From a nobody geek to a top brass's ass

Oh, the irony. The ironies. Sometimes you're sorry you probed.

Such as when you're looking for the leaker of the Stuxnet program--a "very damaging" leak, says one intelligence specialist; one of "devastating consequences," says another (even though Iran already knew Who Done It)--and instead of a Rand Paulian youngster possessed of a possibly overactive libertarian imagination, you find a retired four-star Marine general, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who was "one of the president’s 'inner circle' of national security advisors."

"[T]he Justice Department has not made a final decision on whether to charge" the general, reports Michael Isikoff. But if the Justice Department does, it really must charge him, fair is fair, under the Espionage Act--the Great Equalizer, the atomic bomb of all intelligence investigations, to be deployed against the naughty and nice alike.

And what gripes your butt even more, assuming you're sitting atop the Justice Department, is to find that "prosecutors were able to identify [the] suspected leaker without resorting to a secret subpoena of the phone records of New York Times reporters."

Damn! Foiled again, in a way.

Comments

[Charlieford]

Perhaps the most revealing sentence in the story is simply this: "the former second ranking officer in the U.S. military is now the target of a Justice Department investigation into a politically sensitive leak of classified information."

This indicates that--contra the paranoid delusions of the tin-foil-hat crowd--the administration's concern about leaks is not, as they would have us believe, merely a smokescreen to divert public attention from their general animus against free speech, and civil liberties, prefatory, no doubt, to the reduction of all independent-minded citizens to Soylent Green.

What is more, that the suspect was identified "without resorting to a secret subpoena of the phone records of New York Times reporters," should occasion a lengthy, meditative pause.

Merely eliminating the NSA, it appears, will not be a fool-proof fix for all that ails us.

We may need to strangle the government-baby in the bathtub, after all.

[Tom]

Foiled? Did we read the same story, Phil?

"Targeted in the investigation" means they're still investigating, doesn't it? If they can build a strong enough case, they'll indict the man; if not, they'll either keep digging, shift the focus of the investigation, or try to make a different case. Just like every other criminal investigation, no?

As far as the subpoena of phone records, I wonder how the unnamed sources cited determined which legally obtained evidence led to naming the General an investigative target. I also wonder why you, Phil, think it's somehow bad news for the Justice Dept that they reportedly won't need to rely on those subpoenaed phone records when/if they go to court. If they have solid evidence from sources less likely to be legally challenged, I'm guessing Justice is far less bummed about this fact than you seem to believe.

[Peter G]

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the blabberer.

[Robert Lipscomb]

What is clear is the contempt PM has for anyone and everyone who dares disagree with him on any of these issues. This post is another example of what I have found so galling in his commentary on the subject. He either refuses to understand the clear meaning of opposing comments, or he assumes our comments belie our true intent.

I will be shocked and disappointed if anyone who has called for this investigation is humiliated or thwarted by this revelation. The very nature of the information leaked presumes it was by a high ranking official. I will hazard a guess that the president also knew this when he sent the DOJ to investigate.

Unlike the Bush administration investigating the Plame leak, the Obama administration seems to have found their leaker and intends to punish that person.

I confess to continue enjoying watching PM get the vapors and hurling himself on a fainting couch. The classics never get old.