The following editorial appeared in the Los Angeles Times:
An angry Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is calling for a special prosecutor to investigate leaks he says are designed to portray President Barack Obama as a strong leader on national security issues. Without going that far, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says that recent leaks “endanger American lives and undermine America’s national security.”
She is proposing, among other things, that Congress provide “additional authorities and resources ... to identify and prosecute those who violate various federal laws and non-disclosure agreements by revealing highly classified information.”
Although she did not advocate prosecuting journalists, the senator probably spoke for many of her colleagues when she told CNN that part of the problem was that “we have an enormously smart constituency of journalists ... who piece things together.”
So far most of the outcry has been directed at the administration, not the media, but in similar controversies in the past, critics have not been so discerning.
So we would urge Congress — and the administration — not to criminalize the reporting of information that may have come into the possession of the media because a government official was indiscreet.
It’s understandable that McCain, Feinstein, Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., and other members of Congress are disturbed by a New York Times story in which unnamed officials described how Obama directed cyber-attacks on Iran’s nuclear program. That the United States and Israel had been targeting computers in Iran was widely suspected, but confirmation of the operation creates a diplomatic problem for the United States. (It seems less plausible that this and other recent disclosures — for example, that Obama was personally involved in ordering U.S. drone attacks — threaten American lives.)
But it’s also clear why the New York Times, having obtained information about the administration’s actions, chose to publish it: to foster debate about what one of the paper’s editors called “two significant, history-making programs ... the rise of cyber-warfare and the rise of drones.”
There has evolved in this country an effective if sometimes untidy division of labor: Government may strive to keep information secret, but once the media have information about matters of public concern, they may share that information with readers without fear of prosecution.
It may sound like special pleading for a newspaper to urge that the campaign against leaks stop at the reporter’s door.
But society as a whole benefits from public-spirited journalism that, in some cases, depends on the willingness of a government official to scale a wall of secrecy.
Comments (28)
Add commentI disagree
We need our political leaders to have complete, unfettered power to start new types of wars entirely without our knowledge.
Drones, cyber-attacks... and we can be sure those weapons would NEVER be used against us, right?
syndicated tripe
let me get this straight: society benefits from squealers, pogues that cant keep a lid on a secret?
Recommend a two-pronged approach - the administration coughs up the squealer, who is really not that hard to find, and the AG subpeonas the journalists to collaborate the disclosure.
Cat's already out of the bag, Obama's tough guy appeal has already spiked and we're back to the campaign bludgeoning, but years from now we may wonder why no one wants to work for us overseas, why no one wants to stick his neck out.
@new life - oh, yes, they
@new life - oh, yes, they are...it's frightening...
So have at it journalists but make sure to practice your code of ethics. You know, like what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
Problem is, currently, all these "leaks" seem to prop BO up as a studly warrior. ICK.
We're all still waiting for the LATimes to print the story about Obama toasting Jew hating professor Khalidi that the editors of the paper thought was not newsworthy before the last election.
Like this - "In 2008 The LA Times withheld a video that contained footage of Barack Obama celebrating with a group of Palestinians who were openly hostile towards Israel. Barack Obama reportedly even gave a toast to a former PLO operative, Rashid Khalidi, at this celebration. This was something the LA Times hid from the American public before the election. The media refused to release the video."
But somehow they found the space to print Palin's emails. Go figure...why newspapers are a dying industry.
Squealers
Yeah, in general society DOES benefit from squealers. There's a point when secrets are not good for democracy. And do we really trust politicians to be the judges of when a secret can be revealed?
Would we EVER have heard of Watergate, Iran Contra, Monica Lewinsky or a whole host of other 'secrets' if someone hadn't squealed? You know the answer to that.
Regarding the cyber attack on Iran, uh...they had over a thousand enrichment centrifuges, running at supersonic speeds, blow themselves to bits, spewing radioactive materials all over the facility. Think this attack was a secret to the Iranians? Besides, the fact of the cyber worm was out in the public well before the Times released their piece. The worm escaped Iran (due to a programming error) and showed up all over the Middle East and was identified and analyzed by anti-virus firms, who deduced what its purpose was. The Times just told the back story of how it was developed. It's a fascinating story.
