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?