- The Washington Times - Saturday, February 5, 2005

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

First Amendment, Constitution of the United States.

On a flight to the West Coast last week, I sat next to a young, apparently well-read computer wizard who offered a flattering appraisal of my reporting for FOX News while I was embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Regrettably, he then picked up a review of the “Al Qaeda Reader,” a forthcoming compilation of writings by Osama bin Laden and his ilk detailing their hatred for the United States. Pointing to the book title, my traveling companion suggested the publisher should be “sent to join his friends in Guantanamo.” While I understood the sentiment, I’m sure I lost a fan forever when I disagreed. Here’s why.

The First Amendment of our Constitution continues sparking unremitting scholarly, political and legal debate on what James Madison, George Mason, et al. had in mind on religious liberty.

Yet, in those same erudite circles, unless it involves regulating broadcasts or disseminating child porn, almost no one suggests government regulate what can be published.

Even when the lives of others are put at risk, the United States, practically alone in the world, zealously protects purveyors of government secrets or classified information. Unlike our British brethren, we’re never going to have an “Official Secrets Act” — nor should we. The legacy of Tom Paine, pamphleteer, is that a “free press” is supposed to help check the power of government. But prosecuting publishers is different from locking up leakers. History is a pretty good guide — but who bothers with history?

In the summer of 1942, shortly after the Battle of Midway, Robert McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune and a bitter political opponent of Franklin D. Roosevelt, learned America’s first victory at sea in World War II had been achieved by breaking the Japanese Naval code. It was true, and though the information was highly classified, McCormick went ahead and published the story.

Roosevelt was apoplectic. He demanded that Attorney General Francis Biddle have McCormick arrested. He didn’t — Biddle knew that even under wartime censorship rules it would be a tough case to make. Further, Adm. Ernest King, the chief of naval operations, believed any acknowledgement that the story was correct might lead the Germans to change their codes, a risk he was unwilling to take. In the end, the Japanese stopped using their JN-25 code, but Germany continued using its code. Americans were at greater risk in the Pacific but were scoring victories in Europe, and McCormick continued enjoying the profits of his highly successful newspaper.

The problems of prosecution that Biddle and King saw in the McCormick-code case bedevils us today, and it will continue to as long as we mistake who the lawbreakers are and insist that the government exact retribution for what most of us consider deplorable — if not illegal — behavior.

Setting aside discussions of World War II censorship restrictions, the serious criminal wasn’t McCormick or even his reporter: It was the “leaker” — probably in Hawaii — who divulged the very sensitive information about our breaking the Japanese code.

Unfortunately, under the guise of protecting a “free press,” our courts have now all but decided that the “leakers” warrant equal protection with those who print the illegally provided classified information. To compound the crime, our media make “heroes” of those who “cour-ageously” obtain and publish classified information with no regard for the consequences — even when it means increased danger or death for U.S. servicemen. Wars seem to spawn such counterfeit champions.

There is no bravery in Seymour Hersh publishing the detailed information he claims came from uncorroborated, “high-ranking,” anonymous sources about U.S. efforts to collect intelligence in Iran concerning its nuclear weapons program.

If the story results in U.S. commandos or spies dying in Iran, who but their families will know or care? It happened before.

In 1975, Phillip Agee published the names of active and former CIA operatives. Among those named was Richard Welch, then the CIA station chief in Greece. Within weeks, Welch was killed by Marxist “November 17” terrorists in Athens. His son, a fellow Marine, CIA Director William Colby and I met his body as it was carried off the C-141 at Andrews Air Force Base.

It takes no courage for William Arkin, the author of the forthcoming book “Code Names,” to print for all the world to see coded information and classified data used to keep America more secure. To hype sales of his book, Mr. Arkin claims some of what he publishes is still classified. But he is protected unless he violated a nondisclosure agreement and our beleaguered Justice Department chooses to pursue the matter.

That, too, has happened before. In 1977, Frank Snepp, a former CIA officer, thought he could ignore nondisclosure agreements he had signed and ride the First Amendment to fame and fortune. He published “Decent Interval,” an anti-Vietnam War screed containing classified information he had sworn to keep secret. He lost the court battle and forfeited all profits but escaped the prison term he so richly deserved.

And therein lies the greater part of protecting sensitive information in this new world disorder. Forget prosecuting publishers. Don’t bother pursuing phoneys like Mr. Hersh. Insist that those who have access to classified information abide by the nondisclosure agreements they have signed. Use polygraph tests to randomly check on compliance — just like we check for drugs. When government employees break the law, indict them.

And as for the rest of us, just don’t buy trash like the “Al Qaeda Reader.”

Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide