What is the proper relationship between a republic and secrecy?

This is a tough and interesting question that will likely be the subject of debate in the wake of media exposes of U.S. war policies. If the people rule, should the people also know? Or, are some bits of information too harmful to the public's interest for popular consumption?

The New York Times behaves as though America has no secrets that it is obligated to respect. It is an information gathering (and disseminating) institution, after all, so their allegiance is to truth, as they see it, and not to nation. Sometimes the two conflict. And in the spirit of transparency, the Times has outlined a secret executive-branch program that monitors the financial transactions of people suspected of involvement with al Qaeda. "Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified," the controversial piece reveals. Elsewhere, the Times published U.S. plans for troop reductions in Iraq. The newspaper bases its frontpage story on "a classified briefing at the Pentagon" and describes the information as a "closely held secret." Not anymore. Al Qaeda, and other anti-American forces in Iraq, had no mole within the Pentagon meeting, but they now know this important classified information nonetheless.

But the American people, too, now know this information, and perhaps that is the argument the Times's editors would make in justifying the publication of war secrets: an informed public, rather than a shut-out public, better serves the interests of good government. The masthead doesn't say "all the news that's fit to print" for nothing.

But what's "fit" to print?

Should not the elected representatives of the people, rather than unelected guardians within the press, determine what war strategies should and shouldn't be out there for all to see? There is one striking parallel between the actions of the New York Times regarding the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism on the one hand, and the actions of American Communists in government during the Cold War on the other. Historians Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes, in their book In Denial: Historians, Communism & Espionage, write:

"The American people, through the Constitution and under laws enacted by Congress, invested in Presidents Roosevelt and Truman authority to share or not share the nation's secrets with our allies. They did not invest that authority in Harry White, Theodore Hall, Alger Hiss or Lauchlin Currie. These men never went before American voters to ask for this authority or to account for their actions, but arrogated to themselves the right to give secrets to a foreign power. They betrayed the American people and the Constitution. Moreover, not one of them had the courage to admit what he had done and accept the consequences. Why admire and apologize for them?"

How does this apply to the New York Times? The American people didn't vote for Bill Keller or Michael Gordon or Eric Lichtblau or James Risen. The American people have neither entrusted the Times to craft our war plans nor empowered them to declassify war strategy.

Despite calls for criminal prosecution of writers and editors of the New York Times, no journalist will go to jail for this. They caused harm? Yes. They got the story? Yes. One can fault the ethics of the former, but that the latter is the raison d'etre of journalists seems a settled question. And that is where the analogy between Times scribes and Communist infiltrators falls apart. Federal employees owe allegiance to the government. Writers owe their allegience to the truth. There are other universal allegiances--to the common good, to humanity, to country--but these are different from the loyalties peculiar to these professions.

Rather than jail writers for openly shining a light on the truth, why not pursue shady government employees who made America's secrets public, but not their own names? At least Messrs. Gordon, Lichtblau, and Risen attached their names to the publication of classified information. The government employees, past and present, who gave them that information didn't have the courage to do just that. Might that have something to do with the blatant illegality, and shamefulness, of their acts? Even those who decry secrecy find it useful.

While I consider the NYT scum and morons, the real problem is with the fed employees who gave them the info. They're traitors and should be treated as such. There are some things the public need not know immediately. If we are at war, then there should be more lattitude for the Government. Unfortunately, the case can be made that we are technically not at war. Bush didn't ask for a declaration, and congress didn't insist on one. So here we are. At war in reality, but not Constitutionally, if I have it right. Am I close, Dan?

I'm all for prosecuting the leakers inside of government, but that doesn't absolve the Times. Their actions are also illegal. Enforce the damned law.

I also do not see them in the idealistic light that you cast them in. They are usurping a fundamental power of the president. A nation that allows that is not a nation of laws. We are proud of the fact that the president is not above the law. What in the world are we doing setting journalists above the law?

The program was a legal and effective war time, military operation. There is no difference between the release of actual battle plans and this program.
The newspaper's justification for printing it, is the public's right to know. Not that the operation was illegal.
This was about making headlines, selling papers,attempting to win a pulitzer no matter the cost and hurting a president and war effort that they disagree with.
I find it hard to believe that anyone in this day and age still thinks that a journalist's allegience is to the "truth", shining light on the "truth".
Whose "truth" do they report on? How much of that "truth" is determined by a reporters own bias?
Prosecute the publishers, editors, reporters and the leakers. A treasonous act is a treasonous act, we seem so willing to give it less weight because the dead bodies which will be a consequence of the release of the info aren't immediately splayed out before us.

