A Leak of Consequence

Jessica McBride compares the leak that the government "is spying on Americans" with the Plame-is-a-CIA-operative leak. The difference? Revealing that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative came at a time when her position with the agency was arguably well-known and not so covert while the leak of NSA intercepts came at a time when they serve as an important tool to preventing future terrorist attacks. And McBride points out that in the case of the former, the leak led to media coverage attacking the leakers. In the latter, the coverage focuses on the details of what was leaked, shedding more light on what should have been kept in the dark in the first place. In all fairness, the motivation behind the coverage in both cases is obviously political. Unfortunately, that motivation comes from left-of-center each time.

The end result is that the media attacks the leakers when an opponent of Bush is the subject of the leak, but when a policy of Bush's is the subject of the leak, the media attacks the policy.

Should secret spying be reviewed to assure it falls within the scope of legality? Absolutely. But if it's ultimately determined to be legal, and leaking the information is determined to jeopardize an entirely legal (albeit controversial) act and, in turn, national security, the same scrutiny must be placed on the leakers as took place with Plame.

I'm not holding my breath.