Leaks, part and parcel of the Fourth Estate, were and are a tremendous irritant to the Bush Administration. Back in the early days of the War on Terror, Bob produced this piece on the pros, cons and mechanisms of the ever-present, and indispensable, Washington leak.
Also this week, Bill Gertz reported in the Washington Times that former NSA official Russ Tice had come forward wanting to testify about the spying program. Tice is quoted as saying in his letters to the House and Senate Intelligence Panels, "I intend to report to Congress probable, unlawful and unconstitutional acts conducted while I was an intelligence officer with the National Security Agency and with the Defense Intelligence Agency."
BOB GARFIELD: In the immediate aftermath of September 11th's carnage, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld faced the press to deliver an important message - not to America - not to the international community - not to the media - but to his own Defense Department. It was a warning about leaking classified information because "a leaker," Rumsfeld declared, "is a threat."
DONALD RUMSFELD: It's a person who's willing to violate federal criminal statutes and willing to frustrate our efforts to track down and deal with terrorists and willing to reveal information that could cause the lives of men and women in uniform.
BOB GARFIELD: Two weeks later, USA Today ran a page one story detailing U.S. special forces operations already proceeding on the ground in Afghanistan. Two weeks after that, President Bush was so infuriated at leaks from Capitol Hill that he tried to cut off classified briefings to all but a few members of Congress.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Some members did not accept that responsibility. Somebody didn't. So I took it upon myself to notify the leadership of the Congress that I, I intend to protect our troops.
BOB GARFIELD: In the end, the President had to back off because, by law, the administration must keep Congress fully informed on intelligence matters. To many inside the Beltway, though, it was the President who seemed to be out of the loop. In Washington, leaking is not only business as usual - it's a way of life.
SCOTT ARMSTRONG: What the President was saying is I can't believe that people are getting classified briefings and then leaking information. Come on, Mr. President! It's what happens every day.
BOB GARFIELD: Scott Armstrong is an investigative reporter, author and founder of the National Security Archive, a repository of declassified information. He says leakers are not only ubiquitous but necessary to journalism and democracy.
SCOTT ARMSTRONG: They're correcting things. Sometimes they're verifying things. This is how we get our information. It's an information economy.
BOB GARFIELD: And in the information economy, there is never a recession because there are too many journalists chasing too many bureaucrats and politicians with too many reasons to blab. One who reputedly did not blab was Leon Furth, the Vice-President's national security advisor in the Clinton administration and someone known for being maddeningly leak-proof. Furth says that was a matter of integrity and discipline. Discipline, however, diminishes geometrically with each additional individual entrusted with a given piece of information.
SCOTT ARMSTRONG: You have a small meeting. Everybody in that meeting is extremely responsible, and nobody likes leaks of sensitive information, but they all go back from that meeting to their buildings and they feel obliged to brief at least one or two other people who are very close to them and important to them operationally. And those people in turn brief one or two people who are important to them operationally, and pretty soon you have traversed six degrees of separation and the information has crossed the barrier and is in the public domain.
BOB GARFIELD: Beyond carelessness, a main category of leaks comes from disaffected insiders, bureaucrats or political appointees wishing to influence, debate, or expose blunders within their own agencies. And then there's a third variety - the vanity leak.
SCOTT ARMSTRONG: And that is that somebody has this information and just can't keep quiet about it and wants to talk about it as a way of basically showing off.
BOB GARFIELD: Reporters need to understand those various motivations in order to evaluate the substance of a given leak. But mainly they're concerned with the steady flow of reliable information. Bill Gertz is on the national security beat at the Washington Times. So successful has he been in reporting classified information that he was said to be the main target of the so-called Official Secrets Legislation introduced in - but so far, un-enacted by - Congress.
BILL GERTZ: You know, as we say in the news business, you're only as good as your sources, so we focus quite a bit on being able to circumvent the official public affairs bureaucracy.
BOB GARFIELD: If that sounds like a perverse game, that's because it's a perverse game whose perversity is rooted in the fact that official spokesmen mouth the carefully-parsed pronouncements of politicians who are worried about political consequences and therefore cannot be relied upon on any subject, including the weather. Even Leon Furth, the Clinton White House's Mr. Tight-Lips, acknowledges the credibility gap.
LEON FURTH: Dating back to Vietnam and Watergate, the press has had its reasons to be cynical about the motivations of government in wanting to keep information secret.
BOB GARFIELD: Even now, in the enlightened and transparent 21st century, the executive branch tends toward willy-nilly classification of innocuous information that properly belongs in the public domain. And when confronted by media organizations with leaked information for confirmation or comment, official Washington often reacts with reflexive cries of, "national security!" This often leaves media organizations with difficult choices. When asked to kill or alter a story, they have to decide is it really a matter of protecting military or intelligence personnel in the field or is the government just trying to shield itself from embarrassment or political fallout? And if the story is held, will it show up the next day in the competition, maybe with a spin favorable to the government? The Washington Times' Bill Gertz.
BILL GERTZ: I can remember in one case we had a story about a CIA officer who was having an affair with an Eastern European intelligence officer, and the CIA had asked that we not publish it, and we didn't. And within a week, the story came out in another news publication.
BOB GARFIELD: Some leaks, of course, are well-tolerated by administrations because the administration itself, for political or diplomatic reasons, has engineered the leak. Journalist Scott Armstrong.
SCOTT ARMSTRONG: If you can control the information and you leak it out selectively, you can control the press and you can control a public debate, that's the idea.
BOB GARFIELD: Leon Furth.
LEON FURTH: And I recognize the press has got a problem because there's an incident requirement for information and for visual images. But the country has a need. Now, is it the government's problem to solve this or is it the press' problem to figure out how to deal with it?
BOB GARFIELD: It's a conundrum, all right. But one answer might be to look elsewhere in the world where nobody dare leak and nobody dare publish and nobody knows what obscenity the regime is up to next. The citizens' protection is the responsibility of any government. Protection from the national government by a vigilant press and its confederates is a unique blessing of democracy. [MUSIC UP AND UNDER]
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Bob first reported that story for us back in 2001. Coming up, an orgy of self-congratulation. On the Media turns five.