Grand Jury

[therealUT]

I also cannot find any fault with the federal gov't pursuing the man who leaked the informaton with more dilligence than the press.

Grand jury investigates leaks
Former National Security Agency officer who spoke to journalists has been subpoenaed.
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON | - A federal grand jury is investigating unauthorized leaks of classified information, and has issued a subpoena to a fired National Security Agency officer.

The former NSA officer, Russell Tice, has acknowledged talking with journalists about the agency’s warrantless surveillance program.

The 23-member grand jury in Alexandria, Va., is “conducting an investigation of possible violations of federal criminal laws involving unauthorized disclosure of classified information” under the Espionage Act and other statutes.

The demand for testimony from Tice provides a sign of the Justice Department’s aggressiveness in pursuing the leak investigation, which follows a series of media reports on classified programs.

In December, the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation after The New York Times disclosed the existence of the eavesdropping program, which allows the NSA to monitor calls to and from the United States without a court order if a terrorist link is suspected.

 

[vader]

National Security leaks are no joke. They should burn this guy.(metaphorically speaking, of course)

 

[jdsa]

If Mr. Tice is guilty of what he's being accused, I can understand his position. You need to do what you think is right, especially if you think the activities the government are undertaking are unconstitutional, unfortunately, however, that doesn't excuse from prosection for breaking the law.

 

[therealUT]

If Mr. Tice is guilty of what he's being accused, I can understand his position. You need to do what you think is right, especially if you think the activities the government are undertaking are unconstitutional, unfortunately, however, that doesn't excuse from prosection for breaking the law.

If you feel what you are doing is right, then why do you need to try to mask your identity in anonymity? Trying to hide in the shadows removes all nobility from any action taken.

 

[CSpindizzy]

If you feel what you are doing is right, then why do you need to try to mask your identity in anonymity? Trying to hide in the shadows removes all nobility from any action taken.

There goes the whole notion of confidentiality. And there also goes the concept of spies. Anonymity protects yourself from the unknown. Deep Throat uncovered one of the greatest abuses of power the republic has ever seen. I could care less if he was anonymous or what. I could care less of his intentions. He uncovered an abuse of power. People turn in lawbreaking all the time. Whistleblowers are usually the ones we often rely on for untold numbers of abuses in government.

 

[jdsa]

If you feel what you are doing is right, then why do you need to try to mask your identity in anonymity? Trying to hide in the shadows removes all nobility from any action taken.

Honesty, I'm not sure, but I would guess the reason whistleblowers try to preserve their anonymity is to shield those they care about from the consequences of their actions.

 

[volinbham]

Leaking national security secrets and whistle-blowing are not necessarily the same thing.

The person may believe they are right but it could also be viewed as supreme arrogance to choose to leak programs that you don't believe in. It is not their position to decide yet they assume that power.

 

[jdsa]

Leaking national security secrets and whistle-blowing are not necessarily the same thing.

The person may believe they are right but it could also be viewed as supreme arrogance to choose to leak programs that you don't believe in. It is not their position to decide yet they assume that power.

I see your point, but how do you decide when the means are justified by the ends?

Technically speaking, the people involved in the Boston Tea Party were breaking the law, but most would probably agree it was justified.

 

[volinbham]

I see your point, but how do you decide when the means are justified by the ends?

Technically speaking, the people involved in the Boston Tea Party were breaking the law, but most would probably agree it was justified.

History (and it's writers) ultimately decide. It certainly is a fine line but too often these leaks are politically motivated. Clearly it's easy to see why certain information is classified and why there are severe penalties for leaking it. Leaks can cost lives.