NY Times and intelligence leaks

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'll defend someone's rights, even if I think they're idiots for exercising them. Do I think it's "right" to publish classified information that has clear national security information, as in Alex's Zarqawi example? I suppose not. But neither do I think it's criminal or teasonous. Just stupid. I think the only situation where I'd change that tune is if the paper were actively seeking to find classified information (e.g. paying classified informants, obtaining classified docs by illegal means, etc.). Otherwise, if someone with classified status comes to them, then the legal consequences should be on the person doing the leaking.

[Alex]

So we, as citizens of this country, have no obligation to assist the government in keeping the secrets it is rightfully keeping?

The obligation is purely on an amorphous concept of "the government" preventing 1.2 million federal employees from saying things to the press that they shouldn't?

I agree that the legal responsibility falls to the leaker. But I allege that moral responsibility is shared by both parties. I doubt you'll ever see legal charges against any publication because of this story but I also have no problem with trying to turn public opinion against them for having printed the story.

Again, I don't feel that treason was committed, but it sounds to me like you feel it is impossible to publish information with treasonous intent.

[Alex]

obtaining classified docs by illegal means, etc.

I didn't notice this, but by definition classified information will be received by illegal means. There is no legal way to give classified information to a reporter without first declassifying it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Again, I don't feel that treason was committed, but it sounds to me like you feel it is impossible to publish information with treasonous intent.

I think we actually agree on this point. Like I said, while I don't think it's criminal, it's possible for it to be ill-advised, stupid, and "wrong".

And by "illegal means", I meant along the lines of paying a janitor to swipe documents, or flat out breaking and entering. Anything other than someone with classified information choosing on their own to approach someone without clearence to leak info.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I think we actually agree on this point. Like I said, while I don't think it's criminal, it's possible for it to be ill-advised, stupid, and "wrong".

So where do you fall on this particular instance? What makes it "wrong" (even if it isn't legally criminal) or not wrong in this case?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

So where do you fall on this particular instance? What makes it "wrong" (even if it isn't legally criminal) or not wrong in this case?

In this particular case, it's just a bit sad. Desperate smear attempt with no apparant motivation other than to make the administration look bad. But I don't consider it much of a threat to national security since, "the government pays attention to international bank transactions" is hardly the headline of the century. If any terrorist didn't know that already, then they'll be dumb enough to be caught in some other manner.