Opening a Pandora's Box: Kosovo "Independence" and the Project for a "New Middle East"
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Globalresearch
February 20, 2008
Western public opinion has been misled. Unfolding events and realities on the ground in the former Yugoslavia have been carefully manipulated.
Germany and the U.S. have deep-seated geo-strategic interests in dividing Yugoslavia. Washington, D.C. and Berlin have also been the first governments to recognize the secessionist states, which resulted from the breakup of the Yugoslav federation.
The Broader Implications of Kosovo "Independence"
The February 2008 declaration of independence of Kosovo is a means towards legitimizing the dissolution and breaking up of sovereign states on a global scale.
Eurasia is the main target. Kosovar "independence" is part of a neo-colonial program with underlying economic and geo-political interests. The objective is to instate a New World Order and establish hegemonic control over the global economy.
In this sense Kosovo provides a blueprint and a "dress-rehearsal" which can now be applied to restructuring the economies and borders of the Middle East, under the Project for a "New Middle East."
The restructuring model that is being applied in the former Yugoslavia is precisely what is intended for the Middle East — a process of balkanization and economic control.
Kosovo’s Pseudo-Declaration of Independence
On February 17, 2008, the secessionist province of Kosovo declared unilateral independence from the Republic of Serbia. The occasion was declared through an extraordinary gathering of the Kosovar Parliament and its executive bodies. Belgrade has not had any control over Kosovo since 1999, when NATO went to war with Serbia to impose control over Kosovo under humanitarian arguments.
President Fatmir Sejdiu, Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, and the Speaker of Parliament Jakup Krasniqi all marked the occasion with speeches inside and outside of the Kosovar Parliament.
Many in Kosovo’s ethic Albanian majority celebrated what they believed was a shift towards self-determination. The truth of the matter is that the Kosovar declaration of independence was a declaration of dependency and the surrounder of Kosovo to colonial forces.
Without any remorse Kosovar leaders have transformed their land into a colonial outpost of Franco-German and Anglo-American interests. February 17, 2008 also marked the day that Kosovo further entrenched itself as a NATO-E.U. protectorate. Under the so-called independence" roadmap, NATO and E.U. troops and police officers will formally administer Kosovo.
In reality, Kosovo would have had greater independence as an autonomous province in an agreement of autonomy with Serbia, which had been envisaged in bilateral talks between Belgrade and Pristina. The majority of Kosovars would have been satisfied under such an agreement.
However, the talks were never meant to succeed for two obvious reasons:
1) the leadership of Kosovo are agents of foreign interests that do not represent the Kosovar populaiton;
2) the U.S. and E.U. were determined to establish another protectorate in the former Yugoslavia.
Kosovo: Another phase in the Economic Colonization of the former Yugoslavia
One of the leading global academic figures who has thoroughly documented the foreign-induced disintegration of Yugoslavia and the situation in Kosovo is Michel Chossudovsky. He has documented the economic and geo-strategic motives that have acted as the fingers pulling the strings that have caused the collapse of Yugoslavia and the drive for the independence of Kosovo from Serbia. His work unmasks the truth behind the downfall of Yugoslavia and the tactics being used to divide nations and peoples who have lived together in peace for hundreds of years.
A glance at the restructuring of Bosnia-Herzegovina must be made before further discussing the case of Kosovo.
Germany and the U.S. have deep-seated geo-strategic interests in dividing Yugoslavia. Washington, D.C. and Berlin have also been the first governments to recognize the secessionist states, which resulted from the breakup of the Yugoslav federation.
The Broader Implications of Kosovo "Independence"
The February 2008 declaration of independence of Kosovo is a means towards legitimizing the dissolution and breaking up of sovereign states on a global scale.
Eurasia is the main target. Kosovar "independence" is part of a neo-colonial program with underlying economic and geo-political interests. The objective is to instate a New World Order and establish hegemonic control over the global economy.
In this sense Kosovo provides a blueprint and a "dress-rehearsal" which can now be applied to restructuring the economies and borders of the Middle East, under the Project for a "New Middle East."
The restructuring model that is being applied in the former Yugoslavia is precisely what is intended for the Middle East — a process of balkanization and economic control.
Kosovo’s Pseudo-Declaration of Independence
On February 17, 2008, the secessionist province of Kosovo declared unilateral independence from the Republic of Serbia. The occasion was declared through an extraordinary gathering of the Kosovar Parliament and its executive bodies. Belgrade has not had any control over Kosovo since 1999, when NATO went to war with Serbia to impose control over Kosovo under humanitarian arguments.
