I don’t feel comfortable being in such agreement with Walter Pincus. Mr. Pincus has developed exceptional connections and sources within the Intellligence Community during his career as a reporter, and I have often thought that he was too beholden to his sources. Yet, he really has been one of the finest reporters in America over the last few decades. He understands the difference between blowing a whistle on wrongdoing and leaking classified information that harms national security. Apparently, few other reporters can make that distinction.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
20 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
If Rosen were less of a hack, he would have simply written “Observers are concerned that North Korea may plan to hold another nuclear test in response to an expected U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Pyongyang for recent tests of nuclear and ballistic missiles.” But he wanted a scoop that would sound more sensational and himself more connected to foreign intel sources. Not that he succeeded with either of those objectives. However, he effectively guaranteed that he’d never get another leak.
Among the things revealed by the emails between Rosen and his source is this emailed statement from the reporter:
“Let’s break some new, and expose muddle-headed policy when we see it – or force the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible.”
There are moments in American history where publishing leaks of classified information with this sort of motivation had merit- the leak of the Pentagon Papers, for example. But in that case, it was the motivation of the leaker, and was not a clear motivation of the reporter.
Rosen’s statement puts his scoop in more accurate context, doesn’t it?
Not really. Not getting what was “the muddle-headed policy” that the leak exposed.
To me, the important revelation from this email is that Rosen is telling his source of classified information that a prime motivation for him as a reporter is to manipulate U.S. foreign policy to his personal preferences, and is trying to influence his source in order to ensure that the source shares this motivation.
I’d also like to know what Rosen’s vision of a less muddle-headed policy toward North Korea would be, but it’s not necessary to know that in order to determine that this reporter’s motivations are troublesome. This doesn’t cause me to wish him to be prosecuted as a co-conspirator; it just lessens my interest in defending his actions, particularly when you take into account all the cloak-and-dagger stuff he did at the State Department in order to leak classified information for no constructive reason.
Oh, misunderstood — thought it was the leaker speaking of “muddle-headed thinking.”
Agree with your comment. Thanks.
no! republicans said it was a “scandal”! and it’s against Obama! therefore “progressives” have to be on-board too! blasphemy!
I’ll need to know more facts (which may never be revealed) to have an opinion about the Rosen issue. But I’ll observe that whatever the legal restrictions that are applicable, the understanding between journalists and the government about the press’s responsibility as it relates to national security has to be at least partly predicated on a principle that the government has broken long ago — that the power to classify information in which the public has an interest would be used judiciously. The Obama administration has only followed the trend of increasing executive secretiveness. From what I’ve read, the practice of classifying information has become absurd.
I’d also like to know how we treat corporate secrets. Let’s say that an employee of Apple shares information about the next model of the iPhone or upcoming announcements with a reporter (or blogger), who publishes it and asks for more. That’s not whistleblowing. Can the reporter be charged with a crime or be liable for monetary damages? Would it be ethical for the blogger to publish the scoop?
I’d also like to know why the Rosen issue is different from the warrantless wiretapping story that the NYTimes sat on for months until after the 2004 election. If the US government’s actions were secret and ostensibly in the interests of protecting its citizens, and if divulging the illegal wire-tapping of phones could shut off the flow of vital information, why wouldn’t we admire the NYTimes, instead of being outraged by it, for its discretion and self-discipline?
In the case of the iPhone when a tech site got one in the US the cops raided his house and took his computers. He was charged with a crime and paid damages. When one was lost in China the security at Foxconn had a talk with him the guy who lost it (the prototype got out), during which he managed to “jump” out a window, he’s dead now. Foxconn is known for having people die around their security and it’s most common at their apple factories.
Corporate prosecution of this sort of stuff is often worse than governmental prosecution.
As someone who had a security clearance for several years though it’s more complicated. A lot of shit is classified just because. It can be that it came through a system, just for the sake of simplicity (there is no way to root through everything), or there can be an actual need. Plus there are things that are public information that you can’t comment on because you’re knowledge of it is cleared, your comment might confirm/deny, or it wasn’t supposed to get out. It’s highly complicated and a mess.
I never heard of anyone being killed over it though. However people being killed over tech trade leaks, especially regarding apple (they’re the murder inc of the tech world) isn’t all that uncommon in IT. apple even got some crap for using the local police as off duty enforcers, but that was promptly forgiven and swept under the rug due to their stature.
apple’s worse than the Koch’s in several ways. Figures though, it’s Limbaughs favorite computer company. But in terms of killing people, using the government as their person enforcers, not paying taxes, libertarianism, union trashing, and using coal for their power plants while claiming to go green (only for areas that are lower power consumption), apples so far out there in terms of sheer fuck muppetry they do make Koch Industries look like the good guys at times.
But what do you really think about Apple?
Interesting perspective, though I offered the analogy more in terms of the reporter than the original leaker (i.e. would the reporter/blogger be liable?).
I guess if the government doesn’t have enough resources to selectively classify information, that puts the mass leak of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange in some perspective.
apple used off duty cops to barge into a blogger/reporter (he was a tech guy that did both) and seize his computer. They have had on duty cops do the same shit. In some cases they were held liable, in some cases not.
I responded with apple since you mentioned them. Nice pic though as they are the kings of this sort of shit.
