. Released just a few weeks ago, the Senate Intelligence Committee report on torture shows that the CIA press office leaked classified information to preferred journalists in efforts to make the agency look good. Naturally enough, the CIA did not follow up on its illegal leaks by filing a crimes report on itself. What’s more, the last two CIA directors to leave the job — Petraeus and Leon Panetta — have eluded prosecution despite solid evidence that they leaked classified information. Panetta, whom Petraeus replaced, allegedly shared top secret information about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden with “Zero Dark Thirty” filmmaker Mark Boal. There is no indication that Panetta is in any danger of prosecution. Yet the government is going all out to imprison Sterling as a former CIA employee who allegedly leaked classified information that made the agency look bad. The stench of selective prosecution, though hard to miss, is routine. Few in government dare challenge or even question the vastly different treatment of authorized and unauthorized disclosures of classified information. The tacit rationales for selective prosecution end up ceding power to authorities to self-authorize the violations of regulations that others go to prison for violating. Selective prosecution also involves another great threat to democratic principles. For the informed consent of the governed, unauthorized leaks are usually much more in the public interest than the leaks approved from on high. The classified material that policymakers choose to dole out to the press often turns out to be deceptive — especially because other classified information that would provide a fuller picture has been kept from public view. High-ranking officials are all too eager to prosecute and imprison leakers for revealing policies that cannot withstand the light of exposure.
Posted on: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:43:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015