In Perspective: Some leaks are good

Tuesday, 3 October 2006

Some leaks are good

On Sunday, I went to my local bookstore to browse through some magazines (e.g. The New Yorker, Harper's, The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy — a partial list of periodicals I like, although I left out National Review, just kidding!!!). I ended up getting a Harper's Magazine and Foreign Policy, both exceptional magazines that I hope to subscribe to soon.

On reading the October edition of Harper's, one article stood out. "The Next War" (in the Notebook section, if you get a chance to check it out) by Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Paper-leaking fame, was a phenomenal article. Sadly Harper's does not have it online and, being as it is a four page read, I will not type it up. The good news is that a blogger at the Daily Kos typed up some extracts from the article. In the article, Ellsberg compares the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution (which only had two dissents in the Senate at that time) relating to the Vietnam War to the 2002 lead-up to the US (or Allied) invasion of Iraq (which, mixed into the Bush administration's "war on terror" rhetoric, also faced relatively little opposition). He also says how those many people who know the information that the public and Congress have a right to know of but are decide to not leak it primarily because of keeping their job and the security agreement they signed when entering their job. As he said:

It took me that long (7 years) to recognize that the secrecy agreements we had signed frequently conflicted with our oath to uphold the Constitution...

Ellsberg feels guilt not for leaking but for not speaking up (or leaking out, if you will) sooner than he did (he leaked the Papers to The New York Times in 1971). I do think that one of the weaknesses of the article is that he does echo his believed failing of himself (and others) too much in the article.

All of this ties into the leaked National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report (see this post) and other recent leaking that are of public and legislative interest, yet are largely kept away from such important bodies of the democratic, representative republic that is the United States of America.

Some leaks are good, and no one likes being short-changed and deceived by the plumber who fights so hard against them (even if s/he leaks in the process). With all this talk of democracy, you would think this administration would be a bit more transparent, support the free and open exchange of ideas (i.e. the press), and other things they blatantly are not doing unless it is in the interest of their ideology and/or political capital.

I will leave you with a comment I wrote at the head of the page as I was reading the article:
It is sad that we — in this day in age — need leaks to maintain a transparent and truly democratic [executive] government.