President Fatmir Sejdiu, Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, and the Speaker of Parliament Jakup Krasniqi all marked the occasion with speeches inside and outside of the Kosovar Parliament.
Many in Kosovo’s ethic Albanian majority celebrated what they believed was a shift towards self-determination. The truth of the matter is that the Kosovar declaration of independence was a declaration of dependency and the surrounder of Kosovo to colonial forces.
Without any remorse Kosovar leaders have transformed their land into a colonial outpost of Franco-German and Anglo-American interests. February 17, 2008 also marked the day that Kosovo further entrenched itself as a NATO-E.U. protectorate. Under the so-called independence" roadmap, NATO and E.U. troops and police officers will formally administer Kosovo.
In reality, Kosovo would have had greater independence as an autonomous province in an agreement of autonomy with Serbia, which had been envisaged in bilateral talks between Belgrade and Pristina. The majority of Kosovars would have been satisfied under such an agreement.
However, the talks were never meant to succeed for two obvious reasons:
1) the leadership of Kosovo are agents of foreign interests that do not represent the Kosovar populaiton;
2) the U.S. and E.U. were determined to establish another protectorate in the former Yugoslavia.
Kosovo: Another phase in the Economic Colonization of the former Yugoslavia
One of the leading global academic figures who has thoroughly documented the foreign-induced disintegration of Yugoslavia and the situation in Kosovo is Michel Chossudovsky. He has documented the economic and geo-strategic motives that have acted as the fingers pulling the strings that have caused the collapse of Yugoslavia and the drive for the independence of Kosovo from Serbia. His work unmasks the truth behind the downfall of Yugoslavia and the tactics being used to divide nations and peoples who have lived together in peace for hundreds of years.
A glance at the restructuring of Bosnia-Herzegovina must be made before further discussing the case of Kosovo.
Bosnia’s constitution was written at a U.S. Air Force base in Dayton, Ohio by U.S. and European "experts."
Chossoduvsky appropriately labels Bosnia-Herzegovina as a neo-colonial entity. NATO troops have dominated Bosnia-Herzegovina, closely followed by the imposition of a new political and economic framework and model.
Chossoduvsky appropriately labels Bosnia-Herzegovina as a neo-colonial entity. NATO troops have dominated Bosnia-Herzegovina, closely followed by the imposition of a new political and economic framework and model.
Chossudovsky’s work also reveals that the real head of the Bosnian government, the High Representative, and the head of the Bosnian Central Bank are both foreigners that are hand-picked by the European Union, the U.S., and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). [1] This is a clear re-enactment of a colonial administration.
This model has also been replicated with some variations in several of the former republics of the Yugoslav federation. The major obstacle to the full implementation of this agenda is the popular will of the local people in the former Yugoslavia, especially the Serbs.
This model has also been replicated with some variations in several of the former republics of the Yugoslav federation. The major obstacle to the full implementation of this agenda is the popular will of the local people in the former Yugoslavia, especially the Serbs.
Serbia, like an island of resistance, is the last bastion of independence left in the former Yugoslavia and the Balkans, but even in Serbia a modus vivendi exists where the local people have made a one-sided accommodation with the foreign economic agenda to allow their way of life to go on for a little longer. However, this accommodation is not meant to last.
The same Political and Socio-Economic Model is being applied in the Balkans and the Middle East
The process in Iraq is no different than the model applied in the former Yugoslavia. Divisions are fueled by foreign catalysts, the economy is destabilized, national dissolution is induced, and a new politico-socio-economic order is established.
The process in Iraq is no different than the model applied in the former Yugoslavia. Divisions are fueled by foreign catalysts, the economy is destabilized, national dissolution is induced, and a new politico-socio-economic order is established.
Foreign interference and military intervention have also been justified on bogus humanitarian grounds. It is no coincidence that a "High Representative" was appointed by the American-led coaltion to govern occupied Iraq, thereby replicating the Bosnia-Herzegovina model, which is characterised by a E.U. appointed "High Representative." The pattern should start becoming startlingly familiar!
The parallels between Iraq and the former Yugoslavia are endless.
In the wake of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, the U.S. and Britain established the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), which evolved into the Coalition Provisional Authority.
The head of the Coalition Provisional Authority was also called "Special Representative," "Governor," "Special Envoy," and "Consul."
