This relates to the latest revelations about Trump casually compromising US intelligence gathering in a conversation with the Russians. This is not to in any way minimize what Trump did (or is alleged to have done, at any rate).
But ISTM that the greater harm was done by the WaPo themselves, plus the leakers. Because from what I’m reading (including in the Post, which I unfortunately can’t definitely link because I’m over my monthly limit, but which is probably here), the main damage is not from the fact that the Russians have this knowledge but from the fact that the Middle Eastern ally knows that the Russians have this knowledge via Donald Trump. So by publicizing this fact, the WaPo itself is creating the damage.
Again, not to excuse Trump, who is apparently clueless idiot in these matters as with so much else (allegedly he refuses to read intelligence reports more complicated than a single page of bullet points), but I don’t see why we would give a pass to the press and the leakers themselves.
What’s also striking is that - again according to the WaPo - the leakers informed them of such details that would endanger security or intelligence personal if they published it, so they didn’t. I don’t see what justification these leakers would have to release that type of info based on their trust in the Post. If there’s one thing that makes me wonder if perhaps there’s less to the story than meets the eye it’s this fact, as it suggests that these are people who would go to extraordinary lengths and stop at nothing to bring down Trump.
The argument could be made that it’s more important to prevent this from becoming a habit for the president than to minimize the damage from the event.
There are always decisions to be made between the public’s right to know and the potential for information to do harm. Printing that Trump revealed classified information that puts American allies and agents at serious risk doesn’t seem to have any potential to cause harm. The few details put out might increase that chance slightly, but they also increase the gravity and clarity of what occurred. Further, the information was already “lost” in a sense, when Trump said it to foreign representatives.
Reasonable question, and a reasonable debate, as to what specific details ought to be revealed by journalists. But the overall story is fine, IMO, and only a few of the details have any potential to cause harm.
This line of thinking could be used to stifle and hide any misconduct by a presidential administration. Nixon tried to cover up crimes committed by individuals he or his re-election campaign hired? Better not to report it, since the publicity alone would cause more damage to the country than the actual cover-up or the original crimes. People would lose faith in the system and foreign allies might not trust the president any more, particularly if he is politically embattled or is seen as lawless. Members of the Reagan administration (and possibly Reagan himself) authorized the secret sale of weapons to Iran in violation of U.S. law and sent funds received to a murderous but anti-communist Latin American regime? Best to leave it be, since the sales have already happened and publicizing it would not only undermine faith in the government and possibly jeopardize U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East or in Latin America.
It’s important to note that the Post itself did not print the classified information that was relayed by Trump to the Russians, despite apparently being given at least some of it (the location of the city in Syria) where Trump said that certain information was focused on.
Not sure if you read the linked article (or if it was the correct link, as above). But the point the WaPo made was that the main damage was from the fact that knowledge of this breach would undermine intelligence sharing with the US.
So the main damage was the knowledge of the breach, not the breach itself.
What you are calling the “greater damage” is diplomatic. An intlelligence partner is going to lose some faith in us. But the potential real damage is if the Russians figure out the source, decide they don’t like the Americans having that asset and pass the info on to people who can put bullets in heads.
In my reading, it wasn’t that there was a breach, it was printing that the breach included info that came from an ally. Which I think counts as a detail – “The President revealed classified info to Russian diplomats” vs “The President revealed classified info sourced from an ally to Russian diplomats”.
WaPo didn’t have to print a single word. The damage was already done by Trump in revealing the information to the Russians, who have competing interests. The source was immediately compromised and there will be direct and serious knock on effects because of president blabber-mouth.
I agree, especially with the point that once Trump chose to disclose it, it was “public” in an intel sense anyway. The only thing the paper did was bring the debate into the public sphere.
Of course, Trump has the power to decide policy issues like this. The President can choose to reveal intel to further whatever policy needs he sees fit to advance.
But the public also has the role of judging whether his reveal was the result of a sober and careful weighing of competing harms in a humanitarian cause. . . or a former real estate developer bragging about how much secret stuff he knows now.
Well under American law, the President has that right. But it goes in the face of long standing international intelligence sharing agreements. I doubt British Intelligence thinks Trump has the right to declassify anything they give him, just like the CIA probably don’t think the Prime Minister can declassify intelligence the U.S. shared with her.
On the contrary, I am sure they think he does have that right.
They may well also think that if he’s bloody fool enough to exercise that right, they should sharply curtail the quality of intel they share. But I’m confident they believe he has the right, and I’m confident the CIA believes May has the equivalent right.
Was the info automatically “declassified” when Trump released it?
I am sure that will be the line the Administration uses to defend itself- does not that apply also to the Press afterward?
Anyway, there is precedent (or as Mr. Trump would say, “president”) for Press release of classified information if it serves a greater purpose (eg Pentagon Papers).
Yes because there are people who think (with good reason) that Trump may accidentally start a nuclear exchange. This is not politics as usual, a narcissist with dementia has control of the US entire nuclear arsenal. Why would people want to bring Trump down? /s
You know, the 5,732,311th time conservatives go to the “Trump is a secret genius/has secret info who has good reasons for his seeming incompetence” well, you might find ‘the public’ a bit skeptical of the claims. We’re still waiting for any of his bizarro claims to turn out to be true in the non-Breitbart world.
Trump has proven himself to be dishonest, ignorant and incompetent. Whatever benefit of the doubt he may have had left when he assumed office on Jan 20, has been completely eroded. He is a liability. So yes, the public has the information needed to make a reasonably reliable judgement.