Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez is coming under some criticism for suggesting that journalists who reveal leaked classified national security information may face prosecution. But as Jack Kelly points out, isn't this the natural outgrowth of what the Left demanded in the Valarie Plame incident? If revealing her name was a crime (which, as Kelly also notes, it most certainly wasn't), isn't the leaking of highly sensitive national security operations even worse. What do you think Al Qadea was more interested in: finding out who suggested sending Lyin' Joe Wilson to Africa, or finding out that the NSA is surveilling phone conversations from overseas?
Kelly argues, correctly, that the chances of reporters actually getting charged with espionage are slim, but, as with Judith Miller in the Plame case, they may be held in contempt of court if they withhold the names of those who are leaking classified information. The government classifies lots of information that really isn't sensitive, but some of it is. Doesn't it defeat the whole concept of "classified information" if it can be revealed to the public with no consequences?
Everyone, even Al Gonzalez, has great respect for the First Amendment. But as much as some on either side would like to simplify the issue, this is a difficult controversy. Everyone agrees that some speech is not protected (e.g. libelous speech or fraudulent advertising). Is reporting that reveals state secrets and undermines our national security protected speech/press under our First Amendment? Which is a more fundamental value: national security or freedom of the press? That is not a no-brainer, and Gonzalez's position is a respectable one.
Recent Comments