Legal Commentary

Harman Incident: Personalities Over Policy

By Big Tent Democrat

What I find particularly disturbing about the reaction in some quarters to the Jane Harman incident is their inability to separate their disdain for Harman with the merits of what appears to have occurred. Consider this reporting from The Hill:

“This appears to have been by-the-book,” said Kevin Bankston, senior staff attorney of the Electronic Frontier Foundation [. . .]

Apparently Bankston thinks the selective leaking information gleaned through wiretaps is "by the book." A less vindictive civil libertarian disagrees:

Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center said the abuse is that NSA officials then leaked the details of her eavesdropped conversations in order to embarrass her politically. “I think it stinks,” Rotenberg said. “There’s no procedure in which it is supposed to be leaked to the public.”

Bankston, as opposed to Rotenberg, has let his personal feelings towards Harman interfere with his normally good judgment in this matter.

The daily revelations in the case have cast a good deal of doubt on the original reporting by CQ, despite its contortions today to try and defend its inaccurate reporting (CQ originally reported that Speaker Pelosi had not been informed of the Harman wiretap.) At this point, the only way to know what actually happened would be an open investigation. And it appears that House Intelligence committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes has called for exactly that. Until then, it would be prudent for everyone to withhold judgment on this incident.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on April 23, 2009 (boomark / email).