Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, January 8, 2009 12:07 AM

  Glenn

  good (or at least fair) points

  Ahh, well - I try my best.

  -- I realize it's just speculation, but do you have any thoughts about who the actual target might be if it's not Tamm? The NYT and reporters and editors? Recall that Alberto Gonzales openly speculated about such a prosecution, though it's very difficult to imagine -- is it not?

  I really don't. Jebbie correctly points out that NYT had other sources, but Tamm appears to have acted alone, so I can't see how he could be a competent witness against them.

  I also find it hard to believe DoJ could actually be considering moving against the NYT reporters and editors at this point. For one, don't they have a fairly iron-clad free press First Amendment affirmative defense? This is an aspect I think you know more about than I.

  For another, the gov't has all but conceded that the program -- in its form at the time Tamm leaked -- was illegal; hence all the post facto revisions and legislation. So, even if Tamm violated federal law, seems like a tough case to make to a jury at this point. Especially a D.C. jury, where the pool is, what? 90% liberal Democrat? I think the fact they've decided to push off the decision on whether to indict Tamm to the Obama admin reveals their lack of passion about it at this point.

  I'm just really uneasy with a lot of things here. I won't dismiss out of hand national security concerns. I would have preferred Tamm thought of some way to halt the illegal aspect of the program without publicizing it, such as going to Congress (I know, I know...). I thought he had the right idea by going to a former colleague who was then with the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I think that person had a duty to refer the matter to the Committee (or someone on the Intelligence Committee) rather than tell Tamm to shut up.

  And, to lastnamechosen's point - no, I don't know that people like Feingold and Conyers didn't first learn of the program the way we did, via the NYT. Do you know, Glenn?

  And, is Frances Townsend right when she says that there was a whistle-blower complaint process that Tamm should have followed?

  I'm also wary of a statement such as it's an "hysterical accusation" to say that national security was jeopardized by what Tamm did. I can just hear someone say "it's an hysterical accusation to say that our Iraq WMD intelligence was compromised just because Robert Novak revealed what Joe Wilson's wife's job was." I think both miss the point - I think the CIA had a right to protect its personnel's integrity the same way the NSA has a right to protect its secret programs. I think with hindsight we can now say the Libby prosecution was just, and perhaps DoJ should at this point just let Tamm alone, but I don't think the original impetus for either investigation was illegitimate.

  —Jestaplero Read Jestaplero's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel