The New York Times and Los Angeles Times assert that they have a right to publish wartime operations if there is, in the newspaper's opinion, significant public "need-to-know" about them. Here's an example of a World War II operation that was shrouded in the utmost secrecy and placed thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of US civilians in harm's way:
In 1942, scientists under the leadership of Enrico Fermi build an atomic pile under a stadium at the University of Chicago. Essentially, it was an unshielded nuclear reactor in the heart of a major city. They had only Fermi's calculations that it would all go to plan -- if it had gone wrong, it could have been a Chernobyl in the country's second-largest city. It was sited there because their first choice was unavailable and they were in a hurry -- there was a war on. As it turned out, the pile never had a problem and produced a self-sustaining and controlled reaction in late 1942, proving that plutonium could be manufactured by such a method.
Now, if a newspaper, say the Chicago Tribune, had been leaked this information by a disgruntled team member and published it, they could well have cited overwhelming public concern with such a dangerous project in a populated area. Certainly the danger was there. But it would have blown the cover off the most important secret wartime project in history. Does anyone doubt that FDR would have arrested the paper's management and interned them? The only real question is whether there would have been a trial.
Now, the comparison of the Manhattan Project to the current situation may be overwrought, but it illustrates that simple claims of public interest, questionable legality, or even strong public safety concerns does not, in and of itself, allow newspapers to expose secret government activity, especially in wartime.
This is a government of laws, not men, and just because a few men run a major newspaper does not give them the right to overturn decisions of democratically elected officials. Even if they voted for the other guy.
Update: Patterico, of course, is all over this.
Update II: The secret behind the bombing of Coventry would also qualify, I think. Churchill knew that Coventry was targeted, due to having broken the German codes, but judged the continued reading of German communications more important than saving several thousand British civilians.
Posted by Kevin Murphy at June 27, 2006 08:59 AMYou leave this reader wondering why there aren't more of you with much higher profile. Durn, making sense is so under-valued. Mine isn't the only government that needs to be supervised, but the MSM is not the man for the job... or the woman for that matter... maybe not even the dog. But, I stray. *grinz* I want to know what's going on *when it is appropriate*. Any operation still in play is to be left untouched by the untrained until it's over. Sure, there's a lot the Army does that is not a secret, but we aren't allowed to know which tools are being chosen, when they'll be launched, and who will be kicking the door down. Same idea. Tell me about it when it's over and then, maybe not yet. If a procedure is wildly successful one time, I'd like for it to be used again.
And I love how the New York Times (and Wall Street Journal and LA Times) actually defended themselves by claiming that they didn't report anything that wasn't already out there. For free. A while back. Long time ago. No charge to find on your own. Attention subscribers: demand a refund, your periodical just sold you a bridge.
But we all know that is not the point. They betrayed us, and they know it.
You be bookmarked.