NY Times and intelligence leaks

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Without addressing the merits of that argument, that steps beyond the original scope of what I was addressing, being whether or not the revealing of classified information in his instance could be considered treasonous. It is not unreasonable to suggest it.

Perhaps, but that requires some pretty liberal stertching of the definition of "purposely aiding". I mean, if that's treason, than so is the many times we've all posted about how easy it is to get through Disneyland bag checks with knives in our pockets. Heck, that's worse as we provide a specific method for our enemies to defeat security.

What is wrong with urging anything anyway?

What's wrong is that it continues the implication that "you're either for us or against us." Either you simply take for granted that our government is doing the right thing, don't question it, waive your flag, and cheer 'em on...or you're trying to undermine America. I'm insulted by that attitude, and insulted that our leader has it.

[Alex]

Do we agree that there exists a need for our government to be able to classify information for the benefit of the country?

If you don't agree with that statement then obviously a newspaper can never be wrong in revealing any classified information that comes into its possession.

However, if there is a value to the government being able to hide certain information then who decides when it is ok to break that veil?

If CNN had learned the details our attack on Zarqawi and hour before it happened and went on the air spilling all of the details. Would that be right? After all, I too like to know things. Do I have the right to know that my government is about to commit a targetted killing?

Obviously that leak is not the same thing as this leak, it is just to probe whether you think there is ever information that the press could come to possess that it should not divulge.

I'm guessing that nobody is at either extreme on this issue. That nobody thinks either that the government is absolute in its right to determine the secrets to be kept (I have no problem with the publication of the Pentagon Papers) or that the government has zero right to decide that some information need be kept secret.

So then we're just haggling over where the line is, not whether there is actually a line. For me, I am uncomfortable with the decision being solely in the hands of three people in a New York City highrise in personal political opposition to the person they are reporting on. This is a situation where there is no claim that a law is being broken (as can be claimed with the domestic call monitoring) or even that there has been a change in legal methods.

As I said earlier in this thread, I am of an overall position that what the Times did is a cost of allowing the press to generally be free. However, it is comical to watch people engage in the synchronized dance of hypocrisy on the issue of leak punishment (where people take equal and opposite positions on the issue depending on whether the specific case fits their worldview of which party is evil). But that doesn't mean they aren't bad people.

And GC, I have no doubt at all that they are trying to find out who leaked the information.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

And GC, I have no doubt at all that they are trying to find out who leaked the information.

So why not say this as well while they lambast the NY Times? Because it plays better for the GOP to act like the NY Times is a threat to our country. Our country seems so fragile if the NY Times can bring it down with one story...

[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.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

So why not say this as well while they lambast the NY Times? Because it plays better for the GOP to act like the NY Times is a threat to our country. Our country seems so fragile if the NY Times can bring it down with one story...

As soon as someone makes that claim of fragility you'll have a good point.

[DreadPirateRoberts]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

However, it is comical to watch people engage in the synchronized dance of hypocrisy

I liked this...

I'm still amazed that people reveal classified information. Back when I used to deal with it, we had the pants threatened off of us if we were to lose the information, much less release it to the public....

[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.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

As soon as someone makes that claim of fragility you'll have a good point.

Use what ever word you want instead of 'fragility'. But think of all the times that this administration has claimed that their war on terror has been compromised because someone in the "liberal" media printed something.