# Exactly which lawmakers were leaking classified info? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 10, 2001, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exactly-which-lawmakers-were-leaking-classified-info/86603 "2001-10-10T17:06:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![H8\_2\_W8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c77e96/32.png) [@H8\_2\_W8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/H8_2_W8)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2001, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exactly-which-lawmakers-were-leaking-classified-info/86603/1 "2001-10-10T17:06:48Z")
From the AP: “With officials exercising extraordinary security measures, Bush bluntly accused lawmakers Tuesday of leaking classified information to the press – and made the point in person during today’s breakfast meeting with Gephardt, Speaker Dennis Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Senate GOP Leader Trent Lott.” I’d like to know before I re-elect one of these morons. ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exactly-which-lawmakers-were-leaking-classified-info/86603/2 "2001-10-11T02:10:26Z")
One thing noted on CNN by NOT saying what was leaked it gives the administration wide leverage to blame the media for any mistakes they make, saying the media leaked it. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exactly-which-lawmakers-were-leaking-classified-info/86603/3 "2001-10-11T02:34:44Z")
I wondered who it was, too, but they aren’t saying. [http://chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0110100395oct10.story?coll=chi-printnews-hed](http://chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0110100395oct10.story?coll=chi%2Dprintnews%2Dhed) > [@](#): > > Bush slams lid on secrets > Congress fears loss of oversight > > By Bob Kemper, Washington Bureau. Jill Zuckman and John Diamond of the Tribune’s Washington Bureau and Tribune news services contributed to this report > Published October 10, 2001 > > Two leaks set off Bush > > Two notable leaks of information are known to have angered Bush. > > The first occurred within hours after terrorist hijackers crashed airliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. **Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)** told reporters that U.S. intelligence had intercepted a telephone call from a suspect who was reporting that targets had been hit. Hatch announced that the sensitive information had come from the CIA and FBI. > > The incident that finally provoked Bush’s decision to limit congressional briefings came Friday, the same day Bush secretly approved the start of the bombing in Afghanistan, where bin Laden is thought to be hiding. > > That morning’s edition of The Washington Post reported U.S. intelligence officials had told lawmakers there was a “100 percent” chance that America would be attacked again once the U.S. started bombing Afghanistan. The story was based on unnamed sources. > > [Senate Majority Leader Tom] Daschle said the lawmakers who leaked sensitive information should be identified and punished, possibly by the Ethics Committees. But, he said, it is critical to restore White House trust and access to critical intelligence information. So it’s just Orrin Hatch and “unnamed sources”. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exactly-which-lawmakers-were-leaking-classified-info/86603/4 "2001-10-11T04:57:10Z")
No, there’s more to it than that. I was watching CNN tonight and they were talking about it. Someone in Congress leaked evidence suggesting the actual locations of the next attacks to a national newspaper, and the White House had to do damage control by spending the afternoon convincing the newspaper not to publish the information. The newspaper finally agreed. There are ways to solve this problem. One is to brief congressmen separately or in small groups, but give each group a different, irrelevant detail. Then if a leak happens, you can tell which congressman did the leaking. Bush should say to every one of them, “If we discover who leaked information, we will make that person’s identity public, and your constituents can deal with you in the next election.” Congress has always been terrible for security leaks, because the public scrutiny on people in congressional elections is a lot lower than it is in Senate or Presidential elections, and once a person is elected to Congress they get an automatic clearance to sensitive information, whether they deserve it or not. ---
**Author:** ![Violet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/ebca7d/32.png) [@Violet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Violet)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exactly-which-lawmakers-were-leaking-classified-info/86603/5 "2001-10-11T06:32:37Z")
Interesting points, Sam. It seems that “regular” civil servants get much more scrutiny than some of the elected officials. I speculate that some sources “leak” because it makes them feel important. Maybe the clearance issue policies will change. But I wouldn’t bet on it. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exactly-which-lawmakers-were-leaking-classified-info/86603/6 "2001-10-11T13:37:17Z")
There is also something of a problem with people’s interpretations of what is or is not “sensitive”. Maybe classifying _absolutely everything_ in the briefings is too much, but so’s giving unconditional clearance to everyone in the Congress. We’d probably be better off if we divided classes of clearance within the Congress itself, with _only a selected group within each class authorized to speak on the issue_. These would get a more thorough orientation on how to avoid saying too much. Now, “there’s a 100% probability of retaliatory terrorism” doesn’t strike me as particularly sensitive information, it strikes me as a statement of the damn obvious. _OF COURSE_ there’s sure to be another attack on us! I don’t need a classified briefing to learn that, it just stands to reason, doesn’t it? And I might as well tell the bastards: “Hey, I KNOW you’re going to try to hit us again.” OTOH, dropping clues as to the next locations to be struck — that’s just irresponsible. Regardless of how much you think it’ll cheer up the folks back in the district. While some in Congress may have gotten a bit too communicative, let’s also acknowledge that the executive branch would prefer if we’d just trust them on nothing but blind faith, and left to their own would likely classify even the exit signs on I-95, lest an enemy be able to find Washington. And like it was mentioned earlier, then we risk having any real blunder be blamed on media leaks rather than command incompetence. There’s got to be a balance. jrd