Dear Politicians: Exposing US Dirty Laundry Isn't Aiding The Enemy

from the words-have-meaning dept

Allow me to be nostalgic for a moment, because I remember a time when words used to actually mean something. I remember when terrorism actually meant terrorism and wasn't just a trump card of a word used by the government to do whatever the hell they want. I seem to recall a glorious era when hacking was hacking and not just sitting down at the local library computer lab and screwing with someone who forgot to log out of Facebook.

And you know what other phrase I remember having an actual sensible meaning? Aiding the enemy. Unfortunately, that phrase too is apparently going to be co-opted by a group of horribly cynical jackwagons over the coming weeks. We already talked about Rep. Peter King, proud supporter of the IRA, a terrorist organization, and his confusion between where reporting on actions taken against the American people end and national security begins. I'm a bit unclear on how the American people knowing what a secretive arm of the government is doing to its own citizens compromises national security, unless of course Rep. King means that the government is about to have to deal with a severely pissed off electorate. But it's only going to get worse, now that NSA leak-master Edward Snowden has added that the USA regularly hacks China.

The Morning Post said it had seen documents but was unable to verify allegations of U.S. hacking of networks in Hong Kong and mainland China since 2009. Snowden told the paper that some of the targets included the Chinese University of Hong Kong, public officials and students. The documents also "point to hacking activity by the NSA against mainland targets," the newspaper reported.

Oh, lordy lord, next you'll be telling us there ain't no Santa Claus. The percentage of Americans that already assumed this was going on could probably be roughly estimated as all of them. Still, watch what will happen next. Already we've heard claims that Snowden's leak has endangered American lives, without a single explanation as to what the hell that could possibly mean. He initially leaked a story about domestic spying, unlike that which was leaked by Bradley Manning. Now there is noise about how Snowden is aiding the enemy. But what enemy? We aren't at war with China.

And besides that, exposing the government for taking part in the kind of thing that we decry everyone else doing isn't aiding the enemy, it's just embarrassing the shit out of our domestic agencies. Hell, it was less than a week ago that President Obama met with Xi Jinping, his Chinese counterpart, in part to demand that the Chinese cut out their hacking.

In the official's discussion with Reuters, he or she said that Obama will ask that Xi "abide by international norms and affirm clear rules of the road." The U.S. president also wants to tell Xi that any cyberattacks originating from China are the government's responsibility.

Snowden's leak will likely torpedo any positives that came out of that meeting, but that still isn't aiding the enemy. That phrase used to mean something. It meant helping get weapons to nations with which we are at war, or to terrorist organizations (you know, like Peter King did in working with an organization that helped finance the IRA). Or providing troop positions, military plans, or money to the enemy. It also meant giving intelligence to the enemy. Who the hell is the enemy here? It can't be China, since we aren't at war with them. It can't be the press since, despite King's wish, we aren't at war with them either. That just leaves the target of this massive data slurp. You and I. And if we're the enemy Snowden is accused of aiding, then we're all in a great deal of trouble.

Filed Under: aiding the enemy, leaks, nsa, nsa surveillance, peter king

Rep. Peter King Says Reporters Should Be Prosecuted For Reporting On Government Leaks

from the that-whole-first-amendment-thing-sure-is-a-bitch dept

Rep. Peter King, apparently, is not a fan of the US Constitution that he's been sworn to uphold. In the past, he wanted Wikileaks put on the official terrorist list, argued that the Boston bombing meant we needed less freedom and more surveillance, and now has announced that reporters should be prosecuted if they report on leaked classified material. Apparently the whole concept of the First Amendment and whistleblowing is foreign to Rep. King, despite the fact that they're some of the fundamental parts of what America is based on.

"If they willingly knew that this was classified information, I think action should be taken, especially on something of this magnitude," King said.

"I think on something of this magnitude, there is an obligation both moral but also legal, I believe, against a reporter disclosing something that would so severely compromise national security."

Of course, as the article correctly points out, publishing classified information is not a crime, and trying to criminalize it would almost certainly go against the First Amendment. Of course, as we've noted in the past, Peter King is against terrorism, unless the terrorists are Irish. Then he's all for it. Apparently, overreactions, complete misunderstanding of the law and hypocrisy all go hand in hand.

