An era of secrecy
The online magazine Slate's media critic, Jack Shafer, has a thoughtful article up on government secrecy in the age of government crime:
Every time the Bush administration cracks down on openness, it creates new sources for journalists inside the bureaucracies. Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, says the strategy of decertifying the press works only if you can block the press from obtaining alternative sources of information. That's something the administration hasn't been able to do, says Blanton, citing the blockbuster stories about the Bush's secret prisons, secret torture programs, secret rendition operation, warrantless wiretaps, and so on.Blanton attributes such scoops to a "revolt of the JAGs," his shorthand for the recent round of whistle-blowing by career civil service and career military officers. It's not that these whistle-blowers oppose secrecy, he notes, giving the example of the FISA court, which issues secret warrants. In the 20-plus years of FISA warrants, not one has been leaked because most everyone respects the FISA process. The establishment of FISA was publicly debated in congressional hearings, which demonstrated the need for such a court, but one that operated under legal limits.
He contrasts the public FISA process with the secret machinations of the "torture lawyers" - Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, John Yoo, et al. - whose primary goal is to enhance presidential power. In the minds of many honorable government employees, the expansion of presidential power in the post-9/11 era lacks basic legitimacy, making it vulnerable to leaks.
By "lacks basic legitimacy," of course, he means, "is nowhere rooted in, and frequently violates the letter as well as the spirit of, the Constitution, federal statutes and/or treaties." And, remember, using classification to conceal a crime is, itself, a crime.
I don't care who's doing it; behavior like that is un-American by definition.
