return to main page

Once again, while pursuing democracy in Iraq, are we forgetting what it is?

A case in point is the national dialogue on the two leaks that lead to Pulitzer prizes.  The leak to the Washington Post on the Eastern European prisons, and the leak to the NY times on the NSA wiretap program.

On NBC's Meet The Press, April 23 edition, for example, former Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers, Washington Post columnist David Broder, former Newt Gingrich Press Secretary Tony Blankely, and L.A. Times columnist Ron Brownstein, discussed the issue for several minutes. 

Granted, there are several sub issues involved, but Russert brought up the fact that Bill Bennett said those reporters ought to be jailed, and Brownstein stated that Bennett called the reporters actions traitorous.  Yet not once was it pointed out that the NSA wiretap program violated federal law. Not once was it pointed out -- unless the Commander in Chief clause is bizarrely interpreted to mean that during any war time, the separation of powers clause is magically suspended -- that the program probably violated the Constitution -- flagrantly.  Not once was it pointed out that the program itself granted the executive branch an unchecked power, with, additionally, no review program but by the very branch administering the power. Not once was it pointed out that all of this was done secretly, with no way for the American people to know about it. And not once was it pointed out that but for the leak to the NY Times, America would not be aware of this program.

Harry Truman once said, "Secrecy, and a free, democratic government don't mix." Have we forgotten?

Under our founding documents, our government derives its power solely from the will and consent of the government. This can not be freely granted, unless sacrificed, without knowing what the government is doing. If the government violates the Constitution, and does so clandestinely under the guise of national security, upon what basis is that consent granted? The outrageous view expressed by Bennett, perhaps confusing the essence of totalitarian and other dictatorial regimes with true democracy, that this was "traitorous," implies that in essence there is no check upon government power. Democracy -- and critically, checks upon the very type of power that led our founding father to pen the Constitution in the first place -- works through information. Information that may compromise National Security must be kept distinct from information, under the guise of national security, that keeps the American people from knowing what actions it does not grant voluntarily grant consent to, and more importantly, what actions may be in violation of our Constitution or the rights of American citizens under it.  While security versus a peoples' right to know may raise issues upon which reasonable people may disagree, security versus the Constitution, or the consent of the governed, is a different matter altogether.  This distinction is what democracy is all about, let alone what a democracy of limited, balanced, and checked government  -- as was our founding fathers' vision -- is all about.

With respect to the CIA leak, in another example of twisted logic, here Bennett also equates leaking CIA operative Valerie Plame's name, with leaking anything that the government labels covert (National Review's contrary take). Under this distorted reasoning, the government can not only engage in any activity it wants, but protect it from scrutiny from those from whom it derives its consent, merely by labeling it "covert." (This does not address the more difficult question of disclosure in the secret eastern prisons case.  If what we did, on the one hand, is wrong, but on the other, disclosure, while perhaps preventing us from continuing to do it, helps inform the world of perhaps ill received U.S policy, it becomes a tricky question with respect perhaps to specific instances. But just like the issue of negotiating with terrorists (one should never), when applied as a principle, it becomes easier to solve.  Covering up policy because it is potentially erroneous is not consistent with the sort of open, democratic society we are, should be, aspire to communicate to the world that we are, or that we encourage others to be.  Thus, if the policies in these prisons were erroneous, it is consistent with our democracy to address it, rather than cover it up.  If they were not erroneous, there should not be a problem with disclosure.)

return to main page