Filed Under: classified info, ed snowden, first amendment, free speech, freedom of the press, glenn greenwald, leaks, nsa, nsa surveillance, peter king, terrorism

Perhaps The NSA Should Figure Out How To Keep Its Own Stuff Secret Before Building A Giant Database

from the just-saying... dept

Apparently, the brilliant minds at the NSA are completely bewildered as to how Ed Snowden had access to everything he had access to. They don't think it's possible.

Among the questions is how a contract employee at a distant NSA satellite office was able to obtain a copy of an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a highly classified document that would presumably be sealed from most employees and of little use to someone in his position.

A former senior NSA official said that the number of agency officials with access to such court orders is “maybe 30 or maybe 40. Not large numbers.”

And, according to other reports, Snowden delivered much, much more to reporters:

Mr. Snowden has now turned over archives of “thousands” of documents, according to Mr. Greenwald, and “dozens” are newsworthy.

In other words, more leaks are to come. But, considering that people are already scrambling to see how one pretty junior IT guy could have access to such things, it's making people wonder just how screwed up the NSA is if information could leak out this way -- and conversely, why should we trust them with our data?

Edward Snowden sounds like a thoughtful, patriotic young man, and I’m sure glad he blew the whistle on the NSA’s surveillance programs. But the more I learned about him this afternoon, the angrier I became. Wait, him? The NSA trusted its most sensitive documents to this guy? And now, after it has just proven itself so inept at handling its own information, the agency still wants us to believe that it can securely hold on to all of our data? Oy vey!

Or, as Farhad Manjoo notes later in that same article:

The scandal isn’t just that the government is spying on us. It’s also that it’s giving guys like Snowden keys to the spying program. It suggests the worst combination of overreach and amateurishness, of power leveraged by incompetence. The Keystone Cops are listening to us all.

And, on top of that, people are pointing out that if Snowden could walk out with that much supposedly secret information, you have to wonder who else has done so as well, perhaps with much more nefarious intent, such as selling the information to a foreign power or group. Conor Friedersdorf points out that having the NSA collect so much data makes it a key target for the Chinese:

Even assuming the U.S. government never abuses this data -- and there is no reason to assume that! -- why isn't the burgeoning trove more dangerous to keep than it is to foreswear? Can anyone persuasively argue that it's virtually impossible for a foreign power to ever gain access to it? Can anyone persuasively argue that if they did gain access to years of private phone records, email, private files, and other data on millions of Americans, it wouldn't be hugely damaging?

Think of all the things the ruling class never thought we'd find out about the War on Terrorism that we now know. Why isn't the creation of this data trove just the latest shortsighted action by national security officials who constantly overestimate how much of what they do can be kept secret? Suggested rule of thumb: Don't create a dataset of choice that you can't bear to have breached.

And, yet, that's exactly what we've done. If Snowden had access, then it seems only reasonable to assume that he wasn't the only one. Meaning that plenty of others also had access to the same information, and there's a decent chance that it's already leaked to others. The NSA is supposed to be the best of the best, but they don't even seem to know how to keep their secrets secret.

Filed Under: database, ed snowden, it, leaks, nsa, nsa surveillance, risks

Yes, The NSA Surveillance Story Shows Why Wikileaks And Similar Sites Are Necessary

from the leakers-are-needed dept

With all the attention on NSA surveillance, the Bradley Manning trial has faded a bit into the background (and it already wasn't getting nearly the coverage it deserved). And yet, this should be a reminder of why sites like Wikileaks are so important. The big revelations over the past week on NSA surveillance both came from internal leaks. And, given the Obama administration's laser-like focus on punishing anyone who leaks anything marginally embarrassing, it's not difficult to see just how hard the administration is likely to come down on whistleblower Ed Snowden for leaking this information. And yet, this information is important for the world -- and especially Americans -- to understand how the government appears to be twisting the law over and over again to expand their ability to spy on everyone.

