Members of the House Intelligence Committee said Friday that press disclosures of classified programs intended to find terrorists caused damage to national security. But a former National Security Agency intelligence analyst disagrees, saying the programs themselves damage national security.

Some of the Congressmen on the committee even said they wanted to see theNew York Times prosecuted for its disclosure of the so-called terrorist surveillance program, in which the government listens to selected calls into and out of the U.S.

“The press is not above the law, including laws regarding unauthorized disclosure and use of classified information,” said Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, the chairman of the committee. But he added that he was “not yet willing” to advocate criminal prosecution of reporters or newspapers. . . .

“I believe the attorney general and the president should use all of the power of existing law to bring criminal charges,” said Representative Rick Renzi, Republican of Arizona.

Democratic members of the committee, while generally praising the role the press plays informing citizens in a democracy, responded only indirectly to the comments concerning The Times. Representative Jane Harman, Democrat of California, said she was disturbed by [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales’s statements.

“If anyone here wants to imprison journalists,” she said, “I invite them to spend some time in China, Cuba or North Korea and see whether they feel safer.” — New York Times

She’s got a point. Do we really want to start imprisoning journalists who expose government wrongdoing, just because that wrongdoing is classified?

Former NSA analyst turned computer security consultant Ira Winkler, also known as the “modern day James Bond,” denounced the terrorist surveillance program and telephone record collection program as themselves putting the U.S. in danger. Winkler cited the fact that Federal Bureau of Investigation agents were being pulled off criminal cases to investigate thousands of leads generated by the programs which ultimately turned up nothing. “We have snakes in our midst, yet we are chasing a mythical beast with completely unreliable evidence,” he wrote.

Over the years, I have defended the NSA and its employees as reasonable and law abiding. I was all for invading Afghanistan, deployment of the Clipper Chip and many other controversial government programs. NSA domestic spying is against everything I was ever taught working at the NSA. I might be more for it if there was any credible evidence that this somehow provides useful information that couldn’t otherwise be had. However, the domestic spying program has gotten so massive that the well-established process of getting a warrant cannot be followed — and quantity most certainly doesn’t translate to quality. Quite the opposite. — Ira Winkler

His essay is quite good, and you should read the whole thing. Here’s another choice cut:

I believe that Saddam Hussein would cheerfully agree with the tired allegation that if you did nothing wrong, you shouldn’t mind the government looking at your calls. I think Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and the Chinese government would also agree with that line of thought. Is this the company we consent to keep in the name of safety? — Ibid.