Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Even Atlas Shrugs”

« One, Two, Three, Yer Out! | Main | Canadian Vote a 7.2 On the Political Richter Scale »

January 23, 2006

Even Atlas Shrugs

Hatched by Dafydd

In a rare faux pas from John Hinderaker at Power Line, he draws a conclusion about the NSA surveillance controversy that is both paralogical and unwarranted (er, sorry about that; it was irresistable).

In another excellent Power Line post discussing today's speech by former National Security Agency director LG Michael Hayden, John picks up on some of the Q&A that followed. Here is one in particular:

QUESTION: Yes, Wayne Madsen, syndicated columnist. General, how do you explain the fact that there were several rare spectacles of whistleblowers coming forward at NSA, especially after 9/11, something that hasn't really happened in the past, who have complained about violations of FISA and United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18, which implements the law at the agency?

GEN. HAYDEN: I talked to the NSA staff on Friday. The NSA inspector general reports to me, as of last Friday, from the inception of this program through last Friday night, not a single employee of the National Security Agency has addressed a concern about this program to the NSA IG. I should also add that no member of the NSA workforce who has been asked to be included in this program has responded to that request with anything except enthusiasm. I don't know what you're talking about.

So whoever the NY Times sources were, they didn't work for NSA.

But how does this follow? Madsen asks Hayden about the NSA (or former NSA) whistleblowers -- Russell Tice, for example, who has actually come forward and admitted he was one of the New York Times' sources -- and Hayden responds that nobody in the NSA complained about the program to the inspector general, and that everyone involved was enthusiastic about the program when he was invited to participate.

Alas, neither of these facts (taking Hayden's answer at face value) implies the conclusion that John draws, that none of the "whistleblowers" -- that is, the media sources -- worked for the NSA. In fact, we know that at least one did (Tice was subsequently fired, but nobody denies that he did work for the NSA during a time when these intercepts were occurring, though he was not on that program).

All that Hayden's answer implies is that if there were critics of the program within the Agency, they did not make their objections known in the proper way but instead took them straight to the New York Times.

(Hayden's other statement is truly a non-issue, as even if the sources were actual whistleblowers, in the proper meaning of the word -- which I doubt -- it would still be plausible that they would come to the program enthusiastic, only becoming disenchanted when they hypothetically saw rampant illegality.)

Sorry, but neither of these two statements by LG Hayden is dispositive on the question of whether the leakers were NSA members, former members, or never members. That question is as open today as it was yesterday.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, January 23, 2006, at the time of 5:39 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/426

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Mescalero

As a person who has served in the military and as a person who has a high-level security clearance, let me add a couple of clarifying remarks on this issue.

If a individual is either ordered to perform a illegal action or who is aware of individuals peforming illegal actions under the mantra of secrecy, it is incumbent upon that individual to report those activities to the appropriate Judge Adjutant General (JAG). If that individual leaks "classified" information to the press without first going through channels (i.e., the JAG) that individual is in very serious trouble. This is a concrete rule that is driven home to any individual applying for a security clearance.

Russell Tice is in very serious trouble, and the editiors of the New York Times cannot hide behind the mantra of "freedom of the press" in this situation!

The above hissed in response by: Mescalero at January 23, 2006 6:16 PM

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

Mescalero is absolutely right.
And, i predict russel tice will be the only one with NSA connection. look at the title of Risen's book.
State of War: the Secret History OF THE CIA and the Bush Adminstration.
Risen's contacts were CIA and mebbe Feebs, cross briefed into some aspect of the program.

AND there are other things, classified things, that feed into this discussion, but neither Hayden or i are going to discuss them.

Tice was fired for psychological problems. either the vetting process failed with him, or he contracted dementia praecox during his employment. But he is an outlier!
wait and see.

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi at January 23, 2006 6:31 PM

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

several rare spectacles of whistleblowers coming forward at NSA

What Hayden said is that was not true. there were not several, there were not ANY-- NONE went thru the IG. therefore there are no NSA "whistleblowers". i suppose they could be sources (and traitors) but not "whistleblowers".

is that what Hinderaker meant?

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi at January 23, 2006 6:44 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Matoko:

What Hayden said is that was not true. there were not several, there were not ANY-- NONE went thru the IG. therefore there are no NSA "whistleblowers". i suppose they could be sources (and traitors) but not "whistleblowers".

is that what Hinderaker meant?

I presume John meant what he wrote:

So whoever the NY Times sources were, they didn't work for NSA.

He has since corrected this conclusion, agreeing with me that LG Hayden's statement does not imply it.

AND there are other things, classified things, that feed into this discussion, but neither Hayden or i are going to discuss them.

First, this is what I call the cryptofallacy, a variant of the argument by authority: you assert that you have secret information that would blow us all away, so we should simply trust you. Clearly, that is only even plausible (and even then not definitive) if we know for a fact that you do work for the NSA, have the clearances for such information, and are actually privy to it... none of which we know at this juncture.

Second, you might want to rephrase that "neither Hayden or I" stuff, as that makes it sound like you're asserting that you and Hayden are close buddies and have similar authority within the NSA. Are you also a former director of the Agency? <G>

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at January 23, 2006 7:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

NO!
i am not implying that i'm close buddies with hayden.
all he said, is that there were no "whistleblowers".
you and hinderaker are drawing your own conclusions.

and he said there were classified things he wouldn't discuss.
and there are classified things i won't discuss.

But i CAN say i have worked for CIA in the past. that is not classified. and CIA and NSA are very, very different.
draw what conclusions you like from that.

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi at January 23, 2006 7:21 PM

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

and i hate Ayn Rand.
she has no humor.

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi at January 23, 2006 7:51 PM