Cracking Down on Leaks

[Belsnickel]

A little over a week ago, James Wolfe was indicted in the leaking of classified information. I didn't think much of the story at the time, even though in this action there were records of a reporter at the New York Times that were seized. I was listening to The Daily this morning, though, and it really made me think about this issue.

On the podcast, this morning, was Matt Apuzzo, who was one of the journalists targeted by Obama. I didn't think much of those actions, either. In both that case and the case of James Wolfe, my thought was "they are just trying to protect sensitive information." I don't like the way the Trump administration tries to demonize the press, but I didn't have an issue of them trying to batten down the hatches, so to speak. What really made me think differently was the way Apuzzo put it in the podcast. He talked about all sorts of things that have happened over the years: human rights issues at Gitmo, the use of drones, Obama's "kill list", the underwear bomber, all sorts of things that would have never come to light were it not for leakers of classified information. Of course, the things that the administrations took it upon themselves to leak were always things that made them look good. For instance, we know a ton about the operation that killed bin Laden, but all of that was (maybe still is) classified.

Apuzzo's point is that by targeting the press, by attacking that freedom of the press, the administration is forcing the public to rely on what they say from the podium. They are trying to be in charge of what the public knows, and that makes for an uninformed public. The administrations aren't concerned about the security of classified information, they are only concerned about image.

I'm not doing the discussion justice in this description, but it was interesting how it really shifted my thinking on this.

[*michaelsean*]

Well if the President, such as in the Bin Laden killing, chooses to leak it, then I don't think it's really a leak. Somewhere someone has to be the determiner of what info gets released and what doesn't, not individuals deciding for themselves what info should be released. I don't think journalists should be prosecuted, but they also shouldn't be protected. They should be compelled to cooperate.

[Belsnickel]

(06-18-2018, 09:09 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well if the President, such as in the Bin Laden killing, chooses to leak it, then I don't think it's really a leak. Some where someone has to be the determiner of what info gets released and what doesn't, not individuals deciding for themselves what info should be released. I don't think journalists should be prosecuted, but they also shouldn't be protected. They should be compelled to cooperate.

If the information isn't officially declassified, it is still seen as a leak.

Now, I have thought the same as you for some time, now, but the more I think about it, the more I don't know if I still feel that way. When we think about the shady shit that has gone on in past administrations and the current one, do we really trust our government to make that decision to know what is best for us on this front? That's what it boils down to. By compelling journalists to cooperate it makes it so that they lose sources because they will no longer feel safe in turning over the information. That safety needs to exist.

Journalists do reach out to the government when they have a story to say "this is what we have, do you have any comment?" If there is a legitimate threat to national security, most journalists are going to hold onto the story or write it in such a way as to protect specific information. But I don't think that we should be preventing them from putting the information out there wholesale, which is what compelling them to cooperate would do.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-18-2018, 09:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: If the information isn't officially declassified, it is still seen as a leak.

Now, I have thought the same as you for some time, now, but the more I think about it, the more I don't know if I still feel that way. When we think about the shady shit that has gone on in past administrations and the current one, do we really trust our government to make that decision to know what is best for us on this front? That's what it boils down to. By compelling journalists to cooperate it makes it so that they lose sources because they will no longer feel safe in turning over the information. That safety needs to exist.

Journalists do reach out to the government when they have a story to say "this is what we have, do you have any comment?" If there is a legitimate threat to national security, most journalists are going to hold onto the story or write it in such a way as to protect specific information. But I don't think that we should be preventing them from putting the information out there wholesale, which is what compelling them to cooperate would do.

There's probably  a Latin legal phrase for a situation like this if not specific to this, maybe Fred would have an idea, that the very act of the President leaking it to me would declassify it.  

The fact that sources would no longer reveal things to reporters that they aren't supposed to reveal, sort of seems like that would be the whole point.  I understand there is shady crap that we would miss out on, but we need to come up with a better way then.  Every person with a clearance deciding for themselves does not seem like a good idea.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-18-2018, 11:07 AM)michaelsean Wrote: The fact that sources would no longer reveal things to reporters that they aren't supposed to reveal, sort of seems like that would be the whole point.  I understand there is shady crap that we would miss out on, but we need to come up with a better way then.  Every person with a clearance deciding for themselves does not seem like a good idea.  

But what better way would there be? We've seen for decades now a near inability for the legislative branch so effectively oversee the executive, which is what should be happening. But staffers in Washington will tell you that if you actively and thoroughly read the news from the MSM you are just as informed as the vast majority of them, including their bosses.

Honestly, I think a free press is the best way to hold our elected officials accountable. If the government is supposed to be by, for, and of the people, then the people need to know what is going on. I don't think there is going to be a better way to do that then a free press.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-18-2018, 11:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: But what better way would there be? We've seen for decades now a near inability for the legislative branch so effectively oversee the executive, which is what should be happening. But staffers in Washington will tell you that if you actively and thoroughly read the news from the MSM you are just as informed as the vast majority of them, including their bosses.

Honestly, I think a free press is the best way to hold our elected officials accountable. If the government is supposed to be by, for, and of the people, then the people need to know what is going on. I don't think there is going to be a better way to do that then a free press.

OK so how about when Obama had that "American" taken out by a drone.  Say somebody doesn't like the fact that this is going to happen, and tells a reporter who writes it up, and that alerts the guy.  Are we good with whomever deciding this is where he draws the line?  Obviously this didn't happen, and maybe in this case the time between identifying and attacking was too small, but I'm just using it as a broad what it.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-18-2018, 11:27 AM)michaelsean Wrote: OK so how about when Obama had that "American" taken out by a drone.  Say somebody doesn't like the fact that this is going to happen, and tells a reporter who writes it up, and that alerts the guy.  Are we good with whomever deciding this is where he draws the line?  Obviously this didn't happen, and maybe in this case the time between identifying and attacking was too small, but I'm just using it as a broad what it.  

This is where ethics in journalism comes into play. If someone were to come to a journalist with that information, any reputable journalist is going to contact the administration for comment. If there is a legit concern, like I said earlier, they aren't going to run the story. However, in that scenario, I would personally not have a problem with the person being alerted because assassinating US citizens isn't something we should be doing. But I can almost guarantee you that an actual journalist is not going to run that story because of the natsec concerns.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-18-2018, 11:35 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is where ethics in journalism comes into play. If someone were to come to a journalist with that information, any reputable journalist is going to contact the administration for comment. If there is a legit concern, like I said earlier, they aren't going to run the story. However, in that scenario, I would personally not have a problem with the person being alerted because assassinating US citizens isn't something we should be doing. But I can almost guarantee you that an actual journalist is not going to run that story because of the natsec concerns.

See you don't have a problem.  I do.  And that's the problem.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-18-2018, 11:38 AM)michaelsean Wrote: See you don't have a problem.  I do.  And that's the problem.  

Well, it's not, because an actual journalist isn't going to run that story.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-18-2018, 11:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, it's not, because an actual journalist isn't going to run that story.

A guy on the internet? Doesn't have to be what we consider a real journalist.  Breitbart or one of those places would if it's Obama doing the killing of an "American" and yes I will continue to put that in quotes.

[NATI BENGALS]

A whistleblower is a good thing.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-18-2018, 11:49 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: A whistleblower is a good thing.

Most of these aren't  whistleblower scenarios.  Shady, even unethical, doesn't mean illegal.

[Belsnickel]

(06-18-2018, 11:49 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: A whistleblower is a good thing.

(06-18-2018, 11:52 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Most of these aren't  whistleblower scenarios.  Shady, even unethical, doesn't mean illegal.

Indeed. Though there are quite a few that are legally questionable, if not outright illegal, that we would never have known about were it not for these leaks.

[Millhouse]

(06-18-2018, 11:52 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Most of these aren't  whistleblower scenarios.  Shady, even unethical, doesn't mean illegal.

It's like what Snowden leaked. Even though the NSA/CIA was spying & collecting data on everyone, and could spy on anyone at will with a secret FISA warrant, it was technically legal what they were doing.

