Leaks undermine tales, not US security
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in what looks a lot like an attempt to placate his boss, last week declared war on “Washington’s culture of leaks.”
“I strongly agree with the president and condemn in the strongest terms the staggering number of leaks undermining the ability of our government to protect this country,” Sessions said.
Leakers of classified information, he said, will face harsh penalties under his campaign, which includes creation of a special FBI unit that will spend all of its time searching for leakers.
The sweeping program comes days after President Trump let loose yet another broadside condemning leaks and chastising Sessions for his “weakness” in pursuing leakers.
It’s no surprise that Trump wants to stop the avalanche of embarrassing leaks coming from the White House and intelligence community. But it is wrong to pretend this war on leakers is motivated by concern for our nation’s security.
No one is alleging that covert missions have been blown, undercover identities revealed or lives put at risk as a result of recent leaks. And so you know, editors of mainstream media outlets seriously weigh national security concerns before publishing sensitive information provided by leakers. On occasion, they’ve delayed — or even refused to publish — such information.
Rather, recent leaks reveal Trump’s countless missteps or provide evidence that contradicts what the president is saying.
It’s no wonder Trump got upset by the leak of his conversation with Mexico’s president, during which he asked Enrique Peña Nieto to stop saying he won’t pay for the border wall Trump promised to build at Mexico’s expense. “You cannot say anymore that the United States is going to pay for the wall. I am just going to say that we are working it out.”
Or the leak of his conversation with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, which took an angry tone, despite Trump’s tweet that it was “very civil” and the “fake news media” had lied.
Or the leak of his conversation with Russian visitors to the Oval office, in which he questioned FBI director James Comey’s mental health and revealed classified information obtained from Israel.
Government officials, from the president on down, are entitled to privacy in their conversations. But even wellestablished conventions have limits. And a president as untested, undisciplined and often as unhinged as Trump, invites a greater level of scrutiny.
To be fair, Trump is hardly the first president to hunt leakers. Richard Nixon was obsessed with them. Barack Obama aggressively chased leakers, too.
The losers in this silly charade are the people of America, who benefit from leaked information that reveals the truth about how government is working.
The so-called Pentagon Papers — the most famous leak case in recent American history — exposed government bungling in the conduct of the Vietnam war. The New York Times began publishing the papers, but was halted by the Nixon White House. The U.S. Supreme Court returned a sweeping prior-restraint ruling against the government. And Americans gained new insights into a war that claimed 57,000 men and women.
Leak cases don’t always have so favorable a conclusion. In 1961, reporters from the New York Times and Miami Herald learned of preparations for the topsecret Bay of Pigs invasion, a bold attempt to topple Fidel Castro’s hold on Cuba. The government pleaded with the papers not to publish what their sources had revealed. Both papers acquiesced and the invasion went forward as scheduled. Today, it’s remembered as one of the most-bungled military operations in history. President John Kennedy later said, “I only wish the papers had done their job.”
Government officials with access to inside information disclose it for three basic reasons; self promotion, revenge and public service, sometimes a combination of all three.
It’s not clear that any of the leaked bombshells over the last several months contained classified information. But government officials would classify the grocery list if they thought they could get away with it.
Over-classification of government work papers is so routine the once-sacred stamp is all but meaningless. Yet it is on the strength of the red-lettered Classified stamp upon which Sessions and his censors will try to undermine the work of journalists whose only goal is to inform the public.
An executive branch campaign that scares leakers to death undermines the ability of the press and other government watchdogs to do the job the Constitution anticipates.
In his press conference outlining his leak war, Sessions paid lip service to the work of the press, vowing not to hamper the journalistic watchdog role.
But the words of Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence heading the effort, offer cold comfort.
“Understand this,” he said. “If you improperly disclose classified information, we will find you, we will investigate you, we will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law, and you will not be happy with the results.”
Public-spirited whistleblowers, citizen advocates, government reformers and journalists, beware.
Editorials are the opinion of the Sun Sentinel Editorial Board and written by one of its members or a designee. The Editorial Board consists of Editorial Page Editor Rosemary O'Hara, Elana Simms, Gary Stein and Editor-in-Chief Howard Saltz.