I've long struggled with the problem of anonymous sources being cited in news stories. Such sources create a serious problem when it comes to assessing the validity of information passed on. How can I, as a reader, evaluate the significance and veracity of information from such a source, especially the more cloaked in secrecy the identity of such a source is.

Take this story from today's Washington Post.

We'll start with the headline.

Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest
Jurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel

All right. On the face of it, this seems like there may be some real meat in the story. But then you read the first few paragraphs. I'll highlight what I consider to be the significant bits of information.

A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

Robertson, who was appointed to the federal bench in Washington by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and was later selected by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court, declined to comment when reached at his office late yesterday.

So let's recap here. Judge Robertson submitted his resignation without any explanation, and refuses to elaborate upon it. Two other people ascribe a motive for his resignation, but Robertson himself pointedly does not do so. It really seems hard to call it a protest if the man utters not one word of protest, isn't it?

But we go much further on in the artcle, and find this bit of information.

Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring.

"They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants -- to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."

Ah -- the word of an anonymous source who is repeating information about private conversations. Was this source a party to the conversations in question, or is the information second or third hand? We don't know. Information to assess the credibility of the source is utterly absent -- and the Post (consumate violator of national security related restrictions on classified information) boldly asserts a national security basis for not identifying the source! Never mind that identifying the judge or judges (the membership of the FISA court is public information) raising such questions in no way discloses anything about the cases, and therefore violates no restrictions on classified information.

So what we have here is a story that says "A FISA court judge resigned without further information -- but the gossip we hear is that it is over the domestic spying information made public despite the harm to national security. You'll have to trust us though -- disclosing the sources would be a violation of national security."

Incredible!

Posted by: Greg at 04:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 642 words, total size 4 kb.