Copyright ©2012 NPR. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

DAVID GREENE, HOST:

It's MORNING EDITION from NPR News. Good morning. I'm David Greene.

RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST:

And I'm Renee Montagne.

More now on the controversy over leaked information of national security information. A controversy set off by reports of a kill list of terror suspects. Two prosecutors have been appointed to investigate whether laws were broken in leaks about cyberattacks on Iran and the decision making behind drone strikes. The director of national intelligence is expected soon to order new measures to fight leaks. And some members of Congress are proposing new anti-leaking laws they say will protect national security. But as NPR's Tom Gjelten reports, the issue is not clear cut.

TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: Here's an important point: leaking classified information is not necessarily against the law. A prosecutor has to prove the disclosure harms the United States or helps a foreign government. There may be times when an administration talks about an otherwise secret operation for legitimate strategic reasons.

With the killing last year of Osama bin Laden, the Obama administration knew the whole world would be drawing conclusions. Christopher Paul of the Rand Corporation says, under the circumstances, it made sense to divulge some details just to take charge of the narrative.

CHRISTOPHER PAUL: Recognizing that, gee, here's an operation that's going to send a message. What message do we want it to send? How can we present it in such a way or talk about it in such a way that it's closer to our broader strategic objectives?

GJELTEN: A top concern here is to protect intelligence sources and methods, maybe an ongoing operation. Officials also worry some foreign government won't trust the U.S. any more if its secrets aren't kept. But there's also the need for people to know what their government is up to. Steven Aftergood, a secrecy expert at the Federation of American Scientists, notes that government spokespersons, after careful consideration, routinely let some secrets come out.

STEVEN AFTERGOOD: Classified information is disclosed not to undermine or challenge policy, or at least not only for those reasons, but to explain it, to defend it, and to interpret it for the public.

GJELTEN: Some other cases: Joel Brenner, a former general counsel at the National Security Agency, notes that government whistleblowers may leak information to reporters in order to force a change in some policy or operation.

JOEL BRENNER: And then there are people who leak because the process of being courted by a reporter is so flattering, it so much increases peoples' sense of self-importance.

GJELTEN: Is that right?

BRENNER: Yeah, oh, definitely. They'll want to talk.

GJELTEN: The latest controversy involves disclosures about how the president and his staff choose the targets of missile strikes from drone aircraft, also the use of a secret al-Qaida agent to uncover a bomb plot. And, finally, a decision by Presidents Bush and Obama to use a cyberweapon to damage nuclear facilities in Iran. Joel Brenner says he sees a possible public interest only in the case of U.S. drone policy.

BRENNER: Spilling information about the takedown of a bomber in Yemen, on the other hand, or a computer network operation against the Iranians is a different matter.

GJELTEN: The director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, was so incensed by leaks about the Yemen bomber that he ordered an inquiry. An intelligence official says Clapper is now posed to authorize lie detector tests across all intelligence agencies if necessary in order to stop leaks. And he's expected to have the examiners routinely ask testees whether they have discussed classified information with a member of the press. Steven Aftergood, the secrecy expert, worries about an overreaction - by outraged members of Congress, for example.

AFTERGOOD: If Congress were to assert a hard line that each and every disclosure of classified information must be punished, a lot of the news gathering as we have known it would have to shut down.

GJELTEN: In 2000, Congress passed just such a law. But President Clinton vetoed it, saying it could have chilled legitimate activities that are at the heart of democracy.

Tom Gjelten, NPR News, Washington.

Copyright © 2012 NPR. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to NPR. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.

Comments

 

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Support comes from: