That title is rather vague. In fact, someone in the 'discussion' page for the article pointed that out, and several others concurred, including a user named rweinn, who wrote in 2006:
A title should identify the subject matter with precision. There have been more than 1 leak from the CIA in the past; it is likely there will be more in the future. Therefore the title "CIA leak etc." lacks necessary precision. rewinn
Now it is 2011. Jeffrey Sterling of the CIA is under indictment for an Espionage Act charge, the same law that a grand jury almost proferred against various members of President Bush's Whitehouse for disclosing the name of Valerie Plame to the media (specifically reporter Robert Novak).
It goes to show the importance of a name. It is a strange thing, funny in a way. People who were very critical of Novak and Mr Bush's associates are quite likely, in the modern day, to have very different opinions on these principles when James Risen (the reporter Sterling talked to) may be in trouble.
Why is that? It is because of the politics. Mr Novaks critics are more likely to be part of the Democratic Party, and Mr Risen's critics are more likely to be part of the Republican Party. It is an interesting arena to watch the principles of American government at work.
Since members of all political parties have historically 'leaked' and 'disclosed' information for political purposes, going all the way back to the 1700s, it becomes difficult for them to argue, on principle, that giving out government secrets is inherently bad.
The fact that the parties switch off running the Executive branch also contributes: when members of one party appear before the court of public opinion to plead their case, then the public remembers what that party did when it held power only a few years previously. The party finds itself unable to argue that it holds dear the principle of secrecy when the party itself so recently violated the principle.
And yet. We have this name on this wikipedia article. CIA leak scandal. CIA leak controversy. It links these two disparate political groups, across 5 years of time, by the accidents of history. There was a 'leak', there was a controversy, there was the CIA, and there was a reporter, but so many other details have been flipped. Many who were for would now be against, and many who were against will now be for, on a number of important questions. Freedom of the Press, the importance of secrecy, and so forth and so on.
Where, then, are the underlying principles?
References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_leak_grand_jury_investigation (note: by the time you read this, the page may have been moved to a new name. But in 2011 it was as thus described)
No comments:
Post a Comment