This is what Murdoc dislikes about this story

NSA Whistleblower Alleges Illegal Spying

Via Opinon Journal comes this story on one of the New York Times’ sources on the phone tapping story. Though not discussed in Opinion Journal, this sentence stands out to Murdoc:

He is prepared to tell Congress all he knows about the alleged wrongdoing in these programs run by the Defense Department and the NSA in the post-9/11 efforts to go after terrorists. [emphasis mine]

Why couldn’t this have gone to Congress first? Why did he (and the other sources) have to blow this publicly? Since he did, why did the New York Times (and others) run with it?

If the tapping ends up being legal everyone involved in making this public will have performed a grave disservice to this nation’s security.

I’m more than a bit skeptical that it’s legal. And I’m also more than a bit skeptical that going public was the proper action, whether it’s legal or not.

And then there’s this, at the end of the story:

The NSA revoked Tice’s security clearance in May of last year based on what it called psychological concerns and later dismissed him. Tice calls that bunk and says that’s the way the NSA deals with troublemakers and whistleblowers.

He had his clearance revoked last May, and he says that’s “bunk” and was just the NSA dealing with “troublemakers and whistleblowers”.

Am I missing something? When did he blow the whistle? It would have to be prior to last May, right? Is that the case?


  1. I still object to the term ‘whistleblower’. I prefer the term ‘traitor’ or ‘bitch’. Either way, be damn sure that his friends aren’t letting him come to vegas with them anymore.

  2. Murdoc, If I understand correctly, the NYT has been sitting on this story for a while, thus the delay. Why sit on it? So as to not look like a bunch anti-gov’t freaks (?); maybe check their sources carefully (?). It also seems that the official procedures for reporting and correcting wrongdoing by the government within the beaurocracy could easily be broken. And thus little recourse but to sing to the sh**-scoopers.

  3. Sam: I do know that they NYT has been sitting on this story for a while. Have they been sitting on it since before last May? I don’t know. I’m asking.

  4. Their were a dozen patriots. He’s just one of them. And the bush supporting new york times sat on it from october of 2004- since right before the election.

  5. And would someone please state for the record what exactly was revealed here? Last I heard the terrorists already assume they are under surveilance.

  6. What I am hearing now is that the real and final reason the NWT sat on this so long is…get this…’it’s nuanced.’ which is probably code for protecting one or more politician’s collective butts till after the next election cycle. DC is, was, and always will be leak central.