Wm. Clement, Yes, that is exactly right. And the fact of unconsitutional wars greatly complicates things.

Opus and others, I don't see how you are finding Dan as elevating the NYTimes and other liberal medai outlets on a pedestal? He never once said that they always heroicly and completely unobjectively publish prestine and unassailable truths. Rather, Dan wrote that "their allegiance is to truth, as they see it."

Locking away reporters is going to do nothing to stem the demand for such tampting news stories - there will always be more of them. If I understand Dan correctly, reporters report because that is what they do. They should hold themselves to a higher ethical and more judicious standard, but why waste your time trying to get a dog to quack. They do what they do.

But prosecuting leaks is something that can and should be done, and will be more effective as it will help chock off the supply of such "news."

So I wholeheartedly agree with what Dan is saying here.

Eric

I have to disagree with excusing the reporters actions with "because this is what they do".
Would we accept that premise with anyone else? A bank robber, murderer, rapist? Extreme examples yes, but would you even let a child get away with being destructive because that's what kids do?
Being a reporter does not bestow upon them a different status than anyone else. If I were to release classified information, especially in war time, I would be arrested and prosecuted.
So should they.

Opus,

I concede it is not a perfect ana-logy. All ana-logies break down at some point. But the fact is that the job of reporters is to report whatever news they know. Should they refrain at times? Absolutely. Are they despicable when they do release classified information or sealed grand jury testimony, to take another example? Absolutely. And we should tell them that. But one reason prosecuting them will never work, and that there will always be five reporters to take the place of one locked away, is that the demand is so high. Tons of people buy papers and tune into the news, because we eat this "juicy" stuff up. The way to hold them accountable is to hold ourselves accountable - and tune out.

So, as Dan points out, it is not the reporter who is entrusted and charged with keeping the nation's secrets, secret. I really don't see the legal grounds for prosecuting reporters anyway. But we can and should string the traitors up - people like Hiss, Hall, Curie, and those 20 or so behind these latest leaks.

Sincerely,
--Eric

A nation of laws? Since when? Not for a while I think especially when the enforcers decide what when and how they choose to enforce them.

The current laws are only enforced when it's convenient for Government to enforce them. When it isn't, they oft times create more of the same. And then don't enforce those either.

Eric, while I understand your point, are not reporters American citizens, and as such, are they not bound by the same laws as the rest of us when it comes to the release of classified information, particularly when such is knowingly published? And given the reduced audience currently enjoyed by the print media, I'm not certain your assertion that there are five reporters waiting to take the place of every jailed one is either accurante or germaine to the discussion. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a few of these guys go the way of the Rosenbergs; now THAT would definitely send a message. And by the way, speaking of Ethel And Julius: how is what these folks are doing significantly different?

Thom McKee

Thom,

I sympathize with your sympathies, but disagree with your prescription for redress of those sympathies.

What law is set against Americans sharing information they have learned with each other? More to the point, because this is a present example and given your line of argument, what law should be employed against Dan Flynn for sharing with us the classified information he has learned of, by linking to those NYTimes articles at this here blog?

Sincerely,
--Eric

The individuals who have leaked the information about the NSA wiretaps, secret prisons, and now this, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In fact, the authorities should make an example of the traitors. It is hard for me to imagine that US citizens hate George Bush more than they love their own country.
The NYT and advertisers should be punished by a boycott. The paper is already circling the drain and this might help expediate the inevitable.
If the Treason Times believes the public needs to know about secret terrorist operations, then we also need to know Pinch Sulzeburger's SAT scores and know why a wealthy legacy, with a well known name couldn't get into Columbia.

The question is, when will the Times finally act like real traitors and make a public call for a terrorist victory?

Eric, I am not at all certain that there ISN'T a law or executive order prohibiting the public dissemination of classified material such as has been published recently; I honestly haven't had the time to thoroughly investigate the subject. But just because people haven't been held accountable in the past, I wouldn't assume it means such releases aren't illegal. Consider for a moment a govenment employee released the specifications for a new and highly secretive weapons system to a reporter; could the contents be published with impunity?

Far be it from me to accuse the MSM of inventing privileges and rights for itself in contravention of existing laws. But remember, the concept of journalistic privilege with regard to the secrecy of sources is something created of the media, by the media and for the media. Nowhere does it exist in either the constitution or codified in law.

Equally sincerely,

Thom

The question is, when will the Times finally act like real traitors and make a public call for a terrorist victory?

I fear they aren't that honest even with themselves. Were they so honest with themselves, I doubt if they possess the intestinal fortitude to share the truth with the rest of the world.