5 ms·

> [the lawyer] told me that he was sometimes involved in international arms deals. [...] The lawyer seemed to be an adrenaline junkie, someone who had found a h

> [the lawyer] told me that he was sometimes involved in international arms deals. [...] The lawyer seemed to be an adrenaline junkie, someone who had found a home on the dark side of international intelligence. [...] While the FBI knows who the lawyer is, I will not name him, even though he betrayed me.) Why protect this asshole? Because he got cold feet and gave warning? This guy seems like 'quite a character' and the story unresolved without knowing who it was.

alasdair_ 4y ago
> Why protect this asshole? Because future sources need to trust you. Protecting sources needs to be absolute, or some of them will wonder what it takes to constitute “betrayal” in the future. Not betraying a source that has wronged you is fantastic signalling to future sources.
- robonerd 4y ago
  You'd trust this guy?! He has spooks crawling all over him. This lawyer was informing the FBI on the journalist's source, and the journalist won't even name that lawyer. An NSA/TLA/etc leaker would need a death wish to approach this journalist now, having read this story.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > This lawyer was informing the FBI on the journalist's source The lawyer introduced the journalist to the source. So at the very least, the source seems to have trusted the lawyer too. It also sounds like the lawyer provided the journalist with the audio recordings of phone calls about the ambush.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      The source coming from and trusting the lawyer doesn't change the fact that the lawyer was informing to the FBI and was an associate to this journalist. > Eventually, he confessed to me that the FBI had been waiting in Bruges to trap my source. He said that the FBI knew about the meeting because he had told them about it, and that he had also told the FBI that the source wanted to provide me with NSA documents. He admitted that he had been informing on me. The journalist has spooks all over him. Whatever you think of the journalist's intentions, you'd have to be a complete fool to get near him. At least he's been honest about this much, so future leakers will be forewarned.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        > The journalist has spooks all over him. Not sure what this is supposed to mean exactly. It's pretty much a given that if you're reporting on national security, the government has its eyes on you. "In January 2014 — just as the FBI was planning its ambush operation — the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to hear arguments over my subpoena in the leak case involving the mismanaged CIA program. At the time, I was facing the possibility of going to prison for refusing to reveal my sources if the Supreme Court did not rule in my favor."
- natch 4y ago
  > Because future sources need to trust you. Makes sense in principle, but who would ever trust James Risen after his reporting on Wen Ho Lee? I mean let’s see, Taiwanese person is going to spy for mainland China? Really? And the evidence for this is that blueprints not available to the suspect, generated well downstream from where the suspect works or has access, are leaked to China… Right, let’s sensationalize some bs theories in the NYT even though there is nothing there, at the expense of a man who, oh well, is Taiwanese, so who cares? Not James Risen.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

alasdair_ 4y ago

> Why protect this asshole? Because future sources need to trust you. Protecting sources needs to be absolute, or some of them will wonder what it takes to constitute “betrayal” in the future. Not betraying a source that has wronged you is fantastic signalling to future sources.

robonerd 4y ago
You'd trust this guy?! He has spooks crawling all over him. This lawyer was informing the FBI on the journalist's source, and the journalist won't even name that lawyer. An NSA/TLA/etc leaker would need a death wish to approach this journalist now, having read this story.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > This lawyer was informing the FBI on the journalist's source The lawyer introduced the journalist to the source. So at the very least, the source seems to have trusted the lawyer too. It also sounds like the lawyer provided the journalist with the audio recordings of phone calls about the ambush.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    The source coming from and trusting the lawyer doesn't change the fact that the lawyer was informing to the FBI and was an associate to this journalist. > Eventually, he confessed to me that the FBI had been waiting in Bruges to trap my source. He said that the FBI knew about the meeting because he had told them about it, and that he had also told the FBI that the source wanted to provide me with NSA documents. He admitted that he had been informing on me. The journalist has spooks all over him. Whatever you think of the journalist's intentions, you'd have to be a complete fool to get near him. At least he's been honest about this much, so future leakers will be forewarned.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > The journalist has spooks all over him. Not sure what this is supposed to mean exactly. It's pretty much a given that if you're reporting on national security, the government has its eyes on you. "In January 2014 — just as the FBI was planning its ambush operation — the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to hear arguments over my subpoena in the leak case involving the mismanaged CIA program. At the time, I was facing the possibility of going to prison for refusing to reveal my sources if the Supreme Court did not rule in my favor."
natch 4y ago
> Because future sources need to trust you. Makes sense in principle, but who would ever trust James Risen after his reporting on Wen Ho Lee? I mean let’s see, Taiwanese person is going to spy for mainland China? Really? And the evidence for this is that blueprints not available to the suspect, generated well downstream from where the suspect works or has access, are leaked to China… Right, let’s sensationalize some bs theories in the NYT even though there is nothing there, at the expense of a man who, oh well, is Taiwanese, so who cares? Not James Risen.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]