HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017213.jpg

4.2.12
WC: 191694

provide him with classified material. I do not know this to be a fact, but I have been told by
several experienced investigative reporters that this is how it is done—that without some
encouragement and promises of confidentiality and positive portrayal of the source, the leaks “dry
up.” When I read books by these authors, I can often surmise who at least some of the sources
are: they’re usually the ones who are portrayed positively in other parts of the book—quid pro
quo!

In other words, authors like Seymour Hirsh not only report the classified information given to
them by sources, they develop, encourage, and in other ways facilitate the continