Since Conor Friedersdorf has responded to me, I will respond to him. James Rosen cited sources in North Korea with the ability to describe the government’s four-point response plan to the imminent implementation of UN sanctions. This tipped off the North Korean government that their deliberations were not secure, and strongly indicated a human source. It is hard to see how it would not be interpreted that way by the North Korean government or by the average reader.
And that’s the damage. There is nothing to be agnostic about. Using your logic, maybe World War Two wasn’t such a bad thing since we wound up with the Bomb first, which might not have happened otherwise. I mean, one never knows, right? Who can foresee all the consequences? Maybe Rosen’s article scrambled all North Korea’s plans and disrupted their government, sending them on a wild goose chase to find a non-existent leaker.
The point remains the same. The leak was damaging. It was harmful to our ability to recruit and retain intelligence agents worldwide. It most likely burned a very valuable source. And the government would have been irresponsible not to make a very aggressive effort to identify the source of insecurity on their Korean team. Saying that the government should tolerate such leaks is moronic.
What’s debatable is not the hunt for the leaker but the methods used to find the leaker. The affidavit is long and the legal issues are complicated, but that’s where this debate should be focused. Did Rosen do something illegal? Can he be fairly described as a coconspirator? How is this case different from other cases where reporters solicit classified information, if at all?
These are real questions. But the legitimacy of finding the leaker is not a real question.
That’s why I called you a wanker.
