| Global Freedom Institute |
| National Security Leaks: Political Distraction or Substantive Concern? By Tony McWilliams The last week has been politically charged with �leaks� of intelligence information and the blame game. Who dun it? But the bigger question is why do we care? The Bush Administration has focused on leaks being so horrible because the NSA information that a phone call was recorded by the NSA on 9/10 that indicated attacks were coming on 9/11. They have charged that the very leaking of this information risks our ability to collect this information. But does this charge really have any truth to it? Let�s look at the information and how it was collected. First, the information was simply that attacks were coming on 9/11. Does this give out any information that is detrimental to �National Security�? Not really. We all know that attacks happened on 9/11 now. This is no secret. And we know that there were clues as to the attacks that were either not connected or were ignored by some or all levels of the intelligence community and/or the Bush Administration. Let�s look at how the information was collected. According to the reports, the NSA got the information off of a cell phone that was tapped. Is this a secret on collecting information? Not at all. When asked last year if bin Laden was alive, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld indicated if he were dead, we would have heard radio and cell phone traffic that would have indicated his death. In other words, it was no secret that Al Qaeda radio and cell phones were being listened to. Even reports of the AWACs planes borrowed from NATO allies after 9/11 indicated that those planes would be tracking aircraft and monitoring airwaves for information. This is nothing new. So why are we worried about the leaks of this latest report? It is obvious the method of gathering information was known publicly long before this. It is obvious that the public knew that Al Qaeda and suspected Al Qaeda phones and radios would be monitored by the intelligence community not only in America but globally. It is obvious we had clues about 9/11 prior to 9/11 and that we knew the attacks happened. So what is so sensitive about this information that would cause concern for �leaks�? The answer is obvious. There is only so much information about prior knowledge of 9/11 that the American public will take before it stops ignoring the possibility that the Bush Administration did know and didn�t act. The Bush Administration knows that true or not, the public doesn�t respond to truth, it responds to perception. Gary Condit is a similar case. There is no public evidence linking Condit to Chandra Levy�s disappearance, but the very perception that there might be a link killed his political career. The Bush Administration is very concerned about such an issue. The Bush Administration�s very concerns raise two key issues: why is secrecy so important and did they really know? It is obvious that this information is nothing that either hurts intelligence gathering, or that it is highly classified information contained in the message. Yet, it was considered highly secret. Why? What is it that America has for secrecy? While we don�t know what is secret because it is secret, but let�s consider some of the things that we knew to be secret and now aren�t to determine if the secrecy is needed. -SR-71. This aircraft was kept a secret for over 15 years publicly. The concern: someone might realize we have a high altitude, ultra fast spy plane. Yet, the Soviets had seen the plane flying over their country and knew about it. It wasn�t secret to them. So why keep it secret from the American public? -Tactical nuclear weapon deployment to Afghanistan. As America was moving to Afghanistan for the recent attacks on the country, President Bush made an agreement with President Putin of Russia to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Afghanistan for potential use in response to chemical or biological attack if necessary. This was reported in several international newspapers, and known in many countries, but not reported in the United States other than on The Bond Fire. Why? Why was it so secret? It is a normal deployment for combat situations where there is such a threat. There are two such cases where America would probably have supported the actions taken; yet it was held in secret for the sake of keeping secrets. There is little reason to have kept either of those secret, other than to deny their existence and to not give specifications. Yet, the government could have easily admitted their existence without giving specifications. But what about policies we disagree with? -Japanese attempts to surrender in World War II. While not published at the time, the Japanese attempted to surrender to the United States 7 times in the month before we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Obviously, this was held quiet to justify the very attacks on the two cities by saying �it saved the lives of American men in an invasion.� Yet, the acceptance of any one of the 7 unconditional surrender requests by the Japanese would have made both cases unnecessary. -American involvement in Afghanistan in the 1970s. What is known is that we supplied aid to groups to fight the Soviets in the 80s. What is held in secret, but is released for knowledge around the world and written by some American authors is that the Afghanistan leaders were leftists and America did not want a leftist elected government in control. So bin Laden and his soldiers were sent in before the Soviets were there and the Afghani government asked the Soviets for help against the terrorists that opposed the government. The reason not to tell this small timeframe detail is obvious: America does not want to be known as the government that overthrows other governments. Until now that is. Page 2 |
|