Quote:
|
Originally Posted by €uroMeinke
I guess I have to wonder just how secret somethin is, if it is uncovered by a reporter. If they can uncover it, I would presume any "enemy" we miht have would just start sending it's folks to journalism school to do whatever required intelligence work was needed. Seems in the end they're doin the admin a favor by pointing out breeches in the system. Obviously there are people with clearance talking to people they shouldn't - that's what really should be getting attention.
|
I guess I'm not clear on why only one side of the equation should get attention. It strikes me as like saying that you should thank me for exposing how unsmart it is to hide your spare key under the doormat by stealing your television.
While I'm sure the reason it isn't being widely discussed it political expediency I have no doubt that they are trying to find out who leaked the information and if found the person will be at least fired. Unless, of course, it was the same person who coordinates the bin Laden tapes in which case it might be a resource too valuable to lose.
Similarly, I wonder why people who thought it was so important to find the leaker in the Valerie Plame case and to see the reporter punished (so long as it was Bob Novak and even though it was generally known that she worked for the CIA and was the wife of the guy whose name I forget) now think that leaking classified information is really not that big of a deal, especially since it was information you could have assumed.
Both sides should feel the heat unless there is a very compelling case for revealing the information (a true whistle blower situation of which this is not a good example). The leaker should lose their job and possibly face criminal charges. The publisher should be criticized though I think the situations where any kind of criminal charge is warranted are very, very narrow.