Filed Under: edward snowden, leaks, nsa, nsa surveillance, whistleblowing, wikileaks

Yet Another Leak Shows NSA Lied About Not Being Able To Geolocate Data It Scoops Up

from the whoops dept

And... yet another leak of NSA surveillance capabilities to The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald (who damn well better get a Pulitzer Prize for this) suggests pretty strongly that the NSA has directly lied, multiple times, when asked to disclose how many people it had spied on in the US. As we've noted for a while, the NSA has claimed that it was not possible to determine how many Americans it had data on. In a letter to Senator Ron Wyden, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had stated:

While it is not reasonably possible to identify the number of people located in the United States whose communications may have been reviewed...

An NSA spokesperson also said that it was not possible to figure that out:

Judith Emmel, an NSA spokeswoman, told the Guardian in a response to the latest disclosures: "NSA has consistently reported – including to Congress – that we do not have the ability to determine with certainty the identity or location of all communicants within a given communication. That remains the case."

But, as Greenwald reveals, the NSA appears to have a program, called Boundless Informant (quite a name, huh) that does exactly that. The leaks are coming fast and furious at this point, and I doubt they're going to stop soon.

Filed Under: dni, faa, fisa amendments act, geolocation, james clapper, leaks, lies, nsa, nsa suveillance, ron wyden, spying on americans

Edward Snowden: Whistleblower Behind Leaks Outs Himself

from the boom dept

Well, here's a bit of surprise. Rather than waiting for the massive manhunt that was surely underway to track him down to find him, the guy behind last week's incredible whistleblowing concerning the NSA's massive surveillance capabilities has outed himself as Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old who used to work for the CIA, and has been working as a contractor for the NSA for a while:

The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell.

The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of anonymity. "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong," he said.

The Guardian piece explains what he did and why ("My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them"). It also notes that he feels that his case is one of pure whistleblowing, distinguished from, say, Bradley Manning, in that he carefully chose which documents to reveal for the sole purpose of exposing a surveillance system that he (correctly) blew the whistle on a surveillance infrastructure that appears to go well beyond what the public believed was appropriate or within the bounds of the 4th Amendment.

The companion interview is probably even more interesting than the initial Guardian article.

Q: Why did you decide to become a whistleblower?

A: "The NSA has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your emails or your wife's phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards.

"I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things … I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under."

Snowden left Hawaii, recently, where he lived to travel to Hong Kong, where he's been hiding out in a hotel. He appears to be fully aware that a lot of people are going to find him and that "nothing good" is about to happen to him, but he felt that he couldn't stay silent.

Q: What do the leaked documents reveal?

A: "That the NSA routinely lies in response to congressional inquiries about the scope of surveillance in America. I believe that when [senator Ron] Wyden and [senator Mark] Udall asked about the scale of this, they [the NSA] said it did not have the tools to provide an answer. We do have the tools and I have maps showing where people have been scrutinised most. We collect more digital communications from America than we do from the Russians."

There is some additional scary stuff about the culture within the intelligence community concerning how they feel about due process and the Constitution. It's been widely reported that a foreign affairs analyst overheard some intelligence officials in an airport lounge discussing how the leaker and the reporters involved in these leaks should be "disappeared" -- and Snowden responded to that by nothing that he's not surprised, because this is how things work:

"Someone responding to the story said 'real spies do not speak like that'. Well, I am a spy and that is how they talk. Whenever we had a debate in the office on how to handle crimes, they do not defend due process – they defend decisive action. They say it is better to kick someone out of a plane than let these people have a day in court. It is an authoritarian mindset in general."

And, like Bradley Manning -- who Snowden calls "a classic whistleblower... inspired by the public good," -- Snowden appears to believe strongly that his actions are not to hurt the US, but to help it.

"I think the sense of outrage that has been expressed is justified. It has given me hope that, no matter what happens to me, the outcome will be positive for America. I do not expect to see home again, though that is what I want."

There's plenty more in both the article and the interview that's worth reading. I'm sure there will be much more on this, but this truly does seem like a classic whistleblower case, though I doubt that's how Snowden will be portrayed by many in power.

