The New York Times encourages traitors

More and more, desperation seems to be the modus operandi for the Bush Administration. For six years now they've been pushing the limits of the Constitution to find ways to silence critics, operating under a policy of "shoot now, talk later." The latest targets of these attacks: the press.

According to an April 22, 2006 article by Greg Miller of The L.A. Times, "The CIA ... fired a senior officer for leaking classified information to news organizations, ... that said the agency maintained a secret network of prison facilities overseas for high-ranking terror suspects. ... The termination, announced Friday, marks the latest in a series of high-profile crackdowns on spy agency and Bush administration officials accused of unauthorized disclosures of classified information."

But who's to say that information which is classified is so designated because it is truly crucial to national security? Does the classification system not also have the advantage of hiding the less palatable elements of governmental policy from both Americans and the international community? According to Miller, "Disclosures about that program and other operations in recent months, U.S. intelligence officials said, have damaged the United States' ability to win cooperation from European countries and other allies in the fight against terrorism." To follow this logic, flagging international support (which was never all that strong to begin with) is not the fault of the administration and its illegal actions, but instead of those who publicly discuss those policies.

Does that mean that leaking classified info to the American press is tantamount to traitorous activity? Attorney General Alberto Gonzales seems to think so. CIA operatives sign non-disclosure agreements in which they swear their secrecy before they are privy to classified information. Thus, leaking information is a punishable offence. But reporters make no such pledges. Nonetheless, in today's New York Times, reporter Adam Liptak writes that Gonzales said "The government has the legal authority to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information."

Liptak continues, "Though he did not name the statutes that might allow such prosecutions, Mr. Gonzales was apparently referring to espionage laws that in some circumstances forbid the possession and publication of information concerning the national defense, government codes and 'communications intelligence activities.' "

With the recent newspaper exposure of the NSA's phone tapping program and the creation of a databank of millions of American's daily phone calls, some politicians are pointing at reporters as traitors as well. In Miller's article, Sen. Pat Roberts is quoted as saying, "At a time in which intelligence is more important than ever, leaks have hindered our efforts in the war against Al Qaeda, those guilty of improperly disclosing classified information should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

None of these programs -- the prisons, the phone tapping, the data base -- can unreservedly be called legal. And yet it is the reporters, who have a moral imperative to share crucial information with their American readership, who now have to watch their backs. At the same time, in its leaking of the identity of Valerie Plame, for example, the administration has demonstrated its willingness to employ press leaks to its own advantage.

No writer, whether a news reporter or otherwise, should ignore this dangerous trend. By hunting down writers who deliever the news whether it be flattering or unflattering, the administration asks the American people to choose willful ignorance over their First Amendment rights. Perhaps some are ready to make that sacrifice, but we shouldn't be.