The courage of restraint

It seems we almost did it, once again. The capture of Khalid Sheik Mohhamed unearthed a "treasure trove" of information about the inner workings of al-Qaeda, exposing possible plots and pinpointing the location of high-ranking terrorists. Even bin Laden's location was reported to have been narrowed down to a very small radius in the tribal areas of western Pakistan. A small victory had been won, and a great victory seemed to be at hand. However, all this hope has so far come to nothing as bin Laden has once again managed to slip through our fingers. It seems like every time we have credible information regarding bin Laden's whereabouts he is gone before we can act. With all the millions of dollars America spends on intelligence, how can bin Laden stay one step ahead of us? How does bin Laden even know that the CIA is hot on his trail?

Easy: he goes to CNN.com and reads it right off the headlines. The way the press handles sensitive information cripples our ability to capture terrorists. In order to better fight terrorism, our society must learn restraint in its distribution of information and stop tipping off the wrong people.

Unfortunately, it's hard to keep secrets in a democracy. The free press is one of our most cherished institutions, and one of the pillars of our government. Without a free press, there would be no reliable sources of information with which to make informed decisions about government. However, common sense must be used in exercising the liberty granted to us. In recent months, journalists have been performing a great service to those who would harm us by printing extremely sensitive information that could have led to bin Laden's capture. If anyone can simply go on the internet and check credible information regarding where bin Laden might be found, it is obvious that bin Laden can do the same. This makes bin Laden almost impossible to catch. If the information on CNN matches where he is actually hiding, he can make a hasty retreat. If not, he can rest easier knowing that America is looking in the wrong place. The longer the wild goose chase persists, the more money — and, possibly, lives — our failure causes. Until we catch bin Laden, we are in a state of perpetual insecurity.

The solution is a simple one. The author is not suggesting that we curtail the rights of the press to win the war against terrorism. In fact, limiting the rights that protect our society from tyranny would be a great victory for the terrorists, for we would become more like them in limiting free speech. However, there is a difference between cherishing a right and exercising it beyond its logical extreme. News agencies should worry about more than getting the most viewers or selling the most newspapers; they should also worry about doing what is right for the society that they serve. In the past, there was a tacit understanding between politicians and the press regarding the divulgence of sensitive information. Since Watergate, this understanding has broken down. However, in the deadly war against terror, news agencies must return to their Cold War practices and reinstate restraints upon themselves in order to protect our vital interests.

Even more disturbing than the lack of restraint on the part of the press is the ease with which the press gains access to such critical information. Government indiscretion runs rampant in the Bush administration, and there are no shortages of "unnamed government officials" eager to share their secrets with reporters. Of course there are many intended government leaks to the press, and this condemnation naturally does not extend to authorized leaks. However, the officials who leak classified information without authorization should be caught and punished, for they are in effect doing the same job as al-Qaeda spies inside the government.

Of course, I could be completely wrong about this. It is possible that the effects of all leaks to the press are meticulously calculated in Karl Rove's head, and that there are no indiscretions in our government. It is also possible that the government feeds the press a certain amount of misinformation in order to mislead bin Laden into thinking he is safe. Yet this is unlikely. Donald Rumsfeld's exasperation with informants in his own department several months ago indicates that leaks are a serious problem. As much as we are happy when reading that bin Laden may soon be caught, the feeling pales in comparison to how happy we will be when he finally is caught. I would instantly trade my day-today knowledge of the search for bin Laden for even a minute increase in the chance that he will be brought to justice. If CNN and the Associated Press come to realize what effect their reporting has on our hunt for bin Laden, they might return to being just news agencies and not unsuspecting agents of terror.

David Sillers is a politics major from Potomac, Md.