Heckuva story in the New York Times today, citing "current and former" American officials as saying Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai's brother has been on the CIA payroll.

A few points to be made, on both the law and the journalism.

Federal law, in theory, prohibits the intelligence community from paying drug dealers. Title 50 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 15, Section 403-8, puts it this way:

"Congress finds that longstanding statutes, regulations, and policies of the United States prohibit employees, agents, and assets of the elements of the intelligence community, and of every other Federal department and agency, from engaging in the illegal manufacture, purchase, sale, transport, and distribution of drugs."

Moreover, the U.S. Code goes on to state that any intelligence community member "having knowledge of a fact or circumstance that reasonably indicates" an asset is drug dealing "shall report such knowledge to an appropriate official."

Appropriate does not mean the New York Times. In fact, whoever leaked this information -- assuming it is true -- could be tossed in the slammer for 10 years. Section 421 of the same title and chapter states the penalties apply to:

"Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States."

But here's the thing. We all know no one will be prosecuted for leaking the information on Karzai's brother. How do we know this? We know this because this information has all the clues associated with an official leak, a leak designed to serve a policy purpose.

 With anonymously sourced leaks, as Slate's Jack Shafer notes, one must ask who benefits. Whose agenda is being served here?

The first individual quoted, a military intelligence officer, is named, and is expressing views critical of the hiring of "thugs." It's a striking quote placement, not attributing the main story to this officer but getting him to publicly oppose the hiring that is at the anonymously sourced heart of the article. Suits & Sentences would speculate this general may have done nod-and-wink support for the story, like: "I am not confirming or denying, but if your excellent sources are accurate about the CIA paying him, it's a mistake."

The story states the payments to Karzai have "created deep divisions" within the Obama administration. Suggesting: this comes from the administration faction opposed to Karzai's brother. The story clearly hurts Karzai, as well; in fact, Karzai is probably the real target here. Who wants to undermine him? Someone, perhaps, seeking to undermine public support for a surge of U.S. troops.

Vice President Biden's shop, perhaps? But who is/are the "former" American officials cited? Another individual antagonistic to Karzai. An individual, perhaps, who lost his job recently because of the sharp warnings he raised about widespread fraud perpetrated on Karzai's behalf. An individual, perhaps, like media-savvy former ambassador Peter Galbraith?

There's nothing like litigation to crack open a window into a secretive world of power and intrigue. All those lovely depositions and legal documents...

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer kept alive a lawsuit filed by the Scowcroft Group against Toreador Resources Group. That's Scowcroft, as in former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and former CIA deputy operations director James Pavitt and former undersecretary of state Arnold Kanter and former assistant secretary of state Walter H. Kansteiner III and...

The Scowcroft Group says that Toreador failed to pay it an agreed-upon "success fee" for a deal involving the purchase by a Turkish company of the South Akcakoca Sub-Basin natural gas concession.

Scowcroft contends the work included:

“obtaining necessary Turkish government approvals for the...transaction...and ensuring the Turkish
Ministry of Energy’s endorsement of the transaction and the rapid governmental approval of the..transaction."

Begging the question: just how does one go about "ensuring the Turkish Ministry of Energy's endorsement"?

The deal closed last year for $55 million, and the Scowcroft Group says it is owed $850,000. Judge Collyer declined to dismiss the case, which means unless it settles there should be a lot more information on the public record about how an international consulting firm does its business.

Fun picture of Dr. Kenneth "Cakewalk" Adelman in the new issue of the Washingtonian magazine. He's depicted out on the town, nattily dressed, enjoying life as only a D.C. power player can. Life is good!

Dr. Adelman has such a distinguished record of opining on military matters, Suits & Sentences would like to see him go on Larry King Live or some such and tell us what he thinks President Obama should do in Afghanistan. Although Dr. Adelman (Grinnell '67, Georgetown '69, Georgetown '75) never actually served in the military, he has plenty of strong opinions.

