An Interesting Perspective on Leaks...

We at Blawgconomics have not been alone in our mixed feelings regarding the WikiLeaks saga. Is Julian Assange a criminal, or a journalist practicing free speech? Does he hate America? If he does, does it even matter? How does his personal life fit into the story?

Many other bloggers and analysts have expressed mixed feelings as well, perhaps very simply reflecting a desire to have transparency about the government which works for the people at the same time as we allow it to properly function. However whatever one thinks of the situation, even if their feelings are much more polarized than ours, most reasonable people can agree there are undoubted elements of hypocrisy in the way the government is handling it. Blawgconomics favorite Gregg Easterbrook offers his fresh take on the story, outlining some of this hypocrisy in his TMQ column this week:

Leaks Don't Come Out of the Sky: Is the WikiLeaks disclosure of Pentagon and State Department internal documents dangerous, by reducing U.S. military and diplomatic effectiveness? Or good, by pulling down the veil of secrecy around government? Obviously there are arguments on both sides. Here's what struck me. Last week this New York Times page-one story reported the Obama administration "plans to further step up attacks on al-Qaeda and Taliban insurgents in the tribal areas of Pakistan."

Maybe that's a good idea; maybe it's not. But as an item of information, the Times story is far more explosive than anything in WikiLeaks disclosures so far, most of which contain trivia and statements of the obvious. The Times story tells al-Qaeda and Taliban factions in tribal Pakistan that raids and air strikes will increase. The story is a warning of something about to happen, rather than a retrospective on prior events. And the story is sourced to unnamed "administration officials." That is -- the information was leaked by the White House or Pentagon.


Perhaps the purpose of the leak was to make the president sound tough at a time when his poll numbers are fluttering. Perhaps the purpose was to make the U.S. military sound powerful at a time when a $725 billion Pentagon budget request was awaiting approval in Congress. The purpose cannot have been to help American soldiers and air crew in the field. Their chances would be best if U.S. forces struck al-Qaeda and Taliban targets without warning, with nothing said by the White House or Pentagon until after the operation was over.

I don't question the Times' decision to run the story. What I question is White House and Defense Department officials denouncing Julian Assange when he publishes leaks that embarrass the powerful -- then merrily using leaks themselves when they think the powerful will benefit. If revealing government information is, on its face, an offense, White House and Pentagon officials who leak to reporters should be chased across the world and prosecuted just as vigorously as Assange.

Maybe the WikiLeaks idea is indeed wrong. But compared to White House and Pentagon officials who leak to the press when it suits them, isn't Assange -- who uses his name rather than hide behind anonymity -- the honest one?