Admin

Admin

 

Verse of the Day

The Newsroom

Powered By
widgetmate.com 		Sponsored By
Digital Camera


Site Design By: SC Themes

Proud to be Americans



Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Newspaper Rack

Categories

Leaks Through History.

They’ve all done it. Why are we acting like this is some new phenomenon?

Every administration since Woodrow Wilson’s has lambasted leakers. And every president since Wilson has made discreet but routine use of the practice themselves — personally, or through their minions, giving the press information on the sly when circumstances merited some truth, or untruth, become known.

But the sometimes noble, sometimes ignoble, history of leaks goes back much further.

George Washington grew infuriated with Alexander Hamilton for leaking information to the British during the Jay Treaty negotiations in the summer and fall of 1794. James Madison was exasperated when his secretary of state leaked documents to his enemies in the Federalist Party.

During James K. Polk’s administration, in 1848, John Nugent, a journalist for the New York Herald, published, based on a leak, the secret treaty ending the war with Mexico. When he refused to disclose his sources to Senate investigators, he was arrested and held for a month in a Capitol committee room, continuing to write his column at double his normal salary and going home at night with the sergeant at arms, who fed and housed him.

In World War II, the government made sure soldiers had no questions about where they stood when it came to the often fuzzy line between national security and the public’s right to know. Each was given a brochure detailing what not to talk about with whom, titled “Loose Lips Sink Ships.”

“There are good leaks and bad leaks because there is good secrecy and there is bad secrecy,” said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.

“Secrecy is good when it conceals information that could be damaging to the country, like design details of advanced military technology, identities of intelligence sources or details of diplomatic negotiations.

“The problem is there is also bad secrecy — information withheld from the public to avoid controversy, evade oversight or other illegitimate reasons. When that kind of information leaks, that’s a good leak.”

Benjamin Franklin didn’t invent the leak, but his participation in one — besides subjecting the founding father to a severe verbal thrashing — further incited the tensions that led to the American Revolution.

Ironically, he was trying to have the opposite effect.

“There has lately fallen into my hands part of a correspondence that I have reason to believe laid the foundation of most if not all our present grievances,” Franklin wrote in 1772 to the Massachusetts speaker of the house.

His note was accompanied by a batch of letters written to officials in London, including six by Thomas Hutchinson, the royal governor of Massachusetts. The letters attacked colonial leaders and suggested curtailing their liberties.

The letters had been passed to Franklin, living in England at the time, by an unnamed member of Parliament who was an opponent of Hutchinson’s.

Franklin sent them to radical leaders in the colony — asking they not be made public — in hopes of easing growing tensions by showing the colonists that Hutchinson, not England, was the cause of their problems.

When the letters were published, there was an uproar. In Boston, angry colonists began pushing for a recall of Hutchinson. In England, speculation was rampant over who leaked the letters, and accusations were flying. Two men — accusing each other of having leaked the letters — went so far as to engage in a duel. When neither was killed, they agreed to a rematch, at which point Franklin stepped in, writing a letter to The London Chronicle:

“I think it incumbent on me to declare (for the prevention of fartherµ mischief …) that I alone am the person who obtained and transmitted to Boston the letters in question … They were not of the nature of private letters between friends. They were written by public officers to persons in public station …”

After his admission, Franklin was summoned before the Privy Council for what he thought was a discussion on removing Hutchinson from office.

Instead, in a room known as the “cockpit” — because cockfights had been held there during the reign of Henry VIII — Franklin received what one observer called “a torrent of virulent abuse” from a table- pounding solicitor general named Alexander Wedderburn.

The council rejected the petition to remove Hutchinson from office, but Franklin was removed from his job as American postmaster. Two years later, in 1775, Franklin returned to America to take part in the founding of a new nation.

It is considered the granddaddy of all leaks.

Starting in 1969, Daniel Ellsberg began photocopying a 7,000-page top-secret Pentagon report that documented U.S. policy in Vietnam, and how the American public had been lied to and misled about the war.

In 1971, hoping to turn public sentiment against what he saw as an unjust war, Ellsberg began delivering the documents — first to The New York Times, then The Washington Post and, later, 17 other newspapers as he traveled across the country trying to avoid authorities.

The government tried to stop publication through an injunction — the first time in history that had been done — but it was unsuccessful.

After two weeks on the run, Ellsberg turned himself in. Charged with 12 felonies, he faced a sentence of up to 115 years.

Because no law specifically prohibits supplying classified information to the media, Ellsberg and Anthony Russo, a colleague at the Rand Corp. who had helped him copy the papers, were prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917.

First proposed amid the hysteria of World War I, the law made it a crime to disclose national defense secrets to the enemy. Originally, it would have made leaking illegal, but, amid concerns that such a provision would abridge free speech, it was dropped.

Among those spending anxious moments awaiting Ellsberg’s trial was President Nixon — even though the Pentagon Papers didn’t deal with his term as president.

Still, Nixon wanted to send a message to Ellsberg and others who would leak government secrets — and he wasn’t above using leaks to fight the leakers, according to White House tapes:

Nixon: “Let’s get the son of a bitch into jail.”

Henry Kissinger: “We’ve got to get him.”

Nixon: “We’ve got to get him … Don’t worry about his trial. Just get everything out. Try him in the press … Everything … that there is on the investigation, get it out, leak it out. We want to destroy him in the press. Press. Is that clear?”

Enter the “plumbers,” a secret unit established by the White House in 1971 — so named because their original purpose was to stop leaks. They broke into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in an attempt to gain incriminating information.

The next year, Nixon’s covert operatives, toting eavesdropping equipment, were arrested after breaking into the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Hotel.

The charges against Ellsberg were dismissed in 1973 because of the break-in at his psychiatrist’s office.

John Woestendiek, writing in the Baltimore Sun (Oct. 14, 2003):

Written by Guss

15 Responses to “Leaks Through History.”

  1. ~J~ Says:

    July 12th, 2007 at 6:46 am
    Visit ~J~

    And the leaks continued after Nixon too. Good article and your comment about every administration having leakers is spot on.

    The problem is we don’t want our national secrets leaked to anyone and everyone who will listen. If we had 2 witnesses to the act the leaker of national security information could be subject to being tried for treason. The punishment for treason, according to the Constitution, is death.

    They didn’t tell the soldiers in WWII “Loose lips sink ships” for nothing.

    And sometimes a program is leaked as a trial balloon to see if the public will be behind it before going public with it. President Clinton did that a couple of times. I’m sure all administrations do it, but you don’t put your country at risk because you’re ticked off at someone. That’s just plain stupid.

  2. Ayschlay Says:

    July 12th, 2007 at 7:08 am
    Visit Ayschlay

    I write this not to try to change the minds of people upset by this recent leak, but to explain why I, and maybe others, aren’t outraged.

    I think our current administration’s current war and domestic policies, and it’s refusal to admit any mistake, are putting us more at risk than the leak. By ‘more at risk’ I mean that our policies are provoking more terrorist threats and insurgent action. I mean that our fight ‘over there’ to protect liberties here has meant chipping away at those very liberties. I mean that in fighting this war and enhancing domestic security, this administration has been violating the Constitutional arrangement of separation of powers and checks and balances.

    So I don’t see this as treason, or dangerous. I see it as a wake-up call.

  3. Guss Says:

    July 12th, 2007 at 7:22 am
    Visit Guss

    Hallelujah Ayschlay!

  4. ~J~ Says:

    July 12th, 2007 at 7:43 am
    Visit ~J~

    So, are you saying if 3,000 more Americans are killed by Al Qaeda because they were able to glean valuable information from a public leak is fine because you want to protect the so-called rights of Congress to investigate the firings of some US Attorneys and because *you* believe Bush lies about everything and you disagree with him?

    Un-freaking-believable!

    Just exactly why is it so many libs want to have Bush admit to mistakes? Will they forgive him if he does? Will you? Will it give you a higher opinion of him?

    How many presidents have even been asked that question by the press besides Bush? And you think he should answer that question?

    As I already said, un-freaking-believable!

  5. ~J~ Says:

    July 12th, 2007 at 7:53 am
    Visit ~J~

    Ayschlay and Guss, I want to ask you both and any other liberal who may be reading this question: What do you think Congress should be doing? Investigating why 9 US Attorneys were fired or investigating why leaks are being made that can damage our national security?

    Or is it just selective leaks such as the Plame Game which never had anyone charged or prosecuted for said leak?

    I’m leaving for awhile as this is making my blood pressure rise and I do want to remain as polite as possible.

  6. Ayschlay Says:

    July 12th, 2007 at 8:08 am
    Visit Ayschlay

    I guess it just comes down to that I don’t share your fear, J. I don’t think release of this information is going to give terrorists some sort of a leg-up on our various domestic security forces. What intelligence was divulged that makes you think another 9/11 is likely to happen?

    I didn’t say Bush lies about everything. I said he’s pursuing poor warmaking and domestic security policies. I’m arguing that this administration’s means are not appropriate to the ends.

    I don’t understand the *you.* It’s as if you think I’m claiming special authority when I state my opinions. I’m not. I just explained my position on this particular matter. Isn’t that what we do on this blog?

    It’s clear we disagree on this issue, and it’s clear my position really upsets you. Perhaps you can take some comfort in the fact even though a great majority of Americans are now unhappy with this war and this President, few of them would probably agree with all my reasons for opposing this Presidency.

  7. Guss Says:

    July 12th, 2007 at 8:14 am
    Visit Guss

    Ayschlay,

    I wish I was as articulate as you but I’m not so all I can say is, your last comment is exactly how I feel.

  8. Sue Says:

    July 12th, 2007 at 9:07 am
    Visit Sue

    So because there have been “leaks” of classified information throughout history that somehow makes it right?

    I don’t know about everyone else but I have read so many times how this President has violated the Constitution yet no one has yet achieved a win against him in a court of law (which was not overturned on appeal) nor has the Congress moved to impeach him based on those accusations.

    Well, you guys have at it. I was taught as a child that
    there is a difference between right an wrong and it did not have a designation of Democrat or Republican attached to it.
    I suppose if someone violates the law in a manner which harms this administration than that is okay because they do not agree with him on policy etc.

    You are right Ayschlay, we will not see eye to eye on this topic because the original topic and the implications of these leaks have entirely different meanings to us.

  9. Big Mo Says:

    July 12th, 2007 at 10:17 am
    Visit Big Mo

    Aschlay - just because you have differences with the administration and its policies DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT!

    You defeat an administration with which you disagree at the ballot box and through Congress. NOT surreptitiously through leaks of classified information to the media. I don’t give a rat’s ass if you think the information is harmless or not. That isn’t the point.

    The real point is, as a citizen of the United States, there are correct and proper ways to express your politcal opinions and totally incorrect ways to do so. Breaking the law is an improper, unethical, immoral, illegal way to do so. Nor do I care, as I’ve previously stated, what party the president belongs to or what the affiliation of the leaker is.

    Now, as for “admitting mistakes.” Oh, please. Spare me. You know why Bush doesn’t play that game? (And I do mean “game.”) Because the instant he “admits” a “mistake” the jackals in the media and most leftists will be jumping for joy because everything they say will be validated, and they’ll want more, more, more. “Admitting” a “mistake” in this environment is pure politics, Ayschlay. Nothing more.

  10. Big Mo Says:

    July 12th, 2007 at 10:18 am
    Visit Big Mo

    er - just because you have differences with the administration and its policies DOES NOT MAKE *LEAKING* RIGHT!

    :”>

    And maybe I shouldn’t shout.

