We can agree or disagree with some of the assessments in this story about the true extent of the damage caused by the continuous publication of leaked secrets. But I think it gets one thing exactly right:
"The damage from this, if there is damage, is in the question of whether foreign governments and sources can trust the US to protect sensitive information," says Larry Johnson, a security consultant who worked for the CIA and the State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism.
ANY successful war effort depends on secrets, especially among allies. Every story blabbing sensitive information increases the belief by our allies that we can't keep those secrets. Everyone's been focusing so much on the bad decisions by media outlets to publish the leaks that we're danger of forgetting that there are people in the administration doing the leaking, people who are violating their oaths and breaking the law. If we want to talk about prosecution, up to and including for treason, this is where I would start.
Comments
Leo:
Works for me 100%!
B.G.
Loose lips sink ships.
Where did this originate? I heard at boot camp this came from our dear representatives in DC during WWII. The Japanese thought they had the latest and greatest submarines and none were better. Their subs could dive to 450 feet and based on their preconceived ideas and notions set their depth charges for no deeper than 450 feet.
While a debate on capital hill was raging on the topic of the war, some representative made the comment that the US subs were already the best in the world and that they dove to 600 feet. Shortly after this U.S. Subs began to be sunk. It appears the Japanese learned of our superior submarines and reset their depth charges.
Whether this is true or not, it does get the message across that you must always be on guard as to what information is confidential (not to be discussed) and known. If they do not have a need to know, then don
Most media would fail the need-to-know test most of the time. Certain federal representatives should too, clearly.
I often wonder why people cannot keep our nation's top secrets anymore, and why offenders of either party are not jailed and prosecuted more often -- which lack of consequences may answer the first question.
The way leaks come out of high level confidential confabs, almost always from those with partisan political motives, is shocking to me -- not as a party member, but as an American. I'm no longer surprised at news that someone with high security clearances has talked (without so much as a hot light to loosen the tongue), but disgusted that they remain in office, are even re-elected after they do it. Especially in wartime and especially post-9/11.
Incidentally, the First Amendment is not a relevant argument. The press and all good citizens know perfectly well that free speech has never included the right to reveal the nation's top secrets (an offense FAR worse than yelling "Fire!" in a comparatively tiny crowded theater).