Endorsements and editorials are made solely by the ownership of this newspaper. As is the case at most newspapers across the nation, The Spokesman-Review newsroom and its editors are not a part of this endorsement process. (Learn more.)

Editorial: Latest leaks done with little time for review

Wed., Dec. 1, 2010

If President Barack Obama’s opinion that the latest round of WikiLeaks constitutes an attack on the United States seems harsh, how would one characterize the view of former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee?

Whoever made some 250,000 diplomatic cables public should be executed, according to the ex-governor of Arkansas.

Nearly 40 years ago, many Americans held similar views about RAND analyst Daniel Ellsberg, the one-time Marine whose conversion from Vietnam-era cold warrior to anti-war activist led him to turn 7,000 pages of classified documents over to the New York Times and more than a dozen other newspapers.

So is Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, the suspected leaker, a latter-day Daniel Ellsberg? What about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who passed the classified information along to several media outlets?

Hardly, and hardly.

Not that government is above reproach when it comes to hiding legitimate public information behind a wall of bogus national-security claims. The Pentagon Papers episode proved that. But what’s missing in the current incident is a reasonable process for determining what’s a valid secret and what isn’t.

Much of the information that has burst into public awareness has a gossipy ring to it. Some is largely the embarrassing disclosure of insulting remarks about and among foreign leaders. Nothing about troop movements. Nothing about weapons designs.

In a society based on democratic principles, suspicion of government is not merely reasonable, it’s essential. At the same time, there must be enough confidentiality to protect the nation’s interests. Discerning the difference is impossible when decisions are being made at cyber speed.

Ellsberg photocopied what became the Pentagon Papers in 1969, documents that demonstrated the Johnson administration had lied to the American people and to Congress about why the Vietnam war was being fought and what the chances of victory were.

Ellsberg appealed first not to the press but to several members of Congress, such as war critic Sen. William Fulbright, asking them to publicize the information through the immunity afforded a member of Congress by the Constitution.

Even after he went to the New York Times, the newspaper consulted with legal advisers, and there was a weeks-long battle with the Justice Department before the U.S. Supreme Court finally got the case and quashed efforts to prevent publication. The Times finally went to press on June 13, 1971. It took another two years before criminal charges against Ellsberg were dismissed.

Ellsberg himself says some of today’s reactions are overboard but predictable – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s charge that the leaks put lives at risk, for example. But he believes it’s too early to judge how much harm or good the leak will do.

That’s the crucial point. Ellsberg took the time to consult his conscience and contemplate his actions. He reached a reasoned conclusion about what his sense of honor told him was in the nation’s best interest. If either Manning or Assange followed such a pattern, there’s no evidence of it yet.