No, he should arguably be disciplined for disclosing that we had control of the operation.  
                            Clutching at straws, are we? Suicide bombers don't grow on trees. I'm sure that there have been many that tried more than once. Or, it may be, that every covert action run by people other than the CIA is always an unqualified success.
                            Whuh?

                            He never got on the plane.
                            He fled the country.
                            The CIA disclosed that they had control of the plot.
                            The CIA got control of the device even though the bomber never made the flight.

                            <--That's what al Qaida knew without the AP leak.  If you really think that they would have trusted the guy again, I'm not the one grasping at straws.

                            What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                            by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:49:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  brennan (0+ / 0-)

                            should be disciplined because he preempted AP, knowing full well the story was coming out the next day. oookkk. This is goodbye.

                            47 is the new 51!

                            by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:20:17 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  My understanding is they are trying (0+ / 0-)

              to find out who leaked to the AP originally.

          •  This wasn't a leak (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JVolvo

            ahead of time. This all came down after the fact. No present danger the evil 'perps' and their incendiary device were thwarted. The terrorist's (and CIA) dastardly plot had been stopped. Enough with bs.  

      •  Duh? That seems to be (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rick Aucoin

        the crux of the matter. The WH embarrassment is the source of the WH's and DoJ's pique and subsequent illegal  Multiple intel's and dubious plot foiling by the Spooks of yet another underwear bomber is hardly worth having the wrath of big brother's lawless intimidation coming down on AP's head. lol. Like AP aides and abets terrorists. They like Fox's Rosin are not even credible news agencies, just water carriers for the new lawless Orwellian new normal. Very illegal is up for grabs these days as once again the Law has become whatever the real criminals in power says it is.

           

        •  there was much more involved (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tony Situ, Janet 707

          than 'embarrassment'. Relations with several foreign countries were damaged, for example.

          It's not all about the WH, all the time.

          47 is the new 51!

          by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:11:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How did this damage (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rick Aucoin, JVolvo

            anything other then messing up the propaganda release about foiled dubious plots stopped by the super secret Spooks and our ever vigilant security state that is built on lies. I'm not saying this is solely about the WH. It is however about what this whole administration and it's branches from the CIA to the DoJ. What is this adminstration promoting and actively supporting. Brennan? really? Lew? really? Simpson? There is no way to disassociate this administration from what they support and enforce. You are behind this seriously? You think this endless bogus cooked up war on terror with suspended human/civil rights and our laws is more important and more of a credible threat then our and humanities inalienable rights and principles? Why are you a Democrat?    

    •  The info has to be legally classified. It was. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, jazzence, Tony Situ, Janet 707

      The legal status of the ongoing covert operation in Yemen was not "the White House doesn't want to get out."

      It was actually classified information.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:53:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh really (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JVolvo

        and should this information have been classified? The WH was about to release it's own hype about it's foiling of another underwear bomber, lol and AP beat them to the punch. There was no crisis the alleged plot had been foiled and we we're safe.

        http://talkingpointsmemo.com/...

        Gov’t Secretly Obtained AP Phone Records In Probe

        The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States. In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP's source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an "unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information."

        The plot was significant both because of its seriousness and also because the White House previously had told the public it had “no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden’s death.”

        The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot, though the Obama administration continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.

        The May 7 story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. They and their editor, Ted Bridis, were among the journalists whose April-May 2012 phone records were seized by the government.

        Brennan talked about the AP story and investigation in written testimony to the Senate. “The irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made … when someone informed The Associated Press that the U.S. government had intercepted an IED (improvised explosive device) that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it,” he wrote.

        I am somehow skeptical about this whole CIA plot foiling business. Brennan a Bushie Spook torturer of the worst order does not inspire trust or confidence. In short this whole debacle seems to be about messing up the WH's GWOT propaganda and the CIA's dubious role in stopping another 'underwear bomber'.

         I certainly don't believe that Brennan and the Spooks have any interest in 'keeping us safe'. The WH is just another participant in this Orwellain GWOT.  Meanwhile thank God for the CIA, FBI, DoJ and der Homeland Security for foiling the enemy we all must fear be they armed with pressure cookers carried by crazed Muslims or CIA plants with explosives in their underwear. Kiss your rights goodbye. After all it's worth giving up our basic democratic principles, universal hard won laws and rights because it keeps us safe and saves lives. What a seriously fucked up twisty anti-democratic logic is this. Not at all what democracy or freedom looks like  

         

      •  So what (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rick Aucoin

        they classify anything and everything that doesn't catapult the fear and propaganda need to keep the Orwellian GWOT alive and humming. How does this differ from Bush's regime where mushroom clouds of mass destruction and 'terrist's are gonna kill yer family' rendered our laws, civil and human rights and basic democratic principles moot and gone daddy gone? How is this expectable when the Bushies were not?

        Like I'm supposed to believe Brennan or the Spooks or the lame DoJ and the WH that this sick and unbelievable security state is somehow legal? Gimmie a break. Who knows and who will ever know what the reality is when these fuckers claim that their mendacity and evil is classified and anyone who dares to contradict their storyline is a aider and abettor of our enemy's. They want our precious bodily fluids and we need to kill them and torture them and the aiders and abettors like APO or Fox must be stopped as the real threats to our 'security are 'gonna kill yer family'.      

    •  actually it does (0+ / 0-)

      if you have signed legally binding documents stating that you have agreed to certain restrictions

      In the time that I have been given,
      I am what I am

      by duhban on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:46:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually it doesn't. (0+ / 0-)

        First, you may not have signed anything or even been aware that anything was secret.
        Second, signing and agreement -- a contract -- does not make you a law breaker.  It makes you a contract breacher.  Not the same thing.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:20:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  now you are just making things up (0+ / 0-)

          anyone working for the adminstration or who had access to that information would have undoubtly signed an NDA

          Your notice of 'breaking the law' is also very strange. It is against the law to leak classified information, if you are a whistleblower exposing law breaking an exception is made that's how it is.

          In the time that I have been given,
          I am what I am

          by duhban on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:40:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, it kinda does. (0+ / 0-)

      If the information was classified at the time, then yeah.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site