Muddying the waters
In today's New York Times, CIA Director Porter Goss has penned what seems, on the surface, to be a passionate, reasonable, and compelling explanation of the need for classified secrets to be kept... well, secret. While never mentioning the President's hidden, warrantless, FISA-skirting, domestic spying program by name, Goss' op-ed is a well crafted defense of covert information gathering in the pursuit of homeland security.
After all, even I wouldn't disagree with the fact that revealing "new technologies we use, our operational tactics, and the identities of brave men and women who risk their lives to assist us" is a bad thing to do. We all acknowledge that it would be recklessly stupid to list the makes and model numbers of our electronic equipment in public. It would be equally idiotic to describe in detail the various tactics used to keep tabs on our enemies. And it would be nothing less than reprehensible to expose the identities of the undercover individuals laying it all on the line for our safety.
Except that's not what's happening with the NSA surveillance investigation. And that makes Mr. Goss' oh-so-cleverly worded essay just another piece of Rovian misdirection, intentionally designed to confuse the public while never actually addressing the simple question at hand:
Did the President of the United States knowingly break the law?
Equating the revelation of illegal or unethical government activities with "selling state secrets to the enemy" is disingenuous to say the least, a familiar song and dance we've come to expect from this bunch. But, c'mon, get real. Saying the phrase "warrantless wiretapping" out loud is not informing al Qaeda about "new technologies we use, our operational tactics, and the identities of brave men and women who risk their lives to assist us." In fact, the way I see it, none of those details are even central or necessary or relevant to that same unanswered query:
Did the President of the United States knowingly break the law?
We don't need to know the specs of the wiretapping equipment used to hold the Administration accountable for secretly bypassing FISA. We don't need to expose the tactical deployment records of the spy teams assigned to illegal operations to ask the elected guardian of our Constitution why he ordered those illegal operations in the first place, and then lied to the nation about their existence. And we certainly don't need to blow the cover of operatives in the field to prosecute the officials who designed and executed the plan. All we want to know is:
Did the President of the United States knowingly break the law?
Mr. Goss does get one thing right, however, when he states, "The sharp distinction between a whistleblower and someone who breaks the law by willfully compromising classified information has been muddied." What he apparently fails to grasp, though, is that we're not the ones who are clouding that distinction. It's his bosses - and misleading editorials like this one - that are doing all the muddying.
After all, even I wouldn't disagree with the fact that revealing "new technologies we use, our operational tactics, and the identities of brave men and women who risk their lives to assist us" is a bad thing to do. We all acknowledge that it would be recklessly stupid to list the makes and model numbers of our electronic equipment in public. It would be equally idiotic to describe in detail the various tactics used to keep tabs on our enemies. And it would be nothing less than reprehensible to expose the identities of the undercover individuals laying it all on the line for our safety.
Except that's not what's happening with the NSA surveillance investigation. And that makes Mr. Goss' oh-so-cleverly worded essay just another piece of Rovian misdirection, intentionally designed to confuse the public while never actually addressing the simple question at hand:
Did the President of the United States knowingly break the law?
Equating the revelation of illegal or unethical government activities with "selling state secrets to the enemy" is disingenuous to say the least, a familiar song and dance we've come to expect from this bunch. But, c'mon, get real. Saying the phrase "warrantless wiretapping" out loud is not informing al Qaeda about "new technologies we use, our operational tactics, and the identities of brave men and women who risk their lives to assist us." In fact, the way I see it, none of those details are even central or necessary or relevant to that same unanswered query:
Did the President of the United States knowingly break the law?
We don't need to know the specs of the wiretapping equipment used to hold the Administration accountable for secretly bypassing FISA. We don't need to expose the tactical deployment records of the spy teams assigned to illegal operations to ask the elected guardian of our Constitution why he ordered those illegal operations in the first place, and then lied to the nation about their existence. And we certainly don't need to blow the cover of operatives in the field to prosecute the officials who designed and executed the plan. All we want to know is:
Did the President of the United States knowingly break the law?
Mr. Goss does get one thing right, however, when he states, "The sharp distinction between a whistleblower and someone who breaks the law by willfully compromising classified information has been muddied." What he apparently fails to grasp, though, is that we're not the ones who are clouding that distinction. It's his bosses - and misleading editorials like this one - that are doing all the muddying.
posted by Bob P @ 1:49 AM
2 Comments:
Did the President of the United States knowingly break the law?
Yep, that's the heart of it. And muddying the waters is exactly what the admin and its accomplices in Congress are doing. Put on a good show, make up some tenuous justifications, talk some jive, have a phony committee hearing or two, and eventually the citizens will just throw up their hands.
Damn, it works every time. Great post.
Thanks for stopping by on such a regular basis. Enjoying your work at 604 as well.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home