The Legality of Leaks

The Pentagon Papers: a series of Department of Defense papers discussing the Vietnam War in negative terms. As we discussed this week they were leaked by Daniel Ellsberg to the media, eventually leading to a Supreme Court case and contributing to Nixon's downfall. The Watergate scandal: tapes and investigative findings leaked to Woodward and Bernstein by an FBI agent, an incident that led to Nixon's resignation. We also heard about the Supreme Court case involving Watergate which essentially reduced, if not ended, the ability of the White House to prevent the publication of controversial or secret material. These two examples of a leak are in a way positive examples of the practice. However, there are no doubt certain times when a leak could damage the reputation of an administration at a critical moment, leading to chaos and/or depriving the country of leadership. Another worst case scenario could be the release of classified information that informs our enemies what we are doing and how. Essentially, leaks are not always a good thing, and in my opinion they should be illegal under certain circumstances. After all, if someone steals something like a car for example, and then gives it to a dealer who is aware that it was stolen, both the dealer and the one who stole the car would be liable for criminal charges. I realize that information is not a physical object and is therefore different, but it seems to me that it isn't so different that people who leak government secrets shouldn't be liable in some way.

The Nature of Political Scandals

This week in class we discussed scandals. Some famous (and more often than not infamous) political scandals were mentioned, from Watergate to the more recent scandal involving a Congressman sending inappropriate pictures to a woman on Craigslist. We learned that in most cases it is the cover up that really matters, that the cover up can bring down any politician, even a president. It was also implied that politicians who admit their wrongdoings can avoid or at least mitigate the public backlash, negative press, and other attacks that generally occur in the aftermath of such situations. While this is all understandable, at the same time I can't help but wonder why we are so ready to forgive politicians who admit what they did and even re-elect them. I realize that the private lives of politicians are of no importance to citizens of other countries, the fact is that the American people do seem to care a great deal about such things. Given this higher than average concern, why is it that when a politician admits to doing something, no matter how immoral, he/she is able to maintain his/her reputation? If I recall correctly, admitting to doing something wrong is only the first step in the Jewish process of repentance. How are we to know if the politician has completed the other necessary steps? Perhaps we should be more like other countries and disregard what politicians do in their private lives, especially since I suspect that this relatively recent interest is a sign of the growing trend in journalism to pay more attention to sensationalist and celebrity news. If we instead choose to maintain our concern for the morals of our politicians then I suggest that we don't do it in a half-hearted manner, and remember their actions come election time.

Watchdog Journalism: A Necessary Evil? Or Just.... Evil?

As we discussed in class (and on the recent quiz) watchdog journalism refers to the independent scrutiny of government and business by the media. This type of journalism is based on the tenet that "the people have a right to know". I don't know about most people, but sometimes I don't think that "the people have a right to know". For example, the recent Wikileaks controversy. Something about a supposedly loyal government employee or soldier handing over secrets and classified information to the media and posting it online seems wrong to me. What if the release of such information causes the death of Americans or our allies? What if such information hampers the efforts of our government in apprehending terrorists or criminals? Whenever I watch a news story or read an article about classified information I worry that such information could be used by our enemies in the ways I just mentioned. In class we learned that the release by the media of information about an international government system of tracking and monitoring banks caused the complete shutdown of that program. That program was used to track the flow of money through terrorist networks, thereby aiding their capture or elimination. While this program had the potential to be used in immoral and illegal ways, it was an invaluable tool in the war on terror. In my opinion, sometimes the American media does a better job protecting our enemies than our enemies could otherwise do on their own.
I am in no way claiming that the people don't have at least some right to know what their government is up to, after all, some measure of transparency is needed if we are to remain a democratic nation. However, in some cases this may become a weakness our enemies could exploit. There has to be a better way of letting the people know, a way that reveals what we actually  need to know as opposed to everything. Information on the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, illegal governmental monitoring of citizen communications, and whether our government is acting in a moral manner in general is information that I feel we need to know, but more sensitive data such as how we track and kill terrorists should be and usually is kept classified and on a need to know basis. Until the day that war and hostility between nations and individuals no longer exists there will always be a need for secrecy and keeping certain information classified. Until that day, watchdog journalism should be more limited than it has been in recent years as the apparent decline of the practice has not been enough to prevent what some would call disloyal and unpatriotic releases of classified information.

Hosni Mubarak on SNL

http://www.hulu.com/watch/211074/saturday-night-live-weekend-update-hosni-mubarak
http://www.hulu.com/watch/215176/saturday-night-live-weekend-update-hosni-mubarak
So, Jedi mindtricks and time warner jokes aside, I did not think that these clips were that amusing. Is (or rather was) Mubarak a corrupt dictator who quite possibly took advantage of his position and failed to improve the situation of his people and therefore does not deserve our sympathy and support? Yes.  Should we all be rejoicing at his fall and the uncertain future of Egypt? In my opinion, definitely not. I admit that I do not know a lot about Mubarak's reign, but I do know that there has been a truce if not peace between Israel and Egypt since he took over after Anwar el Sadat's assasination in 1981. Mubarak has, according to what little information I have accessed, been generally supportive of Israel, and during his time as president Egypt has been involved in negotions between Israel and the Palestinians. This is not surprising considering that Mubarak supported Sadat's pro-peace efforts and continued the disengagement and peace process with Israel after Sadat's death.
In recent years the economic recession has had a serious negative effect on the United States and other countries such as Egypt. Mubarak attempted to deal with Egypt's economic situation over the last several years, but he did not provide an entirely effective solution. Combined with the corruption of his regime it's no wonder that the Egyptian people don't exactly like him and the "revolution" that led to his fall is hardly surprising. Despite all of that, his fall is not good for Jews, Israelis, Americans, and the West in my opinion. It cannot be said for certain that whatever form of government takes his place will be as pro-Israel as he was nor as close to the United States. Though we have yet to find out what these dramatic developments will bring, I have a bad feeling about the situation. After all, similar revolutions and unstable regime changes have ocurred in the past, specifically 1979, and we all know how well that worked out for Israel and the west. What I'm trying to say is that Mubarak, while a bad president, was good for us and Israel, and that the contempt many Americans have for him and the joy they feel at his fall (as expressed in the SNL clips) is premature, if not misplaced (better the devil you know than the one you don't as the saying goes).