Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

struggle4progress

(120,556 posts)
8. ... While details in the court papers are vague, there are indications that the leaked information
Tue May 21, 2013, 02:45 AM
May 2013

may have related to the nuclear activities of a foreign power. The indictment says that in June 2009, Kim leaked information from an intelligence report carrying the very high classification "Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information" to a reporter who was not authorized to receive it. The Justice Department press release says the leaked secrets related to "intelligence sources and methods and intelligence concerning the military capabilities and preparedness of a particular foreign nation" ...
Justice Department Indicts Contractor in Alleged Leak
Aug 27, 2010 7:08 PM EDT

I have no idea exactly what Kim is alleged to have leaked, nor exactly why he is being prosecuted. But he seems to have a long association with the US nuclear weapons complex. The nuclear weapons complex is (of course) the actual origin of our modern national security state, and it has always been a bit touchy about security

Prosecuting Kim may indeed be unreasonable, but I don't know that actually it is. It's not obviously unreasonable, for example, to cultivate intelligence assets who provide information on foreign nuclear capabilities. And it's not unreasonable to protect such assets: one should prefer not to have so much information gradually dribble out, that such information sources were ultimately identified and silenced

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama DOJ formally accuse...»Reply #8