Did it make Obama look good because he was briefed on it repeatedly, asked a lot of questions about it, expressed some concerns and finally authorized it? Yes. One thousand vaporized centrifuges and no US troops or military hardware involved. The results speak for themselves. The president did his job. If it had been GWB you rightie tighties would have been high-fiving each other and thumping your chests. Give the man some credit when it's due. This was a victory and he had a lot to do with it, and America and the world benefited as a result. The buck clearly stopped with him.
But you all would prefer that this operation had failed so you could claim petty political points. You all are pathetic and unAmerican.
Yeah, squealers
These were WH administration leaks. There are only 2 (TWO) politicians in that cadre -- one is a ubiquitous buffoon that no one tells ANYTHING, and the other is POTUS. Even the Senate Intel Committee is appalled (these are your politicians).
Holding a security clearance requires a nondisclosure agreement that BINDS the holder to keeping a lid on all secrets. I am itching to talk about extraterrestrial impregnation but cant say a word - not even in a fictional sense - about it for 75 yrs. 2085 cant come soon enough.
If POTUS doesnt have the sense to keep his mouth shut about whacking people at will, is it a stretch that his administration demonstrates abhorrent judgment?
Secret or not - why WHY would you volunteer involvement in an international incident like Stuxnet unless you wanted to: a) derail the Israelis,or b) strut?
There's no IFs (as in if GWB was this that or whatever)...It happened under BHO's watch and he is responsible for what happens as a result. Amateur.
I repeat
The worm escaped. The cat was out of the bag. The whole world already knew what we did. There was no secret to keep.
The Manhattan Project was as secret of a program as any we've ever conducted. But it wasn't a secret after Hiroshima.
As far as who talked to the Times...you don't know, as those sources have not been identified. Could have been programmers, intel specialists, or John McCain. Don't pretend to know things that you don't, you partisan hack.
Stop repeating
You are naive. Or ignorant. You see nothing wrong with advertising our sensitive capabilities to world? You see nothing wrong with blabbing about methods and techniques? Even if they amount to BHO having a crisis of compassion (Should I whack Ahmed or Maxmed? Which one has more family?), that's how the US does it. You dont think Ahmed's kids arent going to think it's a good idea to whack Americans at will since they cant get to Le Homme?
What part of high-level White House official confuses you? You should stop now; you're in over your head, and getting angry.
The big, lying White House of
The big, lying White House of cards is beginning to crumble.
But we shouldn't be surprised. The truth always wins.
Oh my!
So you REALLY think the Times was told an accurate version of the methods and techniques used? Did it occur to you that perhaps they were being used for misdirection? Who's the naive one here?
Hopefully the our adversaries are half as gullible as you.
Now showing: Theatre of the Absurd
That you dont see a difference between Horshima and Stuxnet -- I'm was leaning toward naive. One led to end of war, the other may lead to war.
Methods & Techniques: 1) POTUS decides who to whack (short on method and waste of intel, but he is C-in-C). The result is pan-islamic rage and discontent, probably will be aimed indiscriminantly at AMCITS or US troops because they cant whack POTUS. 2) bin Laden -- why would we volunteer we had an inside guy? Now he's doing 33 yrs in the Islamabad Hilton and we cant get any new recruits to return our phone calls. 3) Stuxnet -- why implicate the Israelis? They NEVER volunteer information and now they are willing to go it alone while we extoll the effectiveness of sanctions.
You mentioned misdirection...now I'm leaning toward ignorant. Who is being misdirected and where? What possible misdirected perceptions can any of the above point toward? "You fools actually think we let Obama pick the targets?" or "You silly Pakistanis actually bought that 'inside man' line and convicted a patsy!" or "You mullahs fell for it! We lied when we said it was us and the Jews! hahaha joke's on you..."
Note, Lat58, I was polite, given your tendency toward excitability. Shame I have to spell these things out for your benefit alone, but it appears you want to ride this torpedo all the way into the boat.
Wars - ending and starting
I would argue that Hiroshima started a war that we're still fighting. Iran's weapons program is just another front in it.
Stuxnet represents the start of another type of war. We are in agreement on that.
Where we obviously disagree is whether American citizens should be made aware of this new war that they've entered.
OPSEC 101
It's basic leadership not to disclose an operation while it is still operating. That's why General Eisenhower wrote 2 (two) letters to be released to the press after D-Day.
D-Day
And if you were in charge you wouldn't have notified the public until we were occupying Germany, since the "operation" of WWII was still underway.
D-Day in the cyber-war already occurred when those centrifuges exploded two years ago. The Stuxnet operation was complete.