The justifications for setting up the occupying administration in Iraq, similarly to Bosnia-Herzegovina, where originally humanitarian and national stabilization. However, the main objectives of the Coalition Provisional Authority were to decentralize the state and implement a mass privatization program of Iraqi resources and wealth.
The head of the Coalition Provisional Authority was also called "Special Representative," "Governor," "Special Envoy," and "Consul."
The justifications for setting up the occupying administration in Iraq, similarly to Bosnia-Herzegovina, where originally humanitarian and national stabilization. However, the main objectives of the Coalition Provisional Authority were to decentralize the state and implement a mass privatization program of Iraqi resources and wealth.
It is no coincidence that Bosnia-Herzegovina was divided alongside ethnic and religious lines: Serb, Croat, and Bosniak; Christians and Muslims. To these various ethnic-religious divisions further sectarian divisions were also added amongst the Christians: Eastern Orthodoxy versus Roman Catholicism.
A similar strategy of "divide and rule" was applied in Iraq. In Iraq the same pattern is being replicated alongside ethnic and sectarian lines: Arabs, Kurds, Turcoman, Assyrian, and others; Shiites versus Sunnis. Just like in the former Yugoslavia the centralized economic system of Iraq was also shattered by the occupying administration. Under the Anglo-American occupation and its Coalition Provisional Authority foreign corporations entered Iraq in a second wave of foreign invasion, an economic takeover.
A similar strategy of "divide and rule" was applied in Iraq. In Iraq the same pattern is being replicated alongside ethnic and sectarian lines: Arabs, Kurds, Turcoman, Assyrian, and others; Shiites versus Sunnis. Just like in the former Yugoslavia the centralized economic system of Iraq was also shattered by the occupying administration. Under the Anglo-American occupation and its Coalition Provisional Authority foreign corporations entered Iraq in a second wave of foreign invasion, an economic takeover.
This neo-colonial project is based on two inderdependent building blocks: a military stage executed by NATO and a process of political, social, and economic restructuring executed by the U.S. and E.U. with the help of corrupt local leaders in the occupied countries. The shock and awe of war opens the door for destabilization followed by "nation building" or the restructuring process, which even attacks the cultural and social roots of the target nation-state. The important cultural and historic aspects unifying the occupied nation-states have also been systematically attacked and errased.
The Economic Colonization of Kosovo
The economic affairs of Kosovo are to be exclusively under the hands of the E.U. in partnership with the United States. The euro was already being used in Kosovo, despite of the protests of Belgrade, as the official currency for a number of years before 2008. The utilization of the euro was part of the process of untying the Kosovar economy from the rest of the Serbian economy and a means of establishing control over the sovereignty of Kosovo via monetary and financial means.
The Kosovar flag has been designed to match both the flags of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the European Union. The Bosnian flag was also designed to match the flag of the European Union. To many these in the Balkans these flags are symbols of vassaldom and the protectorate status of these territories.
This unraveling process involving military means has been the modus operandi throughout the former Yugoslavia. The key players behind this process are the usual players; the U.S., Germany, Britain, and France, which have been sharing the spoils of war and economic colonization in the former Yugoslavia. NATO and the E.U. have been the agents of this process on behalf of all four Western powers.
An Illegal Precedent: Paving the Way for the Dismantlement of other Nation-States
In the realm of international law, a Pandora’s Box has been opened. A new form of interventionism which threatens nation-states has emerged. Worldwide, nations have been divided into two camps in regards to Kosovo: those that recognize it at the expense of international law and those that do not recognize Kosovar independence.
There are profound implications in regards to the events in Yugoslavia. The law of the jungle and the concept that "might is right" have been unveiled as the true ideals of E.U. and American foreign policy. From Somalia, Sudan, and Iraq to the Russian Federation and Central Asia, a dangerous precedent has been established. The latter is intent upon fracturing and dividing.
The E.U. and NATO have also threatened Belgrade and the Serbian people with military action if they try and keep Kosovo. NATO had prepared for Kosovar independence through the holding of war games in late-2007. As Germany has admitted, negotiations for a solution were never taken seriously by Western powers from the start. NATO’s military preparations for the secession of Kosovo suggests that the negotiations were a diplomatic game, which was never intended to succeed.
There are profound implications in regards to the events in Yugoslavia. The law of the jungle and the concept that "might is right" have been unveiled as the true ideals of E.U. and American foreign policy. From Somalia, Sudan, and Iraq to the Russian Federation and Central Asia, a dangerous precedent has been established. The latter is intent upon fracturing and dividing.