As for Manning and “the leak”…
Do you know much information the government generates? It’s a damn nightmare. So you just say everything that goes over this system is secret and you can send up to secret information over it, and call it a day. Now when I was in the Navy a good portion of that shit was classified. Technical information, movements, intelligence reports. But the vast majority of it was just bullshit. Dumb stuff like chatting about stuff that was on CNN, but because it was us discussing it and it went through the system, blamo secret.
The government uses three levels, niprnet (unclass), siprnet (up to secret), and JWICS (TS). Now in theory these should be in separate rooms to prevent contamination. Which is to say you can always put secret onto JWICS (but then that information gets stuck there and you can’t pull it back down from there if anyone alters it), but you can’t pull TS from JWICS and put it onto siprnet.
In the case of Manning the security was so lax and the place they were in wasn’t following the rules so they had all three systems in the same room, along with writable DVD/CDs. And shit just kinda went to hell from there.
That couldn’t have happened most of the places I worked. Because if you got caught even talking about TS/SCI stuff out of the SCIF, your head would have rolled and that would have been that. A single burnable disk or flash drive would have ruined your life as well.
false equivalence
“But I’ll observe that whatever the legal restrictions that are applicable, the understanding between journalists and the government about the press’s responsibility as it relates to national security has to be at least partly predicated on a principle that the government has broken long ago — that the power to classify information in which the public has an interest would be used judiciously. The Obama administration has only followed the trend of increasing executive secretiveness. From what I’ve read, the practice of classifying information has become absurd.”
Do you think that the information that was leaked in this case was worthy of being classified? Do you think it was judicious to keep secret that we had a high level source of information about North Korea’s nuclear program?
I don’t understand why you find it difficult to discern whether this particular information was legitimately classified.
How on earth would I know what kind of classification this information should have, and what laws should be used and how those laws should be interpreted to prosecute the leaker and reporter?
Look at Pincus’ article. Here’s a sentence whose charge has been taken as fact by writers who aren’t troubled by the subpoena on Rosen:
Here’s a sentence from Pincus’ next paragraph:
Your question is based on suppositions that aren’t warranted.
Do you have any solid knowledge of whether Rosen’s story implied that North Korea had a mole in its inner circle, or whether it allowed the possibility that the information was obtained through electronic interception? Do you know what kinds of classified information would be known to 96 agents? Do the people responsible for governmental security need to learn that electronic messages have been intercepted before taking measures to stop the leaks, or do they assume always that leaks are being attempted and continuously try to prevent them? And why put only me on the hook? Don’t the ACLU’s lawyers have an opinion about what classification the information should have? Why doesn’t every America-loving American understand that Obama is protecting our country?
Before I endorse an unprecedented attempt to restrain the freedom of the press, I’ll wait for more facts.
Walter Pincus is an exceptional and intelligent reporter. One of a kind 🙂 http://linkapp.me/PTZRg
Basically, people are selfish jerks. Reporters too. The front page comes first. And then when challenged you say, “Hey, if it hadn’t been me it would have been somebody else.” And that retort will be true until we start sending these assholes to prison, with their editors right beside them.
Pincus just knew what is leaked and what is not. Since he have a good reputation as journalist for decades. So, he knew very well the distinction.
Highly unconscionable, this is treasonable action …
The actors:
President Nixon resigns on August 9, 1974
Kissinger unscathed, never held accountable for possible war crimes and genocide.
Mitchell served 19 months in a federal penal institution.
With any luck Pincus will be a guest on the media circuit the rest of the week.
Between his informed analysis and the NYT article yesterday, which used a survey of the IRS non profits, and subsequently pointed at their abandonment of the 501 criteria the Rep better be running for cover. It’s not a reach to see the IRS scandal turning into a UNcover of the Conservatives scamming the system.
The whole notion of Spy vs. Spy that is embedded in discussions of national security prejudges cases in favor of government secrecy.
But notice that on one of the most secret sorts of activities that an intelligence agency can have–a plant within a foreign government–there were 96 people read into the operation.
Also notice that Pincus’s story itself is exposing classified information about the damage that Rosen’s source did. An obvious line of investigation would be of the source as a double-agent, a line that was not mentioned but surely should be part of the investigation.
The fact that Rosen works for Fox News and Republicans are playing this as some big scandal of suppression is secondary to the real issues. And one is to what extent should reporters act as instruments of US secrecy and policy instead of acting to inform the public?
Intelligence agencies are constantly using “sources and methods” as a rationale for suppressing information the public needs for informed discussions of foreign policy and national security. Clearly Pincus is arguing that Rosen exposed a source, and that that should put him in legal jeopardy.
But reporters are caught between two obligations: providing sufficient information to validate the truth of their reporting and knowing when their sources are crossing the line legally. And sources are their sole means of evaluating the latter–Pincus’s sources included.
That said, Rosen apparently framed the source of the information in the boilerplate used for sources inside the US government for domestic policy. Given the control the North Korean government has over all information, what sort of source inside the government did Rosen imagine was leaking this information if not a US asset?
But what also is clear is that the law that is being enforced is a blunt club, which causes hesitation to use it consistently. And that inconsistency can provide administrations with the appearance or (as is true in past administrations) the reality of using the law to suppress dissent about foreign policy.
But once again, a respect for separation of powers should have had the DOJ go to a judge with probable cause and seek a warrant and a judicial subpoena of Rosen’s testimony. Had that judge been Lawrence Silberman, the GOP would have little to stand on.