Filed Under: edward snowden, leaks, nsa, nsa surveillance, whistleblower

The War On Journalists: DOJ Claimed Fox News Reporter Was An 'Aider, Abettor, Co-Conspirator' With Leaker

from the wow dept

Following the DOJ's brazen collection of info on AP reporter phone calls, we noted that it was not the first time the DOJ had been overly aggressive in going after reporters. Now, the Washington Post has another horrifying story, talking about the DOJ's investigation into a leak from the State Department to Fox News concerning classified info on North Korea. That investigation resulted in charges against Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a State Department security adviser, but the investigation included heavy surveillance of James Rosen, the Fox News reporter. They obtained his phone records, security-badge data and email exchanges. In order to get all this, they claimed that Rosen wasn't just a reporter, but "an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator" in the crime itself. For doing basic reporting.

By now it should be abundantly clear that this has little to do with protecting national security, and everything to do with a war on investigative reporting about the federal government. Almost everything seems to be designed to threaten reporters, and to put the fear of the federal government into any whistle blower who might have information to pass on to a reporter. As people have pointed out, what Rosen did in this case is what any national security reporter does all the time. Others have pointed out that this shatters the basic concept that those who report on the news are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

The Reyes affidavit all but eliminates the traditional distinction in classified leak investigations between sources, who are bound by a non-disclosure agreement, and reporters, who are protected by the First Amendment as long as they do not commit a crime. (There is no allegation that Mr. Rosen bribed, threatened or coerced anyone to gain the disclosure of restricted information.)

And, not surprisingly, this tactic of going to war with reporters appears to be working.

Mark Mazzetti, who covers national security for the New York Times — one of several leading investigative reporters I reached out to today — says he is experiencing a greater reluctance on the part of sources to talk to him.

"There's no question that this has a chilling effect," Mazzetti said. "People who have talked in the past are less willing to talk now. Everyone is worried about communication and how to communicate, and [asking if there] is there any method of communication that is not being monitored. It's got people on both sides — the reporter and source side — pretty concerned."

The end result, of course, is less ability to keep government abuses -- of which there appear to be many -- in check.

Filed Under: abettor, aider, co-conspirator, doj, emails, fox news, intimidation, james rosen, jin-woo kim, journalism, leaks, subpoena

What National Security Risk? Evidence Suggests Embarassment Drove DOJ Spying On AP Phone Records

from the national-security? dept

The saga concerning the DOJ scooping up phone records of Associated Press has continued to expand. The DOJ sent a quick and rather disingenuous letter in response to the AP's complaint. In it, the DOJ -- contrary to its own history of abusive practices concerning reporter phone records -- insists that it was incredibly careful to only seek key information involving classified information that "can risk lives and cause grave harm to the security of all Americans."

The AP quickly hit back by calling bullshit on the DOJ's claims of a "narrowly" focused subpoena:

The scope of the subpoena was overbroad under the law, given that it involved seizing records from a broad range of telephones across AP’s newsgathering operation. More than 100 journalists work in the locations served by those telephones. How can we consider this inquiry to be narrowly drawn?

Furthermore, the AP claims that while the DOJ says that only some records were obtained, the original notification it received indicated a very broad swath of phone records.

However, the real question that's beginning to come out is whether or not this was really such a serious issue that the DOJ needed to sweep in and grab a bunch of phone records, likely revealing protected journalistic sources. We've discussed in the past how the Obama administration has been the most aggressive in history in going after whistleblowers and anyone who leaks to the press -- and, because of that, many are rightly wondering if that's what's driving the DOJ here. As more details come out, there is a very strong indication that the investigation had absolutely nothing to do with security at all.

A few years ago, we wrote about how Daniel Ellsberg (one of the most famous whistleblower/leakers of all time) speculated that President Obama's unprecedented attacks on whistleblowers were really out of embarrassment about questionable things his administration was doing being revealed. That may be the case with this particular leak and investigation as well. The AP has pointed out repeatedly that the report they published -- concerning the thwarting of another underwear bomber -- had been held back, but they only published it after the government had said there was no more threat:

We held that story until the government assured us that the national security concerns had passed. Indeed, the White House was preparing to publicly announce that the bomb plot had been foiled.

