Plug the leaks on president’s calls

Pop Quiz: What of the following doesn’t belong? A) Serial killer B) Child molester C) Terrorist D) President of the United States

Once we get by the snide comments from both extremes, the answer is “D,” but not for the reason most think.

Fact is, each criminal is afforded something that our commander-in-chief is not: The right to confidential conversations. With the exception of divulging plans to commit a future crime, attorney-client privilege is inviolate, meaning that what’s discussed in a room, stays in that room. Yet unfathomably, we’ve reached the point where America’s president cannot engage world leaders in a private call with confidence that it won’t be leaked.

That’s repugnant, unpatriotic, illegal, and, worst of all, dangerous, as lives, American and otherwise, hang in the balance. It’s safe to say that politicization in America is at an alltime high. And while it seems that it’s been that way for a long time, history says otherwise.

During the Cold War, we still had our differences, to be sure. But Americans of all stripes lived by a code that was rarely violated: partisan hack jobs involving national security were off the table because the stakes were so high.

Presidents need such discussions to posture, compromise, negotiate, draw a line in the sand, and yes, exhibit humility behind closed doors — all of which contribute to keeping the peace and accomplishing objectives. But if a conversation is leaked, an adversary will learn our strategy and move to counter it. In turn, that action would inevitably lead to escalated tensions, up to and including a possible shooting war.

It doesn’t take a genius to understand that if a leak emanates from America, then foreign leaders immediately lose trust in the United States, resulting in a devastating impact on foreign relations.

Violating one’s privacy is bad, but when such a breach occurs on the world stage, where billions of lives potentially hang in the balance, that duplicity can be catastrophic.

The White House absolutely botched its response to the leak because it didn’t address it. Instead, the president’s team committed the mortal sin of spinning their narrative of the conversation’s content. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

They should have never delved into what Mr. Biden said to the Afghani leader. That was irrelevant. An infinitely better approach would have been to condemn the leak, and bring the full weight of the U.S. government down on the leaker. Additionally, the White House should have asked for the support of all 535 congressmen and senators, stating that not only are national security leaks also the purview of Congress, but if the president’s conversations were breached, then clearly the same could happen to legislators. Even better would have been for Mr. Biden to declare that since no future president should have to deal with such transgressions, he would be instituting additional safeguards.

It would have been a winwin, since plugging national security breaches is as non-partisan as it gets, while supporting such measures is in every elected official’s best interest.

The leaks beg the question as to why there are so many people involved on such calls. Since some people in government can’t be trusted, the solution lies in simplicity. By definition, it’s a lot harder to track down the culprit when scores of people are listening to the calls and/or have access to transcripts.

Many other questions remain unanswered. Is there an investigation, and if so, why hasn’t it been publicly disclosed? What charges would leakers face? And what penalties would prosecutors seek?

From the media’s perspective, why did they release the harmful conversation? Should there be penalties for publishing confidential and classified information? Why have so few editorial boards chosen to take on this issue by demonizing the leakers — no matter what party occupies the White House — and advocating for more stringent protections for our president? Finally, why has there not been a public outcry against these actions that negatively impact every American?

If we can’t bring ourselves to condemn an assault on our freedom solely because it might be perceived as “favoring the guy we don’t like,” then we might as well pack it up, since, as the adage goes, “little leaks sink great ships.”