Leaks for me but not for Thee
The revelation in Foreign Policy that Israel has a secret airfield, possibly for use in an Iran attack scenario, was intentionally leaked by the Administration.
How do we know it was leaked? The leakers involved found someone who would bring the issue to light and gave him (in this case, writer Mark Perry) a story, complete with a bow on it:
In particular, four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers say that the United States has concluded that Israel has recently been granted access to airbases on Iran’s northern border. To do what, exactly, is not clear. “The Israelis have bought an airfield,” a senior administration official told me in early February, “and the airfield is called Azerbaijan.”
So can we expect the Justice Department to go after these leakers? There is, after all, the Espionage Act, which the New York Times says has been employed six times (so far) by the Administration:
In case after case, the Espionage Act has been deployed as a kind of ad hoc Official Secrets Act, which is not a law that has ever found traction in America, a place where the people’s right to know is viewed as superseding the government’s right to hide its business.
This means the Israeli airfield leak will to be one of those no-traction, no indictment, no conviction circumstances. Our right to know and all that, even if it’s about Israel’s security and not directly that of the United States.
Therefore, it is impossible to imagine Mr. Holder’s Justice Department will pursue the leaks; after all, you can’t avoid the conclusion the leaks were condoned by the Administration. Israeli strikes (let alone full-blown war) against Iran would be sure to result in increased domestic gasoline prices, a possible death blow to the President’s re-election chances.
Evenhandedness, you see, is for small people. This means our current Justice Department is likely to remain an oxymoron.