This is exactly the type of āsources and methodsā the national security establishment rakes Edward Snowden over the coals for - including just this week in a WSJ editorial! - but thereās not a peep when itās done to further US interests, despite being just as illegal.
Snowdenās 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 ā¦ I mean, presumably thatās why the information is being collected, right? Without knowing a lot more about the intended effects of the āleakā, Iām not really convinced that itās correct to call it a leak. Which is not to say that self serving leaks by officals doesnāt happen. But officials using official information for official purposes is not necessarily illegal.
This use of spying resources doesnāt seem right though.
Tim: āYo, boss, Iām after this totally sweet job in New York, but thereās some other dudes going for it too.ā
John: āNo worries Tim, Iāll get the lads down the road to look into it for you.ā
Tim: āGee, thanks boss!ā
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: ) - Iād 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.