But the issue appears to go deeper than that. Eric Holder made some extreme claims about the leak to defend the collection of the phone records:

This was a very serious leak. A very, very serious leak. I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976, and I have to say that this is among, if not the most serious, it is within the top two or three most serious leaks I’ve ever seen. It put the American people at risk. And that is not hyperbole. It put the American people at risk.

However, as emptywheel points out in the link above, John Brennan, now head of the CIA, apparently was the one who revealed to the press the fact that the bomber was a US agent and that there was no real risk to anyone. During his appointment hearings, when questioned about leaking that info to the press, Brennan explained:

I think what you're referring to, Senator, is when I had a teleconference with some individuals, former government officials from previous administrations who were going to be out on talk shows on the night that a IED was intercepted.

And so I discussed with them some of the aspects of that, because I was going on the news network shows the following day, I wanted to make sure they understood the nature of the threat and what it was and what it wasn't.

And so what I said, at the time, because I said I couldn't talk about any operational details, and this was shortly after the anniversary of the Bin Laden takedown, I said there was never a threat to the American public as we had said so publicly, because we had inside control of the plot and the device was never a threat to the American public.

When asked more specifically about this, Brennan again insisted that there was no threat because the US was in control. As emptywheel asks, if this particular leak of information -- which it seems Brennan did directly -- was really so much of a threat that "put people at risk," then why would Brennan be appointed and approved to head the CIA?

So, now we have a situation where the AP reported on information which it's pretty clear the government told them was no security risk. That resulted in the eventual "outing" that the guy who had the bomb was a US controlled agent, which is apparently why the US government was upset. But that outing seems to have come not from these reporters, but from the now head of the CIA directly to members of the press. And yet it's the reporters that are being aggressively investigated, while Brennan gets the job at the top of the CIA?

Once again, this points to an administration cracking down on leaks not because of any real risk or threat, but out of embarrassment.

Filed Under: cia, doj, eric holder, john brennan, journalism, leaks, national security, reporting, whistleblowing
Companies: associated press

Bradley Manning Pleads Guilty To Some Charges: Reveals That Major Newspapers Ignored His Offer To Leak Collateral Murder Video

from the that's-big-news dept

As he made clear last year, Bradley Manning has now pled guilty to 10 of the lesser charges brought against him, while pleading not guilty to 12 charges, including the more serious charges of "aiding the enemy" and that he leaked the info to Wikileaks knowing that it would harm the US. He's also pleading not guilty to violating the CFAA. He has argued, in the past, that he believed what he was doing would help the US by exposing bad actions that were being swept under the rug. The case will now continue on those other charges (and possibly the ones he's pled guilty to, as the judge can still choose whether or not to accept the pleas). This is not a plea bargain situation -- he's just taking some of the charges out of the trial phase by flat out admitting to them.

However, the much more interesting revelation is that prior to releasing the information to Wikileaks, Manning claims that he approached both the NY Times and the Washington Post to see if they were interested in the infamous Collateral Murder video. Both ignored him. According to Manning's claims, he felt that the data and information he had collected showed that the US strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan was problematic and doing more harm than good:

He thought about what to do and was convinced that the United States was "risking so much for people who felt so unwilling to cooperate with us" and it was "leading to hatred and frustration on both sides." Manning was upset with counterinsurgency operations that consisted of the "capture and killing of human targets."

So he felt that revealing the information he had collected might "spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general." In order to do that, he reached out to a few publications:

He called the Washington Post. A woman answered who seemed to not take him seriously, even though he suggested the information would be valuable to the American public. Then, he decided to contact the New York Times. Nobody answered the phone so he left a message explaining he had information that was "very important." He left the Times his email and a Skype address but never received a reply.

That's a pretty big revelation, and once again, shows how Wikileaks was providing a service where the mainstream press completely fell down on the job. People -- including the judge in the case -- have wondered that if the NY Times had published this kind of information, rather than Wikileaks, would there still be the same hysteria and prosecution over the leak. The prosecutors have insisted they would have gone after Manning just as much in that case, but their own actions following other NY Times-published leaks suggests otherwise.

For what it's worth, the NY Times denies that Manning contacted them:

"This is the first we're hearing of it. We have no record of Manning contacting The Times in advance of WikiLeaks."

