. . . June
-------------------------------
The morality of government secrecy versus transparency
- 09/08/10 12:59 PM ET
The recent WikiLeaks (tsunami would be a better word) of about 77,000 diplomatic cables and intelligence reports raised a recurring issue of American law and policy.
A disturbed young man in our military in Europe turned over classified government documents to WikiLeaks (ironically, an organization dedicated to transparency that does not disclose its address or officers’ names). It, in turn, passed them on to The New York Times, as well as reputable British and German press organizations.
Most, not all, of the documents were published. There was wide public interest in the disclosures, and expected outrage by government officials and others. Threats of indictments against Wiki founder Julian Assange were made, in the United States for the disclosures and in Sweden for improper sexual behavior. So far, the sky has not fallen.
Sabotage or free press? This is not a new question; nor is it one that has been resolved in earlier comparable situations.
During World War II, the Chicago Tribune was investigated but not indicted for reporting secret government naval intelligence. It ran anti-war stories mentioning our breaking encrypted Japanese messages about its armada at Midway in 1942, and an account on Dec. 6, 1941, of United States military plans in Europe. The government threatened, but backed off, indicting the Tribune under the Espionage Act of 1917. One can hardly imagine a situation more warranting of prosecution than the disclosure of secret wartime maneuvers.
When the notorious Pentagon Papers were leaked and published by The New York Times and The Washington Post, the United States Supreme Court refused to enjoin publication of that Vietnam War history. It was a cause célèbre and became a landmark victory for freedom of the press. Erwin Griswold, the solicitor general who argued against publication for the government, wrote years later in The Washington Post that the documents did not threaten national security, as he had argued to the court, but unearthed a cover-up of the government’s failed policy.
Read on . . .