The E.U. and NATO have also threatened Belgrade and the Serbian people with military action if they try and keep Kosovo. NATO had prepared for Kosovar independence through the holding of war games in late-2007. As Germany has admitted, negotiations for a solution were never taken seriously by Western powers from the start. NATO’s military preparations for the secession of Kosovo suggests that the negotiations were a diplomatic game, which was never intended to succeed.
The global ramifications of E.U.-U.S. interventionism and open disregard for fundamental international laws are significant. Nations combating secessionist movements worldwide have voiced disapproval of the Kosovar declaration of independence, while expressing apprehension in regards to the enthusiastic support shown by American, German, British, and French officials.
China has voiced disapproval out of fears that Taiwan (Chinese Taipei) may declare independence under the precedent set by Kosovo. Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Spain, Georgia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Russia have all voiced opposition because of their own secessionist movements such as the Tamil Tigers and the Basque separatist group ETA.
Ramifications of the Kosovo Precedent in the Caucasus and the Former Soviet Space
While fully acknowledging the fact that the Kosovo precedent is internationally illegal, Moscow has nonetheless used the Kosovo precedent against Georgia. Moscow’s objective is to strengthen its control in the geo-strategically important Caucasus region. Georgia has opposed the push by Kosovar Albanians for independence because of secessionist movements in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Adjara. While Adjaran separatism has declined, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have standing armies with close ties to Moscow and are virtually independent.
Russia is arguing that if the U.S. and E.U. recognize the independence of Kosovo, then the independence of Abkhazia and South Oesstia must also be recognized based on the same principle.
The Kosovar declaration of independence also has ramifications for Trans-Dniester (also known as Transnistria or Transdniestria), a tiny breakaway Russian-majority portion of Moldava bordering Ukraine.
The Kosovar declaration of independence also has ramifications for Trans-Dniester (also known as Transnistria or Transdniestria), a tiny breakaway Russian-majority portion of Moldava bordering Ukraine.
The effects of Kosovar independence have also been watched carefully by the leaders of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan, because of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. In the cases of Trans-Dniester, Nagorno-Krabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, all four breakaway republics believe they have far stronger cases for lobbying for official recognition by the Commonwealth of Independent States (C.I.S.), Russia, and the United Nations.
Preparing a Dangerous Precedent for the Middle East and Beyond
The ghosts of Versailles and earlier schemes that the model in Yugoslavia and the Middle East is replicating still hunt humanity. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s seemingly good intentioned declaration of creating an arc of "national self-determination" stretching from the Baltic Sea and the Balkans to the Middle East after the First World War is coming into fruition.
Since the First World War, the larger and more powerful states of Eastern Europe and the Middle East have progressively been carved up into smaller and weaker states. This process was part of a colonial project to control the Eurasian Heartland that still survives. [2]
Since the First World War, the larger and more powerful states of Eastern Europe and the Middle East have progressively been carved up into smaller and weaker states. This process was part of a colonial project to control the Eurasian Heartland that still survives. [2]
The board is being set for the recognition of new states in a redrawn Middle East in total disregard for international law. The Kosovar declaration of independence from Serbia is part of the broader post-Cold War balkanization and dismantlement of Yugoslavia. The legitimization of Kosovar independence through international recognition serves to extend Anglo-American and Franco-German influence across Eurasia and the globe. This model is tied in a straight line with the forthcoming plans in the Middle East to breakup countries such as Iraq, Syria, and Iran in fragmented and easy to control protectorates managed by the E.U., the U.S., and Israel.
Russia and China also are aware of the real danger of plans to divide their territories as has been advocated for years by Anglo-American policy makes in Washington, D.C. and London going back to before the First World War. Iran is also aware of a Kosovo-like scenario planned for its predominately Arab regions in Khuzestan. The declaration of independence was also closely watched by the Kurdish Regional Government of Northern Iraq.
The synchronization of other global events with Kosovo Independence: Coincidence?
The "Arc of Instability" is yet again being exasperated and agitated. In Pakistan threats of civil war and balkanization loom large. In the Levant one of Hezbollah’s top officials, Imad Mughniyeh, was assassinated in Syria by a car bomb similarly to those killing Lebanese politicians.