However Snowden believed it was unethical on what they were doing and exposed it, and then was branded as a traitor and Obama even referred to him as a 29 year old hacker. Which goes to what was mentioned above, as some things are leaked for good public image, but Snowden was demonized because it hurt Obama's and others public image.

[Belsnickel]

(06-18-2018, 12:32 PM)Millhouse Wrote: It's like what Snowden leaked. Even though the NSA/CIA was spying & collecting data on everyone, and could spy on anyone at will with a secret FISA warrant, it was technically legal what they were doing.

However Snowden believed it was unethical on what they were doing and exposed it, and then was branded as a traitor and Obama even referred to him as a 29 year old hacker. Which goes to what was mentioned above, as some things are leaked for good public image, but Snowden was demonized because it hurt Obama's and others public image.

Maybe one of the things we really ought to be looking at (which some nat sec geeks I follow have been saying) is how information is classified. That maybe we over-classify too many things, which creates a lot of these problems. That a lot of things that are classified broadly aren't a threat to our national security and that we should be more selective and targeted with the classification of information.

We are supposed to be a government of, by, and for the people, after all. Shouldn't that mean that openness of information should be the rule rather than the exception?

[fredtoast]

(06-18-2018, 12:32 PM)Millhouse Wrote: However Snowden believed it was unethical on what they were doing and exposed it, and then was branded as a traitor and Obama even referred to him as a 29 year old hacker. Which goes to what was mentioned above, as some things are leaked for good public image, but Snowden was demonized because it hurt Obama's and others public image.

Snowden demonized himself by going to China and Russia.  If he was really in favor of more freedom those are the last places he should have gone with US secrets.

We need to be able to operate in secret because that is the way other spies and terrorists operate.  Where to draw the line and who gets to draw the line are very complicated issues.  But we can't just have all information open to the public.

Until someone posts some information about US citizens being silenced or imprisoned for political opinions I am not that freaked out about the government doing some spying.  Our secret operations are aimed at protecting us instead of rounding up citizens as political prisoners.

Remember all the squealing about how The Patriot Act was the "end of freedom" in the United States?  Now no one even mentions it.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

A person is intelligent, rational and has a heart. People on the other hand are dumb, prone to exaggeration, panicky, bias and generally give in to the mob. Everything gets classified because the littlest thing sets people of and panick at the drop of a hat.

Leaks only serve one person and that's the person leaking the information with a few exceptions. 

The big problem is when discussions are leaked to the press only to show someone in a bad light is that smart people looking for solutions and bouncing ideas off of each other will stop participating and problems only get worse.

I do believe some things are good to be leaked. If something bad is going on in our government, we need to know about and those doing the bad things need to be held accountable. Leaks about what someone says while in a meeting or how someone smokes a cigarette has no place in our society.

[Millhouse]

(06-18-2018, 12:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Snowden demonized himself by going to China and Russia.  If he was really in favor of more freedom those are the last places he should have gone with US secrets.

We need to be able to operate in secret because that is the way other spies and terrorists operate.  Where to draw the line and who gets to draw the line are very complicated issues.  But we can't just have all information open to the public.

Until someone posts some information about US citizens being silenced or imprisoned for political opinions I am not that freaked out about the government doing some spying.  Our secret operations are aimed at protecting us instead of rounding up citizens as political prisoners.

Remember all the squealing about how The Patriot Act was the "end of freedom" in the United States?  Now no one even mentions it.

He ended up in Russia because his passport was revoked when he was there in transit to Ecuador I think, maybe Cuba instead. And he also gave all the information he had to the journalists before destroying his copies of it. But while in Russia, he basically couldn't go anywhere. And the U.S. state dpt made sure of that. If they couldnt arrest him, then do the next best thing which is to make him look like a traitor by working with the Russians.

No, what Snowden revealed was just how far the NSA went, from spying on foreign allies to them collecting the metadata on U.S. citizens phones and digital footprints. And that is exactly what Obama campaigned against, and didnt 'force' changes until it was exposed.

I agree to there needs to be secrecy involved, but only to a certain point, and especially with enemies of our country like potential terrorists for example. But most importantly that secrecy needs to have proper legal oversight involved, not being able to do what they want in secret.