| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| NSA Leaks - a Grand Jury Meets | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 31 2006, 03:54 AM (217 Views) | |
| George K | Jul 31 2006, 03:54 AM Post #1 |
|
Finally
|
Grand Jury Probes News Leaks at NSA Fired Officer Subpoenaed for Aug. 2 By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, July 29, 2006; A02 A federal grand jury in Alexandria is investigating unauthorized leaks of classified information and has issued a subpoena to a fired National Security Agency officer who has acknowledged talking with journalists about the agency's warrantless surveillance program, according to documents released yesterday. The 23-member grand jury is "conducting an investigation of possible violations of federal criminal laws involving unauthorized disclosure of classified information" under the Espionage Act and other statutes, according to a document accompanying the subpoena. The demand for testimony from former NSA officer Russell Tice provides a sign of the Justice Department's aggressiveness in pursuing the leak investigation, which follows a series of controversial news reports on classified programs. It also marks the latest potential use of the espionage statute to combat such leaks. In December, Justice opened a criminal investigation after the New York Times disclosed the existence of the eavesdropping program, which allows the NSA to monitor telephone calls to and from the United States without a court order if one party is linked to suspected of links to terrorist groups. The documents released yesterday do not make it clear whether the grand jury is focused on that report or on some other disclosure. Tice has publicly identified himself as a possible source for the report, saying that he talked to Times reporters before it was published. He also has said he believes he was fired by the NSA last year because he complained of possible Chinese espionage at the agency, and he has since sought to testify before Congress about "probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts" by the NSA director and other senior administration officials. Tice said in an interview that he viewed the subpoena as an attempt at intimidation by the government. "This is the king saying, 'How dare anyone challenge my authority and say that I'm a crook or a criminal?' " he said. The subpoena, dated July 25, requires Tice to appear Aug. 2. It was posted yesterday on the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition's Web site. Tice is a member of the group. New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said the newspaper has "not been contacted by the government" in the case. A Justice spokesman declined to comment. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has said that while prosecutors are focused on the "leakers," he cannot rule out the need to demand testimony from reporters as well. A separate grand jury investigation into the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity resulted in the jailing last year of one reporter and testimony from her and numerous others. Journalism and secrecy experts said the Alexandria investigation is another worrisome development for reporters attempting to inform the public about intelligence programs and policies. "They are playing hardball," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. ". . . They're rounding up the most likely suspects, getting them to say 'Yes I was a source' or 'No I was not a source,' and then they'll go to the reporters." |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jul 31 2006, 05:52 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Had heard this one was coming. Tice did not follow protocol, even for a whistleblower. Time to lop off a few heads, and send the message. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jul 31 2006, 05:56 AM Post #3 |
|
Finally
|
There are policies and procedures that "whistleblowers" must follow. Tice did not, and therefore is subject to prosecution, if the grand jury decides. As Quirt said, punish the leaker. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Nina | Jul 31 2006, 06:23 AM Post #4 |
|
Senior Carp
|
What are the procedures for being a "whistle blower"? I'm curious because it seems that every Tom, Dick and Harry who's been fired is starting to use the whistle blower defense. |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jul 31 2006, 06:39 AM Post #5 |
|
Finally
|
http://www.osc.gov/wbdisc.htm#filing (OSC is Office of Special Counsel) Overview OSC’s Disclosure Unit (DU) serves as a safe conduit for the receipt and evaluation of whistleblower disclosures from federal employees, former employees and applicants for federal employment. 5 U.S.C. § 1213. In this capacity, DU receives and evaluates whistleblowing disclosures—which are separate and distinct from complaints of reprisal or retaliation for whistleblowing which are reviewed by OSC’s Complaints Examining Unit as a prohibited personnel practice. The OSC disclosure process differs from other government whistleblower channels in at least three ways: (1) federal law guarantees confidentiality to the whistleblower; (2) the Special Counsel may order an agency head to investigate and report on the disclosure; and (3) after any such investigation, the Special Counsel must send the agency's report, with the whistleblower's comments, to the President and Congressional oversight committees. As stated above, a whistleblower’s identity will not be revealed without their consent. However, in the unusual case where the Special Counsel determines there is an imminent danger to public health and safety or violation of criminal, the Special Counsel has the authority to reveal the whistleblower’s identity. 5 U.S.C. § 1213(h). DU attorneys review five types of disclosures specified in the statute: violations of law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; abuse of authority; and substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. 5 U.S.C. § 1213(b). The disclosures are evaluated to determine whether or not there is sufficient information to conclude with a substantial likelihood that one of these conditions has been disclosed. Filing a Disclosure Whistleblowers must make their disclosures to OSC in writing. To facilitate this process, OSC has developed a form which may be used to file a disclosure. OSC Form No. 12, Disclosure of Information. Use of OSC Form No. 12 is not mandatory. However, if you do not use the form, it is important to include your name, address and telephone numbers. For assistance with filing a disclosure, or any other inquiries, please contact the DU Hotline at (800) 572-2249 or (202) 254-3640. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Forms are here: http://www.osc.gov/forms.htm#index There's no stationery with the New York Times on it amongst those forms. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Nina | Jul 31 2006, 06:47 AM Post #6 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Interesting. Does anyone else find it ironic that if you plan on tattling about the government, you need to first fill out a form (probably in triplicate) and send it to... the government? ![]() Still, I understand what they're driving at. In practice, though, I think people have successfully blown, so to speak, even if they didn't file all the forms. Or at least the forms don't have to be filled out before blowing. |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Jul 31 2006, 07:59 AM Post #7 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
I would have far more sympathy for someone who went through the proper channels and was rebuffed and then went to the media than one who just went straight to the media. Still, in either case you had better have a clear cut case of abuse or you are liable to get crucified. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 31 2006, 11:03 AM Post #8 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
If he broke the law, he should be charged. If anyone thinks it's a dumb law, then change it. That's no excuse for breaking the law. If you want to be Henry David Thoreau, you have to be prepared for the consequences. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |










12:15 AM Jul 11