| | New article by Eric Felten, RealClearInvestigations, Published Thursday, Oct. 3, 2019 A CIA analyst's "whistleblower" complaint against President Trump shows a flouting of rules within the government against intelligence-sharing beyond the need to know, Eric Felten reports for RealClearInvestigations. And that could pose risks to national security. Felten reports: The whistleblower and his sources, however justified they felt, almost certainly violated regulations aimed at preserving state secrets, legal experts say. The basic rule is two-fold: 1) you don't share classified information with someone lacking proper clearance; and 2) you don't share with someone who doesn't have an official need to know the information. The CIA analyst behind the complaint didn't have sufficient clearance or a need to know. By his own admission, he relied on anonymous "officials" who did, not his own firsthand knowledge. If the "whistleblower" had had clearance, he could have accessed the intelligence himself, including the transcript of a call between Trump and the Ukrainian President at the center of the uproar. Coming by information in the normal course of business, as the CIA analyst claims, doesn't absolve the parties of over-sharing outside of one's level of clearance. The issue isn't just intelligence officials' disdain for President Trump; there has been a longstanding failure to rein in the intelligence community's rumor mill. This talking out of school was made almost inevitable by the nation's recent experience with terrorism. Tough restrictions imposed after some of the biggest spy breaches in U.S. history fell by the wayside after 9/11, when government officials concluded that closer communication among agencies might have helped prevent the attacks. The government has been hesitant to punish top officials who share information, including former FBI Director James Comey. "What is truly endangered now is the ability to keep anything secret," says one intelligence scholar. |
|
|
|
| |
|