We Know Who You’re Calling

posted at 12:26 pm on May 16, 2006 by Bryan

Yeah, I’m a little late to this story but I find it fascinating:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

“It’s time for you to get some new cell phones, quick,” the source told us in an in-person conversation.

ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

What we seem to have here is an unrepentant leaker leaking to the press to stymie an investigation about…leaks to the press. These leaks–the original ones, not necessarily this one about cell phones–are illegal and, moreover, dangerous, having covered everything now from the war plan to be used in Iraq (which was leaked to the NYT just a few weeks before the war) to the use of Predators armed with Hellfire missiles in Pakistan to pop terrorists.

The “senior law enforcement official,” assuming he didn’t leak to ABC in some gambit to catch other leakers, is helping leakers continue to break the law. The disrespect for the law and national security surrounding all of these leaks is mind-boggling, but this one is the most brazen. It may also be one of the easiest to ferret out. The reporters in this cell phone leak case can’t plausibly claim that they don’t know who leaked to them, since they record on their blog that the “senior law enforcement official” tipped them in person. I have no sympathy for the reporters here–subpoena them and make them testify. Judy Miller them if they make it necessary. They know who is leaking to them, and by concealing leakers’ identities the reporters are aiding crime with national security implications.

While the left is in a tizzy over Rovemania, we have a cabal of real leakers doing real damage to national security, and so far they’ve gotten away with it. That needs to stop.

Update (Allahpundit): Just so people know, ABC News confirmed their story last night with … “a senior federal official.” Newsbusters commented here. And today a commissioner of the FCC is talking about investigating phone companies for complying with NSA requests for data. Got that?

Guess which party the commissioner, Michael Copps, belongs to.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

In this case the leaker is screwed. You work for the government you sign *lots* of forms on the way in, several of which have you giving them the right to do things like pay attention to who you call.

If you have *any* sort of security clearance then they can (and sometimes do) flip through all your mail and parse your garbage.

The reporters *may* have some legal protection available – since they’re known to be involved in a criminal conspiracy I think the warrants have probably been granted – but the people they’re talking to have nothing to hide behind.

KCSteve on May 16, 2006 at 1:06 PM

This “Leak” is now a conspiricy to cover a felony (the first leaks).

The First leaks could be considered Treason… therefore, anyone implicated in this second bit of chicanery is part of a conspiricy aiding treason, and thus Treason itself…

I’ll volunteer for the fireing squad…

Romeo13 on May 16, 2006 at 1:11 PM

The “leakers” just compounded their revealing classified material charge with an obstruction of justice charge–trying to sabotage an investigation into leaking. Someone’s upping the ante here, which is interesting. They must be either extremely confident, have an awful lot to lose if the truth comes out, or both.

see-dubya on May 16, 2006 at 1:28 PM

Sorry about taking the hard line but. . . It’s time to arrest these kinds of reporters, they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Anyone who has taken a security oath has the DUTY to kepp mum about a lot of things, if they are leaking info to the press they need to be arrested as well.

This is the kind of garbage that a rookie in the intelligence services would know better than to do.

This has GOT to stop or our way of life is doomed.

Duty, Honor, Country
(in that order)
Rowane

Rowane on May 16, 2006 at 2:20 PM

I just don’t understand it. Most of these reputable papers and news services don’t pay for leaks. Where’s the upside for these leakers? They break the law, put themselves at risk of a career-ending mistake, and make their department look like a crazy house. Would you hire an ex-CIA employee right now?

The Wilson thing I understand–he was kinda done anyway. But who are these people who are leaking?

see-dubya on May 16, 2006 at 2:35 PM

No matter what these people have done, no matter what damage will result, nothing will be done and no one will be charged.

ScottG on May 16, 2006 at 2:55 PM

The MSM and CIA leakers are emboldended because the administration hasn’t made an example of folks like Sandy “Stuff my Pants” Burglar.

I doubt these people fear arrest for the sedition they’re committing. After all, a leaker will tip them off before a judge ever signs the arrest warrant!

Dave Shay on May 16, 2006 at 3:13 PM

The Wilson thing I understand–he was kinda done anyway. But who are these people who are leaking?

They’re Democracts, see-dubya. Progressives. Clintonistas. They know better than the redneck flyover country fools that put the Chimperor in office. So they’re just doing for us what we’re too stupid to recognize we need done. Or so they think.

We should lock them all up for a very long time.

Pablo on May 16, 2006 at 4:09 PM

I hope there is a “sting” operation going on to expose these leakers (er, traitors).

gary on May 16, 2006 at 7:06 PM

Gary… interesting thought, as its now come out that 3 of the companies that were reported to have given the NSA numbers now deny doing so, and the other won’t say because its a classified program… so they won’t confirm nor deny…

Is this whole thing a sting?

Romeo13 on May 17, 2006 at 1:11 AM

Satire warning. Der Kommisar’s in town.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is planning on holding further hearings on the recently revealed NSA surveillance program that tracks terrorist communications in addition to hearings on the number crunching/data-mining operations also conducted by the NSA with congressional approval. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (i.e. the Senate committee that actually oversees intelligence operations like the NSA programs in question) apparently did not, to use the words of ranking Democrat Jay Rockefeller, “feel qualified” to carry out their assigned duties. The Senators who made Mrs. Alito cry, however, apparently feel that they are qualified to pass judgment on national security issues due to the recent experience of their own Charles Schumer with illegal violations of U.S. citizens’ privacy. Of course, Senator Schumer was merely spying on political opponents, thus there will be no need for him to recuse himself from hearings dealing with the legality of spying on terrorists and their supporters.

In related news, the Judiciary Committee is also planning to hold hearings regarding the voting procedures of the House Ways and Means committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee. Chairman Specter has expressed his outrage that other congressmen were actually allocating funds to various projects without allowing the Judiciary Committee an opportunity to hold televised hearings on the legality of such expenditures. Some sources have also leaked or, in Rockefellerspeak, “blown the whistle” on further Judiciary Committee plans to install its own “Commissioners” in every other congressional committee along with other such “Commissioners” who would oversee the work of every executive branch agency. It is expected that the Judiciary Committee will issue a “Little Red Book” outlining such plans in the near future.

secarr on May 17, 2006 at 3:18 PM