Americans have a right to know what's going on in this arena so they can take that into account when selecting our country's leaders. Israel's concerns take a back seat to that mandate.
No, Americans do not have a right to know
This is the arena of Information Warfare, and it happens to be one of the most sensitive areas of intelligence operations.
What Americans have to take into account is this administration's utter disregard for the protocols of protecting intelligence information. This is as amateurish as one can get, all things considered.
Listen, we all strongly suspect Israel has a nuclear capability, but they have NEVER confirmed it and they never will until AFTER something blows up. That's how you properly handle classified information, and the Israelis are much more lethal and intimidating because they know to zip it.
I'm glad we have James
I'm glad we have James Bond--err, Grendel--intelligence expert extraordinaire, on this forum to criticize the finer points of our leaders' actions. What would we do without you? Probably just assume the president knows more about what's going on than we do and wallow in our ignorance of intelligence protocol.
@NewLife: exactly right!
@NewLife: exactly right! Revealing our cyber warfare might is EXACTLY the same as outing an individual, putting her life at risk, and basically ending her career as a spy.
@PP
do you have anything to add besides that stench of temerity you bring?
Information, intelligence (or lack thereof)
I believe that my government and President know enough to keep me out of harm's way.
I am going to assume that my President and his advisors, the Department of Defense and the military leaders of this country know more than anyone writing on this forum.
LOL Calypso and NewLife.....
You do realize, of course, that "spy planes" have been enforcing speeding laws for some 30 years now, in many parts of the US, right? Be Afraid!!!
It will be interesting to see if we find out who the leak is - frankly, I wouldn't put it past McCain. Whomever it was, leaks are unfortunate and ongoing, regardless of who is in the White House.
@fisherwoman
Yes, they know more; they should know better. That's the issue.
How obtuse can you get?
Look, I'll type slowly for you, Grendel. Now follow along.
The Stuxnet virus was outed long before the Times began their investigation. It was identified by computer experts, taken apart, analyzed, and traced back to us.
To my knowledge, none of Israel's nuclear weapons have escaped their custody. Therein lies the difference.
And despite all of Israel's supposed secrecy, it's still common knowledge that they have The Bomb. Many media reports to that effect. Gee, do you figure it's possible that they might have 'leaked' misleading info? Maybe they don't have nukes, but have convinced the world that they do.
steady now, Lat
"common knowledge" except for them saying so, right? That's called an assumption - something you are well versed in my friend. And I congratulate you on figuring out the significance of that in your last sentence because it's an excellent segue to this:
You are missing the crux of issue when I've been beating you about the back and kidneys with it: DO NOT ADVERTISE YOUR CAPABILITIES.
One more time with Stuxnet...do you think it might be possible that now that the Iranians know we were involved (WE told the world) they might expect more aggressive cyber attacks from us? See, beforehand they could not confirm what they were dealing with. But thanks to our obliging administration (and the media) the Iranians are certain it came from somewhere in MD not too far from DC...Oh, and we ratted out the Jews, too.
I am convinced at this point that you do not get it.
Yup, Grendel! Teddy Roosevelt
Yup, Grendel! Teddy Roosevelt said it best: "speak softly and DO NOT ADVERTISE YOUR CAPABILITIES."
And didn't Ronald Reagan also
And didn't Ronald Reagan also say in a famous speech, "a people free to choose will always choose TO NOT ADVERTISE THEIR CAPABILITIES."
That makes two of us
I'm convinced you do not get government accountability and civilian authority over the military.
okay,
it sounds like you've thought this thru.
It would seem, and I'm sure you'll tell me if I'm wrong, that there is nothing wrong with the administration tantalizing us with nifty accounts of what they've been up to. I mean, not future operations because that's just wrong. You know, the stuff that happened last week. But the problem is we still dont want "those guys" to know because that might clue them in that we still want to hurt their feelings, right?
So how does the government ensure that every American has access to its secret programs, if they have a right to know as you say, and at the same time we keep those sneaky little foreigners from finding out?
And what is this thing called civilian authority over military? Aside from a civilian cabinet member that directs the military (to include plans and implementation of the C-in-C's strategic vision that runs at least 4 yrs out - the quadrennial review). Does that include screening classified information, over-riding the caveats, and deciding what's only a "little" secret, but okay for immediate release to AMERICAN news agencies? Because that would be stupid to go to foreign journalists. It might wind up in the wrong hands.