Well, the Justice Department is apparently looking into the leaks:

"We are opening an investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified materials related to the NSA," one official said.

I'm sure that the media will be cheering on the prosecutor to find the culprit(s), who care so little about our national security, just as they did in the notorious "outing" of "covert CIA agent" Valerie Plame.

Right? Right?

I wonder if they have any suspects? I'm thinking maybe someone over on the north side of the Hill. Last name Rockefeller? Or Hagel?

I hope we'll see how long some other NYT and WaPo reporters/editors are willing to sit in the hoosegow to protect their sources.

Well, my take is that I don't need to know the identity of current or former CIA employees, but I do need to know to what extent US agencies monitor its citizens' communication. The wiretaps mentioned here are noteworthy because they are both secret and not subject to review by the courts (though apparently Congress still had some oversight on the issue).

I do need to know to what extent US agencies monitor its citizens' communication.

Do you mean the degree to which it monitors its citizens' (or more likely, non-citizens on American soil) communication with the enemy during a war? I've got a pretty good guess about that, and I hope we're doing a lot of it, but I don't think we need to broadcast our capabilities and intent to them.

So, if they get caught, will the leakers get a harsher punishment than Sandy Berger did?

Good question.

Do you mean the degree to which it monitors its citizens' (or more likely, non-citizens on American soil) communication with the enemy during a war? I've got a pretty good guess about that, and I hope we're doing a lot of it, but I don't think we need to broadcast our capabilities and intent to them.

Yes. I appreciate your viewpoint, but US citizens elect US presidents and congresspeople. What's the point of voting if a US citizen can't have the information they need to evaluate whether a current president and his officials are doing their jobs? The dependence of the Bush administration on potentially unconstitutional searches (particularly ones without oversight) may indicate that the administration is failing to do its job in counterterrorism.

Second, as far as I can tell, few details about the searching technology were revealed by the original NYT article and followups. This seems the core of the complaints about these stories aiding terrorist groups. IMHO, the real damage appears to be to the adminstration's reputation and to federal court cases against terrorism suspects.

The real problem is that reporters are making the call on what should be declassified and what shouldn't. How many New York Times reporters are on Al Queda's payroll? If I were Al Queda, I would make sure that some of my operatives were in major media - they have a free ticket to broadcast any secret information they can find out, and if they get caugth, they just flash their press card.

Reporters that broadcast secrets should be jailed. Reporters cannot have enough information to make a rational judgement about whether the ends justify the means or not. Congress did - and those that did have the info were not divulging it. (And if a lone Congressman outed it, he better have a pretty good reason)

It puzzles me that the investigation is beginning now, when the story has broken in the press, rather than a year ago, when the administration knew that the leaks had occurred. If the president personally requested that the New York Times sit on the story, as they had for a year, then the administration certainly knew there was a leak in 2005. I'd be astonished if there weren't ways to investigate and prosecute national security leaks that were not at least reasonably covert.

Consequently, what motivates the investigation now, rather than a year ago when the incident first occurred?

"Consequently, what motivates the investigation now, rather than a year ago when the incident first occurred?"

To deter others that think they can use secret and top secret level security clearances as toilet paper when it provides them with some momentary personal gain.

When the leak became public, the Administration was pretty much forced into this action lest precident be set by default. Like in school, the Teacher must enforce discipline in class. If one party is allowed to 'get one over' a repeat fo the undesirable behaviour is guarenteed.

Think of a security clearence as a harsh, binding contract. Violating it is a breech of contract against the American people. There is language that spells out clearly what the consequences of violating a security clearance is.

What's the point of voting if a US citizen can't have the information they need to evaluate whether a current president and his officials are doing their jobs?

The problem - with all respect for your opinions, Karl - is that what you're asking to know about are the ways and means used to prosecute counterintelligence, i.e. how we snoop on the bad guys. Once this information is known, it's useless and you can (if you are the bad guy) work around that, or feed disinformation into the channel. Or use a new channel that isn't monitored. Likely a combination of all of them.

In effect, you're wanting information that will make the good guy's job impossible, and more likely that the bad guys can do what ever it is they want to do.

I'm skeptical that the fact of warrantless domestic surveillance becoming known really alters how the bad guys do their business. Were they relying on the warrant process for their own internal security in some fashion?

If the means of such surveillance were revealed, then I'd be very concerned. Even if the surveillance were illegal, explaining how it was done would be irresponsible unless there were some law that said "you can use the blue wiretaps but not the green ones" or something like that.

So, in my view, the less is publicly known about how the surveillance is performed, the better. A rational terrorist (that seems a little oxymoronic but work with me here) would conclude that any communications mechanism more complicated than two tin cans connected with a bit of string would probably be subject to monitoring and act accordingly.

A rational terrorist (that seems a little oxymoronic but work with me here)

I'd like to, but then I think of morons like Richard Reid...

Unfortunately, in this universe, a rational terrorist would, in fact, think "hey, the ACLU will cover me...these Americans are such idiots..."

"So, in my view, the less is publicly known about how the surveillance is performed, the better. A rational terrorist (that seems a little oxymoronic but work with me here) would conclude that any communications mechanism more complicated than two tin cans connected with a bit of string would probably be subject to monitoring and act accordingly."

I don't know if you would consider our pal Bin Laden rational but he was using a satellite phone for communications up until some bumblefutz let that fact become publicly known. That blunder has almost certainly made the difference as to whether or not we have captured him by now.

We could have used that information for intelliegnce, which we were apparently doing up until this disclosure. Ultimately, we could have used it to triangulate his position thru Radio Direction Finding technologies and then either capture him or fire a HARM missile set to home in on his transmitter.

I'm skeptical that the fact of warrantless domestic surveillance becoming known really alters how the bad guys do their business. Were they relying on the warrant process for their own internal security in some fashion?

Damfino. There is that tricky thing about intel / ci. Gathering intel is not a James Bondian process of reading a master plan at SMERSH HQ, but putting together innocous bits.

Simplistic example from the Marines.

a) Spy Abe knows that 600 Marines from 1/8 got buzz cuts at the barbsershop this week.

b) Spy Bob overhears the division supply chief bitching in his beer about working late hours issuing cold weather gear for those damned grunts at Camp Geiger.

c) Spy Claire knows that base legal's office at Geiger has processed dozens of new wills in the past week.

d) Mastermind Don puts the three facts together and now knows that 1/8 is getting ready to deploy to Norway.

It's a ton of piddly non-classifed facts tossed together with intelligent guesswork that make intel such a bitch. It's probable now that warrantless surveillance is no longer secret and is forcing the bad guys to change their mode of operation.

I acknowledge that this is irritating; we tend to like 'facts' that can stand up to 'court of law' rigor; this game can't be played that way.

I also acknowledge that the timing and players seem to indicate to me that this is less about doing the right thing and more about politics, which irks me no end.

Rand, thanks for mentioning Richard Reid. I scowl in his general direction every time I travel by air. I used to have these really comfortable boots with heels - they looked great with jeans or a skirt - but they're too hard to get on or off in a line. So now I'm back to sandals. Sigh.

Darn terrorists.

I scowl in his general direction every time I travel by air.

I think that it would allieviate a lot of the stress of security if people could work out their frustrations while standing in line with Osama and Richard Reid dartboards. But I suppose, in their less-than-infinite wisdom, they'd be afraid that someone would sneak a dart past security and hijack an airplane with it.