Most probably Imad Mughniyeh was assassinated by the Mossad, the intelligence agency of Israel. American, Jordanian, Saudi, French, British, and German intelligence were almost all likely to be involved. It is an open secret that all these intelligence agencies have been collaborating together in Lebanon against Hezbollah and have been behind attempts to assassinate Hezbollah leaders. The timing of the assassination is extremely suspicious.
Most probably Imad Mughniyeh was assassinated by the Mossad, the intelligence agency of Israel. American, Jordanian, Saudi, French, British, and German intelligence were almost all likely to be involved. It is an open secret that all these intelligence agencies have been collaborating together in Lebanon against Hezbollah and have been behind attempts to assassinate Hezbollah leaders. The timing of the assassination is extremely suspicious.
Mughniyeh’s assassination also came just before the anniversary of the Hariri Assassination and could have been meant to further galvanize political tensions in Lebanon and create a sectarian divide amongst the Muslims of Lebanon. Israel has denied being behind the assassination, but it is now talking about a new war with Lebanon that it conveniently plans to blame Hezbollah for starting with the help of Syria and Iran.
The rupture of multiple conflicts and crises can be a means to also encircle and envelope the westernmost periphery of Russia within an arc of conflict or in other words there may be a deliberate attempt to supersaturate the "Arc of Instability" to paralyze Russia and other opposing players.
A Prepackaged Solution: Supranationalism?
The leadership in Serbia is playing a balancing act between its people and foreign interests. The Serbian people are against the foreign agenda in their region, but the leadership in Serbia is the spawn of a Western-funded and supported Velvet Revolution that occurred in 2000 and ousted Slobodan Milosevic. A large portion of Belgrade’s leadership supports the foreign agenda and has been co-opted into the neo-liberal restructuring project for the Balkans. The fact that the U.S. and the E.U. became major paymasters for Serbia after the Kosovo War is a mere testimony to this.
Surpanationalism or entry into the E.U. or a larger supranational entity for both Serbia and Kosovo is most probably going to be presented as the solution for Kosovar independence. Similarly such a solution may also be presented for a balkanized Middle East through such projects as the Mediterranean Union. Supranationalism is also being pressed as an answer to the unification of Cyprus under the Mediterranean Union.
Surpanationalism or entry into the E.U. or a larger supranational entity for both Serbia and Kosovo is most probably going to be presented as the solution for Kosovar independence. Similarly such a solution may also be presented for a balkanized Middle East through such projects as the Mediterranean Union. Supranationalism is also being pressed as an answer to the unification of Cyprus under the Mediterranean Union.
Returning to Serbia and Kosovo, many of the leaders of Serbia are opposing Kosovar secession, but this is merely a façade that is meant to occupy the minds of the Serbian general public. These same leaders are taking a soft stance on the issue and also moving towards integration into the European Union. To them supranationalism is a solution.
On the Eve of the New World Order: Welcome to the Rule of the Jungle
While the E.U. pushes for a bridge to end national and ethnic divisions amongst its own members it does the opposite in the cases of Kosovo and other regions. Is not the American Civil War marked with honour, because the Union States fought a war to keep the Confederate States within the "American Union" by force?
On the Eve of the New World Order: Welcome to the Rule of the Jungle
While the E.U. pushes for a bridge to end national and ethnic divisions amongst its own members it does the opposite in the cases of Kosovo and other regions. Is not the American Civil War marked with honour, because the Union States fought a war to keep the Confederate States within the "American Union" by force?
Whatever the case, the hypocrisy of the E.U. and the U.S. in international relations is exposed by the recognition of Kosovar independence. Firstly, it is a breach of international law, but also it is insincere and for self-serving motives and not because of genuine principles or concerns for the people of Kosovo.
In addition, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has a far more legitimate case of being recognized in addition to its own functioning institutions and maturity. Although there is a secure and stable means to peacefully address the desires of the Basque and the Catalans in the Pyrenees and the Flemish in the Flanders region of Belgium, these separatist movements are also ignored.
In addition, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has a far more legitimate case of being recognized in addition to its own functioning institutions and maturity. Although there is a secure and stable means to peacefully address the desires of the Basque and the Catalans in the Pyrenees and the Flemish in the Flanders region of Belgium, these separatist movements are also ignored.
The Armenian majority in Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence on December 10, 1991. Yet, the self-proclaimed and functioning breakaway republic enjoys no backing from either the U.S. or the E.U. unlike Kosovo. What sets Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and Trans-Dniester apart from Kosovo? The answer is: Anglo-American and Franco-German interests represented through the E.U. and NATO are the forces behind self-serving "exceptionalism" — the same force that permitted the Nazis to believe that they could colonize Eastern Europe and the Eurasian Heartland without guilt.
