The ethics of leaking classified information

In the wake of the Valerie Plame investigation, it might be tempting for the inobservant to conclude from the deserved (if uncertain) punishment of those responsible that leaking classified information was the offense in question. To those paying attention, however, the obstruction of justice charges brought against Scooter Libby stand out as the more serious crime, and the leaking of Plame’s identity as a covert CIA agent the slightly lesser one (though both crimes deserve punishment, for Libby and all others responsible). Of the latter offense, the leak’s purpose was clearly retaliation for Joseph Wilson’s publicly contradicting the Administration’s fabricated (as we now know) case for war, and this reckless act of revenge demonstrated a disregard not only for Ms. Pflame’s personal safety but also for national security. Unless the existence of covert CIA agents is itself objectionable (and it seems safe to conclude that this is not Libby's objection, given his apparent fondness for secrecy), then no broader purpose could have been served by making her identity public, and the leak cannot be justified on the basis of some exposed abuses or averted evils. This is not to say that the leaking of classified information is never justified - only that personal revenge and public smear campaigns against political opponents hardly counts as the defensible end by which such leaks may in some cases be justified.

All this raises an interesting issue: is leaking classified information ever justified? Of course, government whistleblowers who expose violations of law and other abuses of power may do so by leaking classified information (in this case, by exposing crimes by the state), in which case leaks might not only be justified, but also be both courageous and morally praiseworthy, as they serve as a crucial check against illegality and other repugnant actions by public officials. Hence, we must understand the offense at the heart of the Plame case as not about leaks per se, but about the nature of the leak (its intent, its effects, the borader public purpose which it serves, and so on). Libby was no whistleblower – far from serving as a check against abuse of state power, he (along with others) was part of a system of state corruption, abusing the very power that whistleblowing ought to protect against.

I raise this distinction in light of the release today of a draft letter by the GOP leadership in Congress condemning the leaking of information concerning secret U.S. interrogation centers abroad (which, if true, would constitute a gross violation of both domestic and international law), the existence of which the White House has not denied. Especially in light of Vice President Cheney’s insistence upon a legal waiver for the CIA to torture “terrorist” suspects abroad (also in blatant violation of both domestic and international law, save the casuistry of those seeking to redefine torture in a manner compatible with allow waterboarding and other repugnant practices), the charges in question are not at all implausible, and at least warrant further investigation (by a credible international authority – not another Congressional or military whitewashing of human rights abuses). The letter declares:

"If accurate, such an egregious disclosure could have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences, and will imperil our efforts to protect the American people and our homeland from terrorist attacks.”

The letter, which condemns the leak but not the illegal secret prisons (aptly described by critics as "gulags") whose existence the leak revealed, misses the point entirely. Whoever leaked the secret prison story deserved commendation as a whistleblower, not punishment. Secret detention centers, torture, and the other repugnant acts that are part and parcel of the so-called “war on terror” do nothing to “protect the American people and our homeland from terrorist attacks,” and are directly responsible for the increasing anti-Americanism that such anti-humanitarian policies generate (and are responsible for no useful intelligence, as information gleaned from torture is predictably unreliable). We are not any safer because our government secretly detains “terrorist” suspects or because our CIA uses interrogation methods that are clearly and rightly proscribed under international law, and there is good reason to think that we are considerably less safe as a result. Senator Frist and Representative Hastert should know this – they are observant enough to understand why Libby was investigated, and what his offense was – so the only motive that I can imagine for this letter is to tacitly endorse not only the secret prisons (which should be unequivovally condemned and the rule of law affirmed), but also the systematic violation of human rights that they represent, and the government secrecy in which they are cloaked.