Round up the obvious suspects

Liberal fantasies of Karl Rove being frog—marched in handcuffs for leaking classified information may turn into a nightmare of prominent liberals being prosecuted for damaging the fight against al Qaeda via leaks of classified data. There are no names on the public record yet, but somebody leaked the classified information about NSA surveillance to James Risen of the New York Times, and a year later his paper published the story.

The pieces falling in place are far from conclusive, but they are mighty suggestive.

President Bush believes that the national interest has been harmed. In all probability, gears are turning right now for a criminal investigation leading to a possible a possible felony prosecution. Others are noting, as AT did last Sunday, that at the demand of the left itself, precedents have been set that could ensnare not "evil Republicans," but "virtuous liberals" who think of themselves as whistleblowers. As the old saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for."

Jack Kelly contends something valuable may yet come out of the Plame Investigation:

It is despicable, but not illegal, for the news media to publish vital national secrets leaked to them. But the leakers have committed a felony.

Those who have demanded severe punishment for whoever it was who told reporters Valerie Plame worked at the CIA have been remarkably forgiving about who leaked the existence of the NSA intercept program, which —— like the earlier leak of secret CIA prisons for al Qaida bigwigs and unlike the Plame kerfuffle —— has done serious harm to our national security.

But fortunately, by clapping New York Times reporter Judith Miller in irons until she talked, overzealous special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has set a valuable precedent.

Attorney General Gonzalez should subpoena Mr. Risen and Mr. Lichtblau, and have them cited for contempt of court if they do not disclose their source or sources. Maybe they could share Judy Miller's old cell.

Should the Attorney General take up Kelly's suggestion, A. J. Strata has a starting point suggestion about the leakers. He notes this graph from the NYT:

'According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said.'

It does seem to suggest that Senator Rockefeller and " a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters" were sources for this leak, Strata hints. In fact, if Strata is right, Gonzales may already know that, for Strata adds that press reports to the contrary notwithstanding, Judge Robertson, an activist liberal judge, probably didn't "resign," but rather was suspended for that very reason.

Clarice Feldman  12 22 05

Liberal fantasies of Karl Rove being frog—marched in handcuffs for leaking classified information may turn into a nightmare of prominent liberals being prosecuted for damaging the fight against al Qaeda via leaks of classified data. There are no names on the public record yet, but somebody leaked the classified information about NSA surveillance to James Risen of the New York Times, and a year later his paper published the story.

The pieces falling in place are far from conclusive, but they are mighty suggestive.

President Bush believes that the national interest has been harmed. In all probability, gears are turning right now for a criminal investigation leading to a possible a possible felony prosecution. Others are noting, as AT did last Sunday, that at the demand of the left itself, precedents have been set that could ensnare not "evil Republicans," but "virtuous liberals" who think of themselves as whistleblowers. As the old saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for."

Jack Kelly contends something valuable may yet come out of the Plame Investigation:

It is despicable, but not illegal, for the news media to publish vital national secrets leaked to them. But the leakers have committed a felony.

Those who have demanded severe punishment for whoever it was who told reporters Valerie Plame worked at the CIA have been remarkably forgiving about who leaked the existence of the NSA intercept program, which —— like the earlier leak of secret CIA prisons for al Qaida bigwigs and unlike the Plame kerfuffle —— has done serious harm to our national security.

But fortunately, by clapping New York Times reporter Judith Miller in irons until she talked, overzealous special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has set a valuable precedent.

Attorney General Gonzalez should subpoena Mr. Risen and Mr. Lichtblau, and have them cited for contempt of court if they do not disclose their source or sources. Maybe they could share Judy Miller's old cell.

Should the Attorney General take up Kelly's suggestion, A. J. Strata has a starting point suggestion about the leakers. He notes this graph from the NYT:

'According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said.'

It does seem to suggest that Senator Rockefeller and " a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters" were sources for this leak, Strata hints. In fact, if Strata is right, Gonzales may already know that, for Strata adds that press reports to the contrary notwithstanding, Judge Robertson, an activist liberal judge, probably didn't "resign," but rather was suspended for that very reason.

Clarice Feldman  12 22 05