American and European Union leaders have argued that the Serbs are no longer morally capable of managing the affairs of Kosovo. What gives the governments of the U.S., Germany, France, and Britain any moral capability after years of blood baths and a deficit in credibility? If these claims where based on any principle then what about the case of the Palestinians? Does Israel have any moral capability to occupy the Palestinians? Yet, the occupation continues. Ironically it is not Serbian troops who occupy Kosovo, but NATO troops and tanks.
NOTES
[1] Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, (Montreal, Global Research, 2003), pp.257-277.
[2] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The "Great Game:" Eurasia and History of War, Global Research, December 3, 2007.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an independent writer based in Ottawa specializing in Middle Eastern affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
:: Article nr. 41322 sent on 20-feb-2008 18:15 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=41322
Link: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8132
Jon Perr has a most excellent write-up about it:
Lest anyone be confused, this is quite the opposite situation from when former NYT pseudo-reporter/White House shill, Judy Miller, was subpoenaed and went to jail for failing to reveal her sources in the CIA leak case. In her case she was refusing to name White House officials who were involved in government wrongdoing in which she had a role. In James Risen’s case, he exposed government wrongdoing that had been shrouded in secrecy, which is quite simply the most meritorious and patriotic deed a journalist can do, and is exactly why the fourth estate deserves to have a federal shield law to prevent government retaliation for exposing their crimes.
What DO we do about this latest assault on freedom
this time freedom of the press
We can educate ourselves on this things,
but what steps must we take to see that yet another
Constutional imperative is not ripped up and thrown away
Time for the public and bloggers to expand the public inquiry, and support the NYT. They’re under siege by alleged domestic enemies of the US Constitution. Allegedly this prosecutor, despite an oath to enforce Geneva, is supporting efforts to block evidence of war crimes in re Iran. The goal of the prosecutor appears less to identify a real source, but more to understand the methods the NYT is using to keep ahead of the President’s efforts to suppress open source information about alleged war crimes planning.
It is incorrect to assume the NYT only used classified, non-public sources. There are open sources which do point to information the President, NSA, and NSA contracting legal counsel do not want connected. Do not assume that the “only” way to arrive at these conclusions in the NYT or the book are through illegal methods.
There are things that can be done to corroborate information, and piece together open-source information which baffles the NSA. It’s likely the NYT has used a novel approach to do something the President and others didn’t consider needed hiding or protected. It’s the burden of the prosecutor to prove that there is “a source” as opposed to a method. There may not be “a source”; there could be a method of inquiry that is novel, and proprietary.
It’s the burden of the government to prove that the “only” way this information could be known was through illegal methods; or a leak. That is a burden the government needs to prove. The fact that they’re unable to find “the source” means they don’t know how the NYT reporter was able to arrive at the conclusions; hence, they have no case, just accusations. That’s not evidence, but insinuation by unsophisticated prosecutors. The prosecutor appears to only be going on a fishing trip to find an answer the domestic NSA-intercepts have not been able to pinpoint: How was the cover-up thwarted; and what will they do “next time” to hide all the evidence from the voters?
It appears the President and contractors are attempting to use the legal system to disclose the methods used to catch them. This has the appearance of corruption by the prosecutor, and contradicts the notion of justice: Oversight through an informed voting public. It appears the prosecutor has bought into the notion that any public discussion of alleged war crimes can only occur if there is illegal disclosures: That’s absurd. The illegal activity cannot lawfully be suppressed. The public should remind itself: There is a higher duty than the President: It is the oath of office which includes the Constitution and all treaties, including Geneva.
The grand jury is not well-advised to support a line on inquiry that seeks to suppress evidence of war crimes, illegal planning, or reckless US government activity. What’s most absurd is the GOP was in the “Clinton did it too”-crowd; but would ask that that accusation not be applied, and that it is “only” possible to conclude “there were efforts to penetrate Iran” using only illegal reporting and sourcing.
Why is the “Clinton did it too”-crowd upset that the disclosures occurred about the efforts in Iran? Because it shows that Clinton attempted to do something; and after 2003, the Bush President was unable to find what Clinton was concerned about. No longer did the US government have a pretext for war with Iran that they could take to the UN Security Council. This means the power balances has shifted away from the US, and includes Russia and China as credible sources of opposition to the US track record of reckless defiance of international law.