You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
Bennett on the CIA Leak Firing - heh!
2006-04-23
Earlier this week, Bill Bennett took some heat for saying that several of the journalists who won Pulitzers this year should go to jail. Today on CNN, Bennett put his remarks into the context of the news that a CIA officer has been fired for leaking and possibly faces prosecution:

Blitzer was horrified:
BLITZER: What Bill is suggesting, as a reporter, is very very dangerous, very slippery...

TORIE CLARKE: You would look good in horizontal stripes.

BLITZER: You used to be the press spokesperson over at the Pentagon. Do you agree with those comments?

CLARKE: I hesitate to disagree with him, because he's so smart, and I appreciate the seriousness with which he treats this, but I've always thought there should be more emphasis in these matters on the people in government who sign papers saying, "I will never reveal classified information. I take these responsibilities seriously," etc., and then they do it. I wish there was more emphasis on that side of the fence.
Posted by:3dc

#11  Wolf Blitzer looks more like Tarik Azeez everyday, amazing.
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-04-23 13:55  

#10  Lets see... I dont se any "Except if you are a reporter" or ... "Except if you jsut got a Pulitzer"

It's implied. Reporters are homo superius, after all.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-04-23 13:35  

#9  Torie Clarke kicked ass - she'd make a great press secretary
Posted by: Frank G   2006-04-23 12:59  

#8  Torie Clarke is a CNN tool

?? she did a good job at the Pentagon IMO.
Posted by: lotp   2006-04-23 12:40  

#7  Torie Clarke is a CNN tool.
Posted by: Captain America   2006-04-23 12:28  

#6  he => She (for the reporter and leaker).
Posted by: Oldspook   2006-04-23 12:21  

#5  U.S.C. Title 18, Part I Ch 37 Sec 793(e) Sec. 798. Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes,
transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person,
or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or
interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign
government to the detriment of the United States any classified
information

Lets see... I dont se any "Except if you are a reporter" or ... "Except if you jsut got a Pulitzer"

Nope. Jail the reporter. He KNEW the infomation was classifed, KNEW it would hurt the security of the US, and KNEW it was illegal, and proceeded anyway for personal fame and monetary gain.

Whats there to discuss? The press is still free to publish anythign it wants - it just has to face the consequences now. No pre-publication censorship at all. Just accountability for the consequences of thier actions. What a novel concept: the press actually faces the consequences of their actions like the rest of us do!
Posted by: Oldspook   2006-04-23 12:20  

#4  BENNETT: The situation we have now is that Dana Priest has won the Pulitzer Prize. The guy who leaked to her has been fired from the CIA and may be subject to a prosecution. He gets prosecution, fired from the CIA, she gets the Pulitzer Prize. I think there's something a little wrong with that.

Bennett calls a spade, a spade.
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-04-23 11:15  

#3  In the long term, this protected the line from dilution.

Very true.
Posted by: 2b   2006-04-23 10:06  

#2  There is actually a very clear dividing line, though one "journalists" refuse to see.

Divulging political, personal, and commercial secrets is either legal or is only a minor offense.

However, national secrets are supposed to transcend politics. They are there to protect the United States from its enemies, foreign and domestic. This is why it is a major offense to divulge them, and why it is *not* "whistleblowing".

The corrupt, such as the Clinton regime, tried very hard to blur this distinction, and hide their political secrets behind a wall of national security. Unfortunately, they could do this, and the courts held that classifications still protected them. And the courts were correct in doing this.

In the long term, this protected the line from dilution. It worked off the assumption that it is far better to oversecure classified information than it is to release data that could damage us as a nation.

The media still touts the Vietnam-era "Pentagon Papers" as an example of how they should be allowed to publish classified information. However, Daniel Ellsberg should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law for divulging that information. Not doing so created the *false* impression that the (political) ends justify the means in leaking classified information and established a terrible precedent.

For this reason, the dismissal of that CIA employee is not enough. She *must* be charged with the most serious charge available, and her trial must also be conducted in such a way as to mitigate any further release of still classified material. If this means her attorneys cannot grandstand in front of the cameras, so be it.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-04-23 09:50  

#1  
BLITZER: What Bill is suggesting, as a reporter, is very very dangerous, very slippery...

Yep, demanding reporters obey the law -- very dangerous, very slippery. Next thing ya know, people will be wondering why they don't get the whole story from the press.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-04-23 08:44  

00:00