Chicago Tribune Editorial - Punishing leaks
Chicago Tribune Editorial - Punishing leaks
Published April 29, 2006
Copyright © 2006 by The Chicago Tribune
It's the job of the news media to find out things the government may not want people to know that shed crucial light on how the government is doing its job. Dana Priest of The Washington Post recently won a Pulitzer Prize, partly for a story on secret CIA-run prisons for terrorist suspects in other countries. That was a valuable effort to inform the public about a highly questionable program with a huge potential for mistreatment of prisoners, possibly including innocent ones.
It's the job of the national security agencies to keep secrets. Many documents are classified because they contain vital information that could jeopardize national security. When a CIA employee leaks such material and gets caught, she shouldn't be surprised to lose her job.
The agency says that is what happened to Mary McCarthy, an intelligence analyst who worked for the CIA's inspector general and reportedly was a source for Priest. Without naming her, it alleged that she "knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence" with reporters, though it did not claim she revealed the prisons to Priest. Her lawyer says she didn't leak classified data or tell Priest about the prisons.
Discipline like this is rare at the CIA. It's hypocritical to punish leakers who oppose administration policy while tolerating leaks that put the president and his aides in a flattering light.
It's also true, though, that there is no point in classifying secrets if anyone in the government can reveal them at his discretion. Even onetime colleagues who praise McCarthy's record agree that disclosures of the sort alleged to have occurred here should be punished. Otherwise, the agency would lose control over life-and-death secrets.
So, how do you protect secrets, and protect the public's right to know information that shouldn't be secret? There ought to be some safeguards for government employees who learn of misconduct in their agencies and take steps to alert Congress or the public. Whistle-blowers should have a way to pursue internal avenues for correcting such abuses. But when higher-ups are complicit in wrongdoing, their subordinates need other options beyond letting the misconduct continue.
A bill sponsored by Reps. Tom Davis (R-Va.) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) would protect national security employees who report suspected abuses to members of Congress who oversee intelligence. That sort of measure would deter executive branch overreaching and improve Congress' ability to address it.
Similar protection is in order for employees who leak classified information to the press, at least when the public value of the leak outweighs any actual harm. The government classifies far more material than it needs to. Before an employee can be fired or jailed for disclosing classified material, the government should have to prove that the leak damaged national security and that the public interest in disclosure was comparatively small.
The government and the public have a stake in keeping truly sensitive information secret. But the law shouldn't let secrecy become the enemy of democracy and law-abiding government.
Published April 29, 2006
Copyright © 2006 by The Chicago Tribune
It's the job of the news media to find out things the government may not want people to know that shed crucial light on how the government is doing its job. Dana Priest of The Washington Post recently won a Pulitzer Prize, partly for a story on secret CIA-run prisons for terrorist suspects in other countries. That was a valuable effort to inform the public about a highly questionable program with a huge potential for mistreatment of prisoners, possibly including innocent ones.
It's the job of the national security agencies to keep secrets. Many documents are classified because they contain vital information that could jeopardize national security. When a CIA employee leaks such material and gets caught, she shouldn't be surprised to lose her job.
The agency says that is what happened to Mary McCarthy, an intelligence analyst who worked for the CIA's inspector general and reportedly was a source for Priest. Without naming her, it alleged that she "knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence" with reporters, though it did not claim she revealed the prisons to Priest. Her lawyer says she didn't leak classified data or tell Priest about the prisons.
Discipline like this is rare at the CIA. It's hypocritical to punish leakers who oppose administration policy while tolerating leaks that put the president and his aides in a flattering light.
It's also true, though, that there is no point in classifying secrets if anyone in the government can reveal them at his discretion. Even onetime colleagues who praise McCarthy's record agree that disclosures of the sort alleged to have occurred here should be punished. Otherwise, the agency would lose control over life-and-death secrets.
So, how do you protect secrets, and protect the public's right to know information that shouldn't be secret? There ought to be some safeguards for government employees who learn of misconduct in their agencies and take steps to alert Congress or the public. Whistle-blowers should have a way to pursue internal avenues for correcting such abuses. But when higher-ups are complicit in wrongdoing, their subordinates need other options beyond letting the misconduct continue.
A bill sponsored by Reps. Tom Davis (R-Va.) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) would protect national security employees who report suspected abuses to members of Congress who oversee intelligence. That sort of measure would deter executive branch overreaching and improve Congress' ability to address it.
Similar protection is in order for employees who leak classified information to the press, at least when the public value of the leak outweighs any actual harm. The government classifies far more material than it needs to. Before an employee can be fired or jailed for disclosing classified material, the government should have to prove that the leak damaged national security and that the public interest in disclosure was comparatively small.
The government and the public have a stake in keeping truly sensitive information secret. But the law shouldn't let secrecy become the enemy of democracy and law-abiding government.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 7:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home