Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Jeffrey Simons
Professor McGriff, S. C.
English Composition II
30 July 2018
When WikiLeaks released classified documents from the United States government in
2010, the American citizens were split between supporting the First Amendment and advocating
for National Security. While only a small percentage of the released information was actually
damaging and classified correctly, the damage caused reflected on the United States military,
political positions, and prison systems. Regardless of the damage done, the size of this information
leak resulted in very dire consequences for the source, which were later abridged by President
Barrack Obama. Attacks were made on the host wiki site that the documents were uploaded to as
well (Thiessen). This isn’t the first time a leak has happened. Events like the Watergate Scandal
kept journalists knocking at the doors of government agencies to expose suspected corruption in
the government, but those with experience as a member of the government will argue that the value
of secrecy is exceptionally evident. Where then, can we find a balance between the First
Amendment, and the people’s right to know what their representatives are doing, and National
Security, keeping valuable information out of hostile possession? While there are few methods
more effective in preventing corruption in the government, disclosure of secret documents can lead
to a more secretive government and hostile nations and people with an advantage in knowledge
should be addressed with an approach based on current and pending legal rulings and prescriptive
regulations.
Simons 2
When we look at reactions towards a specific leak of information, we aren’t looking solely
at the reaction given by the people. Such reactions result in a change of government favoring
freedom of expression such as the creation of the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO)
and the proposal of the yet to be enacted Free Flow of Information Act (FFIA)(Tatum). The ISOO
was established in 1978 shortly after the Watergate Scandal, and would be easily seen as a response
to prevent corruption in the government. The main assignment of the ISOO is to review the
classification procedure practiced by various agencies in the United States government. During
inspections, any information not properly classified can be reclassified and can also be reported to
law enforcement authorities as applicable. Tatum points out that the FFIA was proposed to protect
journalists’ sources who give classified information that benefit the nation as a whole, such as
Deep Throat for the Watergate Scandal. However, we also need to focus on the reaction of the
government. The result of the excessive pursuit of classified information has led to those accused
by ISOO to be tried in secret court cases where records of the trial are sealed (Weitzel). This
prevents the establishment and use of precedence, which makes our legal system inconsistent. It
also hides government corruption from the public while punishing individuals, preventing the
perceived loss of integrity of our government. Another more imposing reaction would be those
revolving around the Germans had they learned of the decryption of their Enigma machine.
Knowledge of this accomplishment would have led to the German Nazis using other means to
encrypt secret messages, forcing Allied Forces to crack the code again. Secrecy is obviously
necessary to prevent avoidable losses, and therefore the decryption was kept from the public to
minimize the chance of the Germans discovering the advantage the Allied Forces held (Lycett).
In effect, the exposure of many classified files, documents, and records goads the United States
government into a more moral approach to politics and encourages officials to stay aligned with
Simons 3
the public opinion at the cost of revealing to these same officials points of weakness in keeping
knowledge secret in the government despite attempts to give evidence of corruption the same
considerations for secrecy as the classified information that truly benefit the United States
It should be obvious what dangers can be made possible when information is leaked to the
American opposition. We were able to use the Enigma Machine against the Nazis in World War
II, and decoding the intercepted messages allowed us to know German plans beyond certainty and
facilitated plans and actions against the Axis powers. We have had over 175 known terrorist
attacks between 2011 and 2016 (Global Terrorism Database), and that doesn’t include the ones
that the government was able to disrupt without public knowledge. If our domestic operations
were leaked to the public, some of the insurgent attacks would have been more successful and
affected, injured, or killed more citizens. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)
have stolen our contingency plans for reacting to their aggression, and because of that, they have
a perfect understanding of what limits they can approach before they can expect a reaction from
our military forces. Analyses of units, equipment usage plans, and expected opposition will give
DPRK an idea of our capabilities. Certain forms of information can be detrimental to the
Acknowledging that exposing corruption can have both positive and negative
consequences regardless of which side of the argument is favored and that leaks can fuel and arm
aggressors against the nation should be enough to generate at the least some doubt to whether a
leak should happen. For some news stations, journalists, and websites, effects of their action isn’t
enough to dissuade their investigation and disclosure practices. The stereotypical journalist can
always be envisioned claiming that the people have a “right to know” (RTK). RTK was first
Simons 4
granted by the Administrative Procedure Act, which was replaced by the Freedom of Information
Act. In both cases, there is a list of exceptions that prevents journalists from obtaining information
(Freedom of Information). If the government does not give information freely, the journalist has
to find an alternative to obtain the information they want. Their right to obtain the information
without the government’s help is outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), which modified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Both of these
documents were written by the United Nations (Article 19), and the First Amendment to the
Constitution precedes them for American citizens. In all documents, there are limitations to what
information can be sought and iterated to the public. The Constitution does not grant the right to
seek or receive information from the government. In all documents, the limitations to obtaining
information is outlined: in the ICCPR, limitations are placed when concerning an individual’s civil
standing and when the nation or its operations (military or other) are put in jeopardy, and in the
Constitution, no permission is given at all. The American journalist then looks to the Freedom of
Information Act, which outlines nine rules to exempt information from being available to the
public:
The fabled “right to know” is not a factual right encompassing all information to be given to the
citizens of any nation and should not be used as a means to try to gain information from any
legal system.
