Media Shield
Much talk on shielding journalists from court proceedings confuses two separate questions:
1. Should journalists go to jail for the act of publishing information? (almost never)
2. Should journalists be required to divulge the identity of people who commit espionage? (at times)
On question 1: The New York Times editors likely won’t be prosecuted for publishing classified information about tracking terrorists’ financial transactions. The first amendment gives the Times wide latitude to exercise its judgment on what it will do with information. Even if it exercises that judgment poorly. Even if it determines that a lame scoop trumps national security interests.
People, though, are free to question the editors’ judgment and patriotrism. If people conclude that the conduct of the Times was abhorrent, they are free to cancel their subscriptions. And, it should go without saying that they are free to exercise their first amendment rights by criticizing the Times as being run by dough heads.
On question 2: Should the New York Times editors be required to disclose who leaked the classified information? Of course.
A serious crime was committed. If Bob at the CIA divulges classified information to his neighbor, Bob should face the consequences. Does it somehow immunize Bob from those consequences, if he divulges it to someone else who, then, broadcasts it to others? Of course not. In both cases, Bob broke an important law and should be brought to justice.
Think about it. If some group wanted to commit espionage, how should it go about it? Smuggle out documents and information? No. That would be so 1950s. We’d go after the spy and might be able to stop him from divulging our classified information in the future. In the 21st century, the ideal way for America’s enemies to commit espionage is to simply have someone whisper the classified information to the New York Times. Let the Times divulge the classified information on page 1. Either way, they get the classified information they want. But, under the second approach, if anyone tries to uncover the identify of the spy, the fourth estate will wrap itself in the flag to protect his identity. And the subversive can continue divulging classified information as long as elected leaders cower to media bullying.
“Ah,” the media would say, “The person divulging our nation’s wartime secrets is not a traitor or subversive. He’s a red-blooded, question-authority-and-speak-truth-to-power patriot.”
Huh?
We have no idea who the person is or what his intentions are. How do we know he is not intent on aiding our enemies? How do we know he is not a card-carrying Al Qaeda zealot? How do we know he is not intent on harming America as much as he can? Of course we don’t know any of that. The only thing we know when classified information is leaked is that laws have been broken and that our enemies now know things they shouldn’t. Whether the spy is a dedicated enemy of the state or a simple idiot, he needs to be stopped before he divulges more classified information. And the way to do that is to swear in the reporter and ask who divulged the classified information. As much as reporters have a right to chase Pulitzers, Americans have a right to know who’s helping our enemies.
I have read objections that requiring reporters to identify spies would stifle the flow of information. Nonsense. It only would stifle one very specific act: espionage.
Information is classified to protect our great Nation’s interests against those who, believe it or not, would love to destroy us. And I’ve got a scoop for the Times. Those interests include the continued protection of the freest media in the world.
In the partisan dreck that consumes America – and in each side’s zeal to subvert the other – we have lost sight of the fact that those who work to subvert America must be stopped. Despite the dulling rhetoric – Democrats aren’t working to subvert America, Republicans aren’t working to subvert America. People who leak classified information are working to subvert America. If we can’t stop navel gazing long enough to find out who those people are, then heaven help us.
1. Should journalists go to jail for the act of publishing information? (almost never)
2. Should journalists be required to divulge the identity of people who commit espionage? (at times)
On question 1: The New York Times editors likely won’t be prosecuted for publishing classified information about tracking terrorists’ financial transactions. The first amendment gives the Times wide latitude to exercise its judgment on what it will do with information. Even if it exercises that judgment poorly. Even if it determines that a lame scoop trumps national security interests.
People, though, are free to question the editors’ judgment and patriotrism. If people conclude that the conduct of the Times was abhorrent, they are free to cancel their subscriptions. And, it should go without saying that they are free to exercise their first amendment rights by criticizing the Times as being run by dough heads.
On question 2: Should the New York Times editors be required to disclose who leaked the classified information? Of course.
A serious crime was committed. If Bob at the CIA divulges classified information to his neighbor, Bob should face the consequences. Does it somehow immunize Bob from those consequences, if he divulges it to someone else who, then, broadcasts it to others? Of course not. In both cases, Bob broke an important law and should be brought to justice.
Think about it. If some group wanted to commit espionage, how should it go about it? Smuggle out documents and information? No. That would be so 1950s. We’d go after the spy and might be able to stop him from divulging our classified information in the future. In the 21st century, the ideal way for America’s enemies to commit espionage is to simply have someone whisper the classified information to the New York Times. Let the Times divulge the classified information on page 1. Either way, they get the classified information they want. But, under the second approach, if anyone tries to uncover the identify of the spy, the fourth estate will wrap itself in the flag to protect his identity. And the subversive can continue divulging classified information as long as elected leaders cower to media bullying.
“Ah,” the media would say, “The person divulging our nation’s wartime secrets is not a traitor or subversive. He’s a red-blooded, question-authority-and-speak-truth-to-power patriot.”
Huh?
We have no idea who the person is or what his intentions are. How do we know he is not intent on aiding our enemies? How do we know he is not a card-carrying Al Qaeda zealot? How do we know he is not intent on harming America as much as he can? Of course we don’t know any of that. The only thing we know when classified information is leaked is that laws have been broken and that our enemies now know things they shouldn’t. Whether the spy is a dedicated enemy of the state or a simple idiot, he needs to be stopped before he divulges more classified information. And the way to do that is to swear in the reporter and ask who divulged the classified information. As much as reporters have a right to chase Pulitzers, Americans have a right to know who’s helping our enemies.
I have read objections that requiring reporters to identify spies would stifle the flow of information. Nonsense. It only would stifle one very specific act: espionage.
Information is classified to protect our great Nation’s interests against those who, believe it or not, would love to destroy us. And I’ve got a scoop for the Times. Those interests include the continued protection of the freest media in the world.
In the partisan dreck that consumes America – and in each side’s zeal to subvert the other – we have lost sight of the fact that those who work to subvert America must be stopped. Despite the dulling rhetoric – Democrats aren’t working to subvert America, Republicans aren’t working to subvert America. People who leak classified information are working to subvert America. If we can’t stop navel gazing long enough to find out who those people are, then heaven help us.
posted by steve u. at 7/09/2006
Subscribe
9 Comments:
Right on, Steve! When will our elected officials in Washington put America before party and do what needs to be done TOGETHER to protect our country and its people? They could start by, as a body, condemning the NY Times' revelations. I'd like to think it could happen, but I doubt it. I fear it will take another catastrophe (along the lines of 9-11) to wake people up again. Ironically, this is exactly what the Bush Administration is trying to prevent - another 9-11. Pretty tough when you have such formidable enemies within America.
Steve-
You wrote: "Democrats aren’t working to subvert America, Republicans aren’t working to subvert America. People who leak classified information are working to subvert America."
Does that include Karl Rove?
No, but maybe Scooter Libby
What was the "secret" that was revealed, and what was the damage that resulted from leaking this information? Administration officials from Treasury and State testified (openly) before Congress about this program way back in September 2004. At that time they stated that the terrorists must know about SWIFT (it's in the open domain, with a website and everything), and had switched from traditional ways of moving money (e.g., wires) to low-tech methods (e.g., couriers). So they were not having much success with SWIFT. Claiming today that it is an important "classified" program is disingenuous.
No, this issue is not about espionage (that would be PlameGate, where real damage was done by Scooter Libby and Karl Rove outing an intelligence officer during wartime, thus compromising that officer's network of contacts). By your standards, Steve, both Libby and Rove should be lined up against a wall and shot. Fat chance, though, because in this administration's view, that was just hard-ball politics. Instead, this issue is all about the important role an independent press plays in a democracy...that is, as a deterrent against the abuse of power. This administration doesn't like to be held accountable. Neither did Lyndon Johnson's in 1969 when Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, and thank God he did, other wise we would never have known how we were lied into that war, just like we were the one in Iraq. See, Steve, sometimes leaking is a good thing.
I, for one, am not about to roll over and accept without question each and every one of my cherished American liberties being sacrificed by the Bush administration in the name of the so-called War on Terrorism. Instead of secretly eavesdropping on me, and recording each of my international money transactions, and strip-searching me whenever I want to fly to Atlanta to see my grandchildren, we should go back and finish the job that should have been done within 72 hours of 9/11: finding and killing Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri. They're holed up in the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan, our erstwhile "ally" in the Global War on Terrorism. A couple of Special Forces A-Teams should be able to do the job.
Oops. Hope I didn't just leak something classified.
Oh, and by the way, we don't need SWIFT to figure out where the terrorists are getting their money from. Just every Muslim country on the planet. That's how much they hate us now.
Jon,
While extremes are being energized, I worry that middle America is turning off -- at a time when they could be more involved than ever.
Hidalgo,
Are you saying that Karl Rove leaked classified info (which it seems the authorities have concluded he did not) or that he conducts his business in a way that you don't like?
I wish that players at the national level would worry more about sound policy than raw politics. That net catches Karl Rove, but it also seems to catch most players in D.C. (Republicans and Democrats).
Ed,
You wrote: "See, Steve, sometimes leaking is a good thing." Right. And sometimes it's not. Who gets to decide? Your answer seems to be each individual who happens to have privileged access to the information.
In the final analysis, it is the responsibility of each individual to make the decision whether to leak. It's not as simple as black and white, good or bad, right or wrong. A good analogy is the paradox faced by any Army officer when given what s/he believes to be an illegal order. Do I follow it, like a good soldier, or do I follow my conscience and accept the consequences by refusing it? Trust me (20 years in the Regular Army) it ain't that easy.
Ed,
I'm not sure we disagree tons on the philosophy here. I hope that my positions and the way I conduct myself qualify me as an open-government person. If they don't, I need to rethink what I'm doing.
But I think that, under a very broad policy of openness, there are some issues that must be kept secret. I'll give you an example that relates to your life's activities (thank you very much for your service!).
Suppose that troops were on a sensitive mission and that disclosure of the mission would lead to sure disaster. Should someone with information about that mission be allowed to disclose it, if he sincerely believes the war is wrong? No.
If he discloses the information to the media, should we be barred from finding out who he is? No.
Some policy needs to be in place for protecting such information. This, of course, means that some policy needs to be in place for dealing with situations where the information is not protected. That policy needs to be clear, even-handed, and established before acts are committed. We can't say that we'll determine whether leaks are permissible after they occur -- based on whether we think they were "good" leaks or "bad" leaks. Either it's okay to leak classified information or it is not.
Now it is an entirely different issue to question whether certain information should be classified. Maybe the relevant issues are whether too much information is classified and kept from public view and whether the current standards for doing so are correct. That would be a valuable discussion. But I think most people would agree that there have to be some provisions by which legitimately sensitive information can be safeguarded.
You make good points. My response is just too long for a comment...please see:
http://www.partridge.net/blog/?p=415
<< Home