mjfdl, first, I'd like to note that you don't seem to want to discuss the logic of the concept that "defeating" the insurgency in Iraq would result in the unleashing of a host of terrorists intensely focused on attacking America and American interests. I know this runs counter to the "We have to win in Iraq to make America safe" mantra but the logic of the alleged classified report's conclusion certainly seems apparent.
You do, however, discuss whether such damaging conclusions should have been leaked, writing:
You are rationalizing something that is illegal and wrong. If the CIA thinks the administration is wrong they have to use proper and legal avenues to try to change that.
You should have written "illegal OR wrong." There are many things in life that are illegal but right and many things that are legal but wrong. The law is not the last word on morality. Life is too complex to fit neatly into a few all purpose rules and even the common law has long recognized that there are equitable defenses to violations of the laws. Some of those defenses include "necessity" or the "greater harm" concept which acknowledge that sometimes "breaking the law" furthers the purpose of the law.
Regardless of whether a violation of the law would fall under one of those defenses, however, it is my personal belief that each of us has a moral obligation in special circumstances to consider whether it is more "right" to break the law than to obey it. If the answer to that question is "yes," then the next question is whether the facts that make breaking the law "right" are so important that they make the possible punishment worth the risk.
Now let's take a look at the specifics of this possible "illegal" leak.
We have more than 2,000 dead in Iraq. Those are our men and women. We have tens of thousands of innocent civilians dead at our hands and their blood will forever weigh on the minds and souls of the men and women we sent over there. We have hundreds of billions of dollars poured into that hole that could have been used to make the world a healthier, more just and more peaceful place. And the single most compelling justification for continuing down that path is that to do so will make America SAFER while "losing" would endanger us all.
We've heard that tired mantra forever but it's being trumpeted more and more loudly now by Bush and his cronies. If I'm a CIA man and I know that there's a report out compiled by our best experts, that Bush and his people have access to that report and that the report concludes that "winning" in Iraq will actually unleash well trained, Darwin-selected waves of terrorists against the U.S. and its allies for decades to come, do you think I ought to consider whether it's my DUTY to raise the level of the national debate by leaking those facts?
You state that there are "legal avenues" available but that's simply naive or denial on your part. The legal avenues all lead through the White House, the same White House that's distorting the truth and classifying everything as "secret" that might reveal their distortion of the debate.
Look at the cherry-picking the White House did in the run-up to the war. They declassified the "mushroom cloud" types of intelligence while keeping a tight security lid on the "there's no mushroom cloud" dissents. That "legal avenues" argument is simply a dog that won't hunt.
So yes, I'd leak that report in order to empower the American people and their elected representatives to make an informed decision on whether or not "staying the course" in Iraq would somehow make them safer from future terrorist attacks.
I'd leak it because the White House was turning the facts on their heads and once again deceiving America by stifling the expert voices of dissent.
I'd leak it because the lives of the sons and daughters of America were being bled out in a land on the other side of the earth.
I'd leak it because the law wasn't my moral compass and my analysis and values would overcome my fear of punishment.
I'd leak it proudly and I'd pay the price if I had too, but I'd surely leak it.
And I'd wonder why I hadn't leaked "classified" information revealing the level of internal, agency dissent concerning the "mushroom cloud," fear mongering statements of the White House in the run-up to the war.
Because while "Bush policy is arguable," lying to the American people and distorting a critically important national debate by suppressing the considered opinions of our most expert analysts, is NOT arguable. That's just wrong and too damaging to a functioning democracy to sanction with continued silence.
But you wouldn't, would you? Ed |