What would be a fair method to both address leaks and prevent or at least demonstrate
consequences that would immediately impact those responsible? The Espionage Act of 1917
specifically outlines instances for which a source of leaked information would be punishable
through monetary fines, incarceration, and even death, depending on the severity. Most notable
about the Espionage Act of 1917 is that it does not cover all classified information but provides
consequences based on the effects and affected parties of the information leaked. There are groups
that believe the law violates the First Amendment, but as described above, the First Amendment
does not grant access to information held by the government. This opposition also brings up the
Sedition Act of 1918, which has long been appealed, to demonstrate that the Espionage Act of
1917 violated the First Amendment. However, the Sedition Act provides consequences for
speaking against the nation, whereas the Espionage Act responds to the theft or wrongful and
unlawful distribution of information that could be used against the United States and its various
agencies and departments. Any punishments for contemporary leaks should follow the spirit of
the Espionage Act and judge the leak of information based on the content leaked and the
consequences of the world learning this new knowledge, specifically in how hostilities are armed
and perpetuated, giving amnesty for the sources of information that does not contribute to
hostilities but instead benefits the nation. This is a balance between the freedom of expression
guaranteed in the First Amendment and the Security of the Nation, and should extend to cover not
Simons 6
only the source of a leak, but also those individuals, groups, and businesses that would perpetuate
the circulation of this information on a mass scale. In cases of foreign reiteration of damaging
information leaks, we should treat them as any nation that conducts propaganda against the United
States and pursue combined operations to disrupt their spread of information, provided the
Works Cited
Gerstein, Josh. "Preface to 'Should Those Who Leak Government Secrets Be Prosecuted?'."
Context,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010270170/OVIC?u=lincclin_sjrcc&sid=OVIC&
The Information Security Oversight Office. Information Security Oversight Office. 12 July
Lewis, Charles. "Freedom of the Press Is Threatened." Free Speech, Current Controversies,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010046250/OVIC?u=lincclin_sjrcc&sid=OVIC&
Schoenfeld, Gabriel. "Those Who Disclose National Defense Information Should Be Prosecuted
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010270291/OVIC?u=lincclin_sjrcc&sid=OVIC&
Tatum, Christine. "Journalists are Right to Report Classified Information that is Leaked to
Them." Media Ethics, edited by Julia Bauder, Greenhaven Press, 2009. Current
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010563211/OVIC?u=lincclin_sjrcc&sid=OVIC&
http://go.galegroup.com.db23.linccweb.org/ps/aboutJournal.do?contentModuleId=OVIC
&resultClickType=AboutThisPublication&actionString=DO_DISPLAY_ABOUT_PAG
E&searchType=TopicSearchForm&docId=GALE%7C6EOL&userGroupName=lincclin_
sjrcc&inPS=true&rcDocId=GALE%7CEJ3010883219&prodId=OVIC&pubDate=12014
The United Nations. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 16 Dec 1966.
The United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Ratified 10 Dec 1948.
The United States of America. The Constitution of the United States of America, Ratified 21 June
The United States of America. Title I: Espionage. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, Session I, Chapter
Weitzel, Pete. "Journalists Have a Duty to Fight Government Secrecy." Censorship, Volume
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010037254/OVIC?u=lincclin_sjrcc&sid=OVIC&