Trust No One. Lots of people, both inside the military and outside of it, have expressed astonishment at reports that the New York Times is set to go to print with an exposé of the bin Laden raid that reportedly includes details of how the commando raid was carried out, what happened when it was concluded, and, perhaps, how bin Laden’s body was treated. And why is everyone expressing astonishment? Because it looks like the story was either obtained via unauthorized access to classified information or, if it was authorized, it was clearly obtained illegally, and both actions are flatly forbidden by US law. And yet – and yet – that’s what looks like has happened. It certainly is what has been reported by the Daily Beast’s Noah Shachtman. Now, for what it’s worth, I have no way of knowing whether Shachtman’s report of the forthcoming Times article is correct or not. But the report that’s going to be in the New York Times, as far as I know, is a piece by a reporter named Mark Mazzetti. Mazzetti is a senior reporter who has broken important stories about the US military and intelligence services before, including, in 2004, revealing that, according to the then head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, “DIA headquarters and nearly every field office” had been penetrated by Chinese spies. Mazzetti’s report will be the work of two reporters, including one with extensive military background. So how did Mazzetti get hold of this? Who’s responsible for this? Well, I’ll tell you – not an enemy spy. I don’t buy the official explanation of how this happened. This isn’t a case of someone with some form of “national security clearance” giving out secrets to someone who had been hired to find them out. All this raises questions. And it raises questions about which officials are engaged in breaking the law and which ones are not. It is well-known that in the wake of 9/11, the security was significantly tightened, both for classified information and for clearances. This included a huge clampdown on “leaks.” And the clampdown on leaks continued into the Obama administration – just a year ago, two State Department employees were fired when they disclosed confidential information about a cable on US drone policy – but this was in connection with a story the New York Times had previously reported. If this “leak” of the raid on bin Laden’s compound is actually part of a leak, it’s hard to believe that it was sanctioned by a high official. So my guess is that it came from some mid-level person who was not following the rules. That leaves open two possibilities: First, and I’ve said this before, it may have been authorized by someone who was not supposed to be providing information to unauthorized people, but who gave in to temptation. Or second, it was approved by someone who was already supposed to have leaked the information, but did so under pressure from someone on the outside. I can’t rule out the possibility that it was just a stupid mistake – someone didn’t check with whoever was supposed to have OK’d the leak, or didn’t notice that the information was supposed to be classified. But the evidence, in my opinion, points to a breach by someone with access to top-secret information – either a mid-level official or a very senior official – who deliberately breached his own security system and gave out classified information to people who are not authorized to see it. And this is not a “he said, he said” situation, and I’m not saying what happened, and I’m not going to try to figure out who is lying. I don’t know if anyone is lying. But I do know that a whole lot of people, both inside and outside the Pentagon, are furious about the way this has been done. And, they’re angry about the prospect of something like this coming out, with its obvious implications, and, most of all, they’re angry about the possibility that this is not an isolated incident. After all, the New York Times is now looking into possible unauthorized leaks on a number of different fronts, including, quite possibly, the use of cluster bombs by the US military – and that cluster bomb story was broken in February by the New York Times’ Neil A. Lewis. If this one is a “he said, he said,” it’s time to shut up. If this one is a deliberate unauthorized leak, it’s time to start demanding some answers. Post navigation The gist of this issue is that a new government has come into power that is seeking to clean up the mess that Obama left, and it has to be a bit patient. It is not a he said she said issue, it is one of following the leads. We all know the current administration has many skeletons in the closet, and one of them is the fact that a CIA operative was assigned to the bin Laden compound during the Obama administration. Obama has already stated he will not release bin Laden photos from the raid until he has permission. It is now time for the Obama administration to come clean and admit this, if not what happened to our troops inside of Pakistan, including those lost on Blackwater. This article is about the truth and transparency, not to be used as a witch hunt for Obama’s mistakes. Don’t fall into the trap of being too patient. After all, this ‘administration’ has no desire to clean up the mess that it made. Mazetti is the guy who wrote up a report on the Blackwater company to make it look like they were being killed by the US military in Iraq. He didn’t find a single body and the only report he could find was a one-line press release by the State Dept. If I were in the WH, my inclination would be to try to contain any damage. And this damage is that people, in the military and out, feel betrayed and disillusioned. A little while, and all this will blow over. There’s a bigger issue here though than just Obama having to admit that there was a lapse in his system for clearing top secret and covert intelligence information. If there’s been a breakdown in the system in that respect and information can be passed around like this, then the next questions are: Can the American public trust our intel service and how can they be assured of a system that is free of leaks? This issue of a military insider giving out information about the bin Laden raid is of lesser importance than the broader issue of national security and leaking. If a guy like myself leaks top secret intel, is he to be sent to Gitmo? I don’t think so. The Obama administration has got to give a lot of explanations regarding this recent incident, and a lot of them are likely to get political fire. The “he said, she said” scenario where Obama or someone else is trying to cover up for someone else, is the least plausible explanation. More plausible explanations are: 1. Some low level or mid level military guy who is disgruntled because he’s been passed over for a promotion he thinks he deserves, has leaked information. This kind of scenario is what happens in the American Military when mid level people are mistreated by officers, or when those who can give orders are in their twilight and are too busy working on Wall Street to do anything about it. If this is the case, the chances of Obama being personally implicated are low. If this was not the case, the chances are that a high-level military guy from the Defense Intelligence Agency was assigned to a desk job by Obama and he felt this was unfair to him. This person then leaked the info so that he could restore his honour by getting his revenge for what he thinks has been done to him. It might also have been he who leaked the info in order to promote his personal agenda. The scenario involving the CIA guy is unlikely. CIA officers in the field don’t have a lot of time to work in desk jobs, and generally don’t do that for long if they can help it. And they especially don’t do that if they have the kind of information needed to be of any real use to the guys in the field. The scenario with the CIA guy is probably the least plausible, since this person was likely the most senior officer among the guys who fought the al Qaeda guys in Afghanistan. I think that for the most part, this case is going to be closed, and it will probably be closed with most if not all of the current players. Obama will probably keep his promise and never release bin Laden photos, even though his advisers know what really happened. They will say that releasing the photos would have a devastating impact on their work and people in Pakistan, and they will cite this. At the same time, the White House has already made it clear that they will keep all sorts of information secret – e.g., whether or not they will release documents about the use of cluster bombs in Afghanistan, which the current administration is about to lift as soon as possible. There are good reasons for keeping these secret from the public, but the public has a right to be told about this, and they’re not going to be told.