Remember, from April 2002:

"I believe that demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."

And from April 2003:

"My confidence 14 months ago sprang from having worked for Don Rumsfeld three times -- knowing he would fashion a most creative and detailed war plan -- and from knowing Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz well for many years."

Take that, doubters! But then -- oh no! -- going to war with the Pentagon leadership we have turned out not so well. Dr. Adelman by 2006 had deserted his old friends, the ones he knew so well for so many years. Saith he:

"They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."

No dead-ender he! And last year, Dr. Adelman got a day's notice by announcing his support for then-candidate Barack Obama. Adroitly done! So having laundered his reputation, surely Dr. Adelman can tell the world now whether an Afghanistan mini-surge is a good idea or no.

Unhappy with exorbitant law school tuition? Blame U.S. News & World Report, not the American Bar Association.

On Monday, the Government Accountability Office released its assessment of the reasons behind rising law school costs. Lawmakers wanted to know what role, if any, the ABA's accreditation standards played. And the answer is:

"The move to a more hands-on, resource-intensive approach to legal education and competition among schools for higher rankings appear to be the main factors driving the cost of law school, while ABA accreditation requirements appear to play a minor role."

For private universities, the median law school tuition and fees in 2007-2008 amounted to $33,042. The good news is, this was less than the tuition and fees at medical, dentistry and vet schools. The bad news is, the law school costs have been increasing faster than other professional schools. The average law school graduate from a private university enters the work force carrying $91,000 in debt.

Law school officials told GAO investigators that the competition to attract high-quality students and faculty, and thereby boost USNWR ratings, raises costs as "rankings are determined in part by such cost-related factors as per student expenditures, student-faculty ratio, and library resources."

Do NOT forget your student loans. Rest assured, the Education Department won't.

Just ask Robert Lepelletier.

On Friday, Lepelletier lost his bid to get the Education Department off his back for an allegedly unpaid student loan. U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon ruled that sovereign immunity blocked him from issuing an injunction that would stop the Education Department from employing a collection agency to go after Lepelletier.

The education loan in question? That dates back to the late 1970s. Evidently, there's no statute of limitation on such things.

Lepelletier said he took out a loan for study with the Control Data Corp., and he says he repaid it in the early 1980s. The Education Department, though, says it has no proof of that; and, starting in 2006, it has been demanding payment, through the use of a collection agency. By now, the Education Department claims, Lepelletier owes some $2,000 for the loan principal and another $4,200 for interest, plus $1,600 for loan collection costs.

Puerto Rico sounds like a cool place. Great beaches. Plenty of rum. Beautiful people.

And don't forget: conflict and tension with the U.S. attorney's office.

On Wednesday, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Juan E. Milanes had a lawsuit he filed against the Justice Department transferred from Washington, D.C. to Puerto Rico. The decision to transfer the suit, made by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler, was a set-back for Mr. Milanes. Still, his suit continues -- and, in the way these things work, it still sheds light on what he says was going on in his old office.

Milanes was assigned to narcotics, supervised by a Ms. Jeanette Mercado.  As Judge Kessler summed it up:

"(Milanes) alleges that Mercado created a hostile work environment. When Plaintiff complained about his work environment, Rosa Emilia Rodriguez-Velez, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Puerto Rico, allegedly retaliated by denying Plaintiff’s children the benefit of having the Department pay for them to attend an English language school in Puerto Rico, while still giving that benefit to her friends in a 'Girls Club' at the office."

The alleged 'Girls Club' was, presumably, an informal kind of deal.

In any event, Milanes further claims Mercado retaliated against him by assigning him the oldest and weakest narcotics cases, threatened him with disciplinary action, attempted to sabotage his trial work and blocked him from taking a sweet overseas assignment.

Judge Kessler, noting that Milanes originally filed the suit in Puerto Rico, granted the Justice Department's request to transfer the case back to the island.