  11. Ayschlay Says:

    July 12th, 2007 at 10:30 am
    Visit Ayschlay

    I agree that our government officials shouldn’t rely on leaks, or other kinds of ‘politics by other means’ to achieve their policy goals. In part, I’m just curious why this is happening so much right now. You want to judge the matter, which is fine. I want to comprehend it, too.

    But, as you know, I don’t think it’s all that evil. I don’t think politics (or anything for that matter)neatly divides into right and wrong. Some times the choice or action may be crystal clear (President Clinton was wrong to lie and dissemble under oath about his affair). But there’s all sorts of moral quandaries, all sorts of situations where people have to choose between different goods, different evils. I think this may be one of those times.

  12. Ayschlay Says:

    July 12th, 2007 at 10:37 am
    Visit Ayschlay

    And if we follow Mo’s point to the letter—

    “The real point is, as a citizen of the United States, there are correct and proper ways to express your politcal opinions and totally incorrect ways to do so. Breaking the law is an improper, unethical, immoral, illegal way to do so.”

    —then are we avoid or repress all civil disobedience, consider all civil disobedience of the past as improper, unethical, and so on?

    Or perhaps you were only referring to the conduct of government officials, in which case, you can ignore my question.

  13. Big Mo Says:

    July 12th, 2007 at 10:42 am
    Visit Big Mo

    The latter, because they are supposed to follow strict rules and regulations.

  14. ~J~ Says:

    July 12th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
    Visit ~J~

    Ayschlay,

    Let me make myself more clear than I did earlier. I don’t run around obsessed all day that we are going to be attacked, but I think about it occasionally.

    I don’t care if they come here and rip my head off. I do care what they do to my children and my grandchildren and what kind of world/society they will have to endure long after I’m dead and in the ground.

    What’s hard for me to get my arms around is that so many people are so complacent about this just as you are. Why are you not worried? Probably because we haven’t been attacked since 9/11. And why haven’t we been attacked? Surely you won’t give any credit to the president but will say it’s just been dumb luck. And that’s where I have my problem.

    I speak to Democrats who agree these investigations on the US Attorney firings are stupid and a waste of time and taxpayers’ money, but then tell me because they are Democrats they have to say it’s right. Why? Because that’s what Democrats are supposed to say.

    Do you have to have a secret handshake to be a Democrat and if you say they are wrong on something the handshake gets changed and you are no longer welcome?

    This is a topic that is very important to me. So much so that I am willing to accept someone who disagrees with me on social issues to make sure we have someone to protect us in the White House and not claim it’s a police action.

    It’s not a police action and if someone thinks those fanatics won’t come after us again he must have rose-colored glasses on or his head buried in the sand. I use the generic he.

    What planet have people with these beliefs been on for the past six years?

    They can gripe about lousy fire radios, and that’s valid, but they’d better keep their eyes on the bigger picture and realize it wasn’t our government that attacked us on a pretty sunny Tuesday morning almost six years ago.

    I want to be wrong and for you to be right that we won’t be attacked, but the reality is I’m afraid I’m right, and I’m afraid for those little children I call my grandchildren.

  15. Ayschlay Says:

    July 12th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
    Visit Ayschlay

    J, we’re at a point where we stand looking at each other, mystified over how the other can worry about this but not care about that. Our ideals, beliefs, and interests are so different that probably no amount of arguing is going to change either of our minds.

    No doubt new stories will surface, new kinds of evidence, new versions of the argument for and against this war on terror and in Iraq, and we’ll argue again.

    I hope, though, that in the future folks here who disagree with me don’t dismiss me as “complacent” because I don’t see things their way (I could be beating my chest, shouting to the heavens, “Oh my God, why are you so complacent about our Constitution?!”), that suggest I care less then they about my children and coming generations because I don’t share their particular fear (I have other ones, obviously), and that imply that I’m being completely partisan while they are remarkably untouched by any such predisposition.

    I think I’ve mentioned this passage before, but we should all reread Federalist Paper #1 by Hamilton, specifically the third paragraph. You’ll find it at: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed01.htm