The Right Opinion
So Much for Stopping the Leaks
So, how's that effort to keep administration officials from releasing classified information going? Try this from Tuesday's Washington Post: "The United States and Israel jointly developed a sophisticated computer virus nicknamed Flame that collected critical intelligence in preparation for cyber-sabotage attacks aimed at slowing Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon, according to Western officials with knowledge of the effort." Further on in the article we get even more: "This is about preparing the battlefield for another type of covert action," said one former high-ranking U.S. intelligence official, who added that Flame and Stuxnet were elements of a broader assault that continues today. "Cyber collection against the Iranian program is way further down the road than this." (italics mine)
Covert action? This effort is now about as "covert" as the Super Bowl. And the only thing hard to figure out is who is more reprehensible, the cheerleading press whores at the Post, who, like their fellow liberal presstitutes, never miss an opportunity to burnish the Obama administration's "tough on terror" credentials, or the latest gaggle of unnamed "high-ranking" officials willing to sell this nation out in the process.
This latest leak, coming after the outrage expressed by members of both parties concerned with the sieve-like nature of our national security apparatus, begs the obvious question:
Is there a functioning definition of "treason" anymore?
The answer is no. Short of a nuclear cloud blossoming over an American city, one that could be directly attributed to terrorists gaining some kind of advantage based national security leaks, no one gets prosecuted for treason.
Why not? Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." According to the Legal Dictionary, aid and comfort refers to any act "that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information." (italic mine)
So far, so good. So what's the problem? According to the same source, the clause only applies to such efforts "during time of war." It is no secret that the Iranians have been at war with the United States since the fall of the Shah in 1979. It is also no secret that we have not declared war against them, or any of the other Islamist savages intent on destroying this nation by any means necessary. In fact the Obama administration has gone out of its way to eliminate the word "war" from the equation completely (along with "Radical Islam," "terrorism" and "Jihadist," fyi). Ergo, we are currently engaged in an "overseas contingency operation" -- and treason gets kicked to the curb in the process.
Yet this is not the time to get bogged down in legalese. It's time to crack down on those who can't keep their mouths shut. Giving the mad mullahs and their atomic ambitions a heads-up on how we're undermining them, not only makes them better prepared for the next time, but fires up their determination to procure the ultimate Middle East game-changer ASAP.
And let's not kid ourselves. An investigation initiated by the most politically-compromised Justice Department in American history, headed by a hack Attorney General already on the block for a contempt of Congress vote, isn't the answer. We need to appoint a special prosecutor with access to the lists of people who attended the various meeting where the leaks took place, one who can put every one of the attendees under oath and see where the inconsistencies lead. Put that appointment to a vote in both houses of Congress so Americans can see which members of Congress, if any, would be willing to shield the blabber-mouths. Five months before a national election, it's a no-brainer.
The atrocity of 9/11 can be attributed to many things, but first and foremost among them was a colossal failure of intelligence. Thoughtful Americans should ask themselves who in their right mind would risk anything to help this nation avoid another catastrophe, given what's occurred in recent weeks. A Pakistani doctor is serving 33 years in prison and a Saudi/British double-agent is walking around with a permanent target on his back, as "thanks" for giving us bid Laden and the most technologically advanced underwear bomb to date, respectively. Henry Kissinger once remarked the only thing worse than being America's enemy is being America's friend.
Isn't it about time we changed that despicable reality?