Separately, it's worth pointing out that Manning also noted that the information he leaked was hardly secret, and was available to tons and tons of people.

"I view the SIGACTS as historical data," Manning stated. It is a "first look impression of a past event." They show IED attacks, small arms fire engagement or engagement with hostile forces.

The reports are "not very sensitive." The "events encapsulated involve enemy casualties," that are "publicly reported" by the Public Affairs Office of the military or reported by "embedded media pools." They are like a daily journal or log that captures "what happened on an immediate day or time and they are constantly updated."

Either way, it seems likely that the government will continue to go after him on those bigger charges, so this case is far, far, far from over.

Filed Under: aiding the enemy, bradley manning, espionage act, guilty plea, journalism, leaks, whistleblowing

Why Bob Woodward And His White House Sources Should Be On Trial Before Bradley Manning

from the low-court,-high-court dept

As we noted recently, one of the key questions in Bradley Manning's trial is whether or not his leaking of information amounted to aiding the enemy, a charge which can lead to a death sentence. This is troubling on many levels, considering the evidence is pretty clear that Manning was actually trying to do the opposite: aid the US, by providing more openness and transparency, not help Al Qaeda. Even scarier, the government's ridiculously broad interpretation of "aiding the enemy" seems to be revealing or publishing any information that Al Qaeda might like. As Glenn Greenwald notes, if that's the case, famed investigative reporter Bob Woodward (one half of the duo who revealed Watergate) and his White House sources should be on trial first.

But let's apply the government's theory in the Manning case to one of the most revered journalists in Washington: Bob Woodward, who has become one of America's richest reporters, if not the richest, by obtaining and publishing classified information far more sensitive than anything WikiLeaks has ever published. For that reason, one of Woodward's most enthusiastic readers was Osama bin Laden, as this 2011 report from AFP demonstrates:

"Al-Qaeda has released a video marking the anniversary of 9/11 which includes a message from its slain leader Osama bin Laden to the American people . . . . He recommended that Americans read the book 'Obama's War' by Bob Woodward which details wrangles over US military decision-making."

If bin Laden's interest in the WikiLeaks cables proves that Manning aided al-Qaida, why isn't bin Laden's enthusaism for Woodward's book proof that Woodwood's leakers - and Woodward himself - are guilty of the same capital offense? This question is even more compelling given that Woodward has repeatedly published some of the nation's most sensitive secrets, including information designated "Top Secret" - unlike WikiLeaks and Manning, which never did.

Indeed, he goes on to point out a report from 2010 by Michael Isikoff showing that Woodward's book revealed a ton of highly sensitive info.

In the first 12 pages of his new book, “Obama’s Wars,” famed journalist Bob Woodward reveals a wealth of eye-popping details from a highly classified briefing that Mike McConnell, then-director of National Intelligence, gave to President-elect Barack Obama just two days after the November 2008 election.

Among the disclosures: the code names of previously unknown National Security Agency programs, the existence of a clandestine paramilitary army run by the CIA in Afghanistan, and details of a secret Chinese cyberpenetration of Obama and John McCain campaign computers.

The contents were so sensitive that McConnell, under orders from President George W. Bush, barred Obama's own transition chief, John Podesta, from sitting in at the briefing, which took place inside a tiny, windowless and secure room known as a SCIP (or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility.)

Thus, under the basic argument being used against Manning, any government source who provided info to Woodward -- and Woodward himself -- could be subject to the same charges (and potential death penalty). That is, to put it mildly, insane. And, yet, very few journalists are speaking out about how ridiculous the charges are against Manning. Sometimes this is because they're just not paying attention. Or it's because they don't like Wikileaks. No matter what the reason, it's quite scary.

What this really shows, however, is that it appears the Obama administration -- which has gone after a ton of journalists who have published embarrassing information -- is using these lawsuits strategically. If you reveal highly sensitive info that makes them look good: no problem. If you reveal much less sensitive info that makes them look bad: watch out.

Filed Under: aiding the enemy, bob woodward, bradley manning, chilling effects, free speech, journalism, leaks