When Leaks Are A Good Thing
Yesterday, I posted on Representative Hoekstra's outrage at not being told about a significant intelligence program being run by the regime. What I hadn't considered in that post was how Mr. Hoekstra got wind of the fact that the Emperor and his minions weren't exactly being forthright in fulfilling its constitutional duties. In an article in today's NY Times we learn how that information came to Mr. Hoekstra.
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Sunday that the Bush administration briefed the panel on a "significant" intelligence program only after a government whistle-blower alerted him to its existence and he pressed President Bush for details.
..."We can't be briefed on every little thing that they are doing," Mr. Hoekstra said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday." "But in this case, there was at least one major — what I consider significant — activity that we had not been briefed on that we have now been briefed on. And I want to set the standard there, that it is not optional for this president or any president or people in the executive community not to keep the intelligence committees fully informed of what they are doing."
Mr. Hoekstra has also been an outspoken critic of government employees who leak classified information to outsiders and of the news media for printing articles about it, and he has suggested that tougher legislation may be necessary.
But on Sunday, discussing how he learned of the administration's failure to brief the committee, Mr. Hoekstra said, "This is actually a case where the whistle-blower process was working appropriately." [Emphasis added]
While there may be a distinction between leaking and whistleblowing with an actual difference, I don't believe that this is it. What Mr. Hoekstra is saying is that leaking to the media (and hence to the public) that an egregiously illegal program has been undertaken by the government is bad and that whistleblowing to a congressional committee chair is good. In the first case, an outraged public has the opportunity to bring pressure to bear on the offending agency through Congress and other venues in order to halt the program. In the second case, at least with this colluding and collaborating Congress, nothing may get done and the public is none the wiser.
I doubt that without the public outcry over the warrantless NSA wiretaps on Americans that Congress would have uttered a peep about the program, and I suspect that at least some members of the Emperor's congress knew about it. This is not just about being important enough to know what's going on, this is about constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Mr. Hoekstra needs to ask Senator Byrd for one of those pocket sized copies of the Constitution and he needs to read it.
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Sunday that the Bush administration briefed the panel on a "significant" intelligence program only after a government whistle-blower alerted him to its existence and he pressed President Bush for details.
..."We can't be briefed on every little thing that they are doing," Mr. Hoekstra said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday." "But in this case, there was at least one major — what I consider significant — activity that we had not been briefed on that we have now been briefed on. And I want to set the standard there, that it is not optional for this president or any president or people in the executive community not to keep the intelligence committees fully informed of what they are doing."
Mr. Hoekstra has also been an outspoken critic of government employees who leak classified information to outsiders and of the news media for printing articles about it, and he has suggested that tougher legislation may be necessary.
But on Sunday, discussing how he learned of the administration's failure to brief the committee, Mr. Hoekstra said, "This is actually a case where the whistle-blower process was working appropriately." [Emphasis added]
While there may be a distinction between leaking and whistleblowing with an actual difference, I don't believe that this is it. What Mr. Hoekstra is saying is that leaking to the media (and hence to the public) that an egregiously illegal program has been undertaken by the government is bad and that whistleblowing to a congressional committee chair is good. In the first case, an outraged public has the opportunity to bring pressure to bear on the offending agency through Congress and other venues in order to halt the program. In the second case, at least with this colluding and collaborating Congress, nothing may get done and the public is none the wiser.
I doubt that without the public outcry over the warrantless NSA wiretaps on Americans that Congress would have uttered a peep about the program, and I suspect that at least some members of the Emperor's congress knew about it. This is not just about being important enough to know what's going on, this is about constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Mr. Hoekstra needs to ask Senator Byrd for one of those pocket sized copies of the Constitution and he needs to read it.
posted by Diane at 4:31 AM
1 Comments:
http://affiliates-critic.com
Post a Comment
<< Home