Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Who Took a Leak?; And who gave it?
Topic Started: Oct 20 2006, 01:11 PM (181 Views)
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
House Intel Chair Suspends Staff Member

By KATHERINE SHRADER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON

Democrats say the Republican head of the House Intelligence Committee had no grounds to suspend a staff member who's come under scrutiny for the leak of a secret intelligence assessment.

The unidentified staff member, a Democrat, was suspended this week by Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., and is being denied access to classified information pending the outcome of a review, Hoekstra's spokesman, Jamal Ware, said Thursday.

The Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, Jane Harman of California, wrote to Hoekstra that she was "appalled" by his action, which was "without basis."

The leak to The New York Times of a National Intelligence Estimate on global terror trends caused a political uproar last month. In the assessment, completed in April, analysts from the government's 16 spy agencies concluded that the Iraq war has become a "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the U.S. that probably will get worse before it gets better.

President Bush, who suggested the document was leaked for "political purposes" weeks before the midterm elections, later made public four pages of the estimate's key findings.

In a letter to Hoekstra dated Sept. 29, Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., a committee member, said the Democratic staffer requested the document from National Intelligence Director John Negroponte three days before a Sept. 23 story by the Times on its conclusions.

"I have no credible information to say any classified information was leaked from the committee's minority staff, but the implications of such would be dramatic," LaHood said in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press. "This may, in fact, be only coincidence, and simply 'look bad.' But coincidence, in this town, is rare."

In her letter, Harman demanded that Hoekstra "immediately reinstate the staffer's access to classified information."

A conference call to the committee's nine Democrats on Wednesday to inform them of the aide's suspension prompted outrage, said two congressional officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal committee business.

The officials said that the National Intelligence Estimate was marked "secret," rather than "top secret" or another more restrictive classification. As a result, thousands of people across government would have had access to it, including the intelligence, armed services and international relations committees of the House.

The officials said the staff member acted appropriately in requesting the document on behalf of a committee member.

Relations between Democrats and Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee have soured in recent weeks.

On Tuesday, Harman unilaterally released the executive summary of an independent investigator's review into the actions of a jailed former congressman, Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif. The report found that he abused his position on the committee to help ensure lucrative contracts went to associates, in exchange for bribes.

Hoekstra called Harman's decision to release the document "disturbing and beyond the pale."

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Here's what Harmon said in April

WALLACE: Congresswoman Harman, let's change subjects. I want to talk to you about leaks, because the CIA dismissed a senior officer this week, apparently reportedly a veteran named Mary McCarthy, for leaking classified information to reporters including material about secret U.S. prisons overseas for terror suspects.

Congresswoman, after it came out that the president had authorized the disclosure, partial disclosure, of the National Intelligence Estimate about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you had the following to say, and let's put it up on the screen. "The president is revealed as the Leaker in Chief."

Congresswoman, do you really see any comparison between these two actions?

HARMAN: You bet I do. I don't know this woman, and I do not condone leaks of classified information. However, while leaks are wrong, I think it is totally wrong for our president, in secret, to selectively declassify certain information and empower people in his White House to leak it to favored reporters so that they can discredit political enemies.

That is wrong. That is unprecedented. I've never, ever heard about that happening in another administration, and it's a double standard.

WALLACE: But, Congresswoman Harman, isn't there a big difference? She was breaking the law. He wasn't.

HARMAN: Well, he wasn't breaking the law because the president claims to have power that no one else has. And he should be reminded that the Constitution starts with Article I, not Article II.

The inherent powers of the presidency are not unlimited. He's been ignoring Congress. He's been refusing to brief the full Intelligence Committees on the NSA program. I think that's a violation of law.

Presumably he's doing that because he's afraid we will leak, and yet he and his administration are the ones who leak selectively. And so I am not condoning what this woman allegedly did in the CIA. Of course, I'm not condoning that. But I think having a double standard is absolutely wrong.

WALLACE: Congressman Hoekstra?

HOEKSTRA: Well, it's clearly not a double standard. The president, the executive branch, but especially the Office of the President — the courts have clearly said they have the responsibility and the authority to decide what is classified and what is not classified.

This person in the CIA thought that they were above the law. They thought that the law did not apply to them. They have put America at risk. They have put our troops on the front lines at risk because they broke the law.

That is exactly — you know, you're exactly right. They broke the law. They're above the law. It's wrong. You know, and the country and our troops are at greater risk because of the decisions that this person made.
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
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Harman is pretty shrill about this. Why not let the investigation continue to either clear the staffer or charge him before restoring him to access?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
It depends. If there's really no merit to the charges, suppose he suspended EVERY Democratic staffer, simultaneously. In that case, would you say, wait for the investigation to clear them all? And then, if they were all cleared, he suspended them again, on a second allegation?

Clearly, there has to be some degree of reasonable suspicion to suspend someone, pending investigation. I can't tell whether that degree exists here, or not.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Oct 20 2006, 03:18 PM
It depends.  If there's really no merit to the charges, suppose he suspended EVERY Democratic staffer, simultaneously.  In that case, would you say, wait for the investigation to clear them all?  And then, if they were all cleared, he suspended them again, on a second allegation? 

When that sort of scenario happens, I'll be all over it. To conjecture it seems rather shrill.
Quote:
 


Clearly, there has to be some degree of reasonable suspicion to suspend someone, pending investigation.  I can't tell whether that degree exists here, or not.

Right. So let's investigate to see what is really there.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Anyone else catch this quote?

"A conference call to the committee's nine Democrats on Wednesday to inform them of the aide's suspension prompted outrage, said two congressional officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal committee business. "

Speaking on condition of anonymity because you are not authorized to speak publicly about what you are speaking about is probably not the best course of action to take when asked to speak about a case about leaks.
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
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Turns out, there's absolutely no evidence. The only reason they are investigating this poor schlump is because he had the misfortune to ask for the report two days prior to when the stories about it were published. Except that the Washington Post had been asking questions about the report for weeks, and except that a Democratic member of the Committee had received a specific media inquiry about the report, all BEFORE the schlump asked for a copy of it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6102000174.html

But let's not let the facts get in the way of the Republican witchhunt.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
It seems to me like the line between disseminating politically damning information and what is acttually classified is being obfuscated by the Republican leadership.

There is absolutely nothing "secret" about the net assessment of the security agencies. How they arrived at that conclusion is the part we may not want others to know.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
The more relevant point for this particular situation is that there is NO evidence that this guy is the one who leaked it. In fact, there's plenty of evidence that it was leaked BEFORE he asked for it. But we need a scapegoat, so let's ignore that inconvenient little fact, and let's ruin a guy's career, based on zero evidence, and see if we can score any political points.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
No Quirt, that is not even the point, let alone the most relevant one. A leak was made, someone noticed suspicious timing, and the guy came under the spotlight. During that time the prudent thing is to revoke his access pending investigation.

If it doesn't happen all the time, it should. Nothing in this seems to contradict our principle of "innocent until proven guilty" -- heck we lock up people all the time while trying to figure out if they are guilty or not.

The one here trying to score political points is you with the bombastic rhetoric of "witchhunt"-- anyone notice the irony?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply