This is exactly the type of “sources and methods” the national security establishment rakes Edward Snowden over the coals for - including just this week in a WSJ editorial! - but there’s not a peep when it’s done to further US interests, despite being just as illegal.
Snowden’s leaks furthered US interests, but it was for average US citizens instead of just for the elite ruling class.
Sometimes what seems like a leak is a controlled release of information. Using information to further policy objectives kinda seems legit … I mean, presumably that’s why the information is being collected, right? Without knowing a lot more about the intended effects of the ‘leak’, I’m not really convinced that it’s correct to call it a leak. Which is not to say that self serving leaks by officals doesn’t happen. But officials using official information for official purposes is not necessarily illegal.
This use of spying resources doesn’t seem right though.
Tim: ‘Yo, boss, I’m after this totally sweet job in New York, but there’s some other dudes going for it too.’
John: ‘No worries Tim, I’ll get the lads down the road to look into it for you.’
Tim: ‘Gee, thanks boss!’
If top secret information gets deliberately disseminated by the state to further its interests, is it still top secret?
Well, given the wierdness that saw stuff released as part of the wikileaks dump retaining its TS classification - and spooks being specifically warned not to d/l it even though they were cleared to read it (and that it was now in the public domain anyway :rolleyes: ) - I’d say the answer to that is yes
Or the spooks are just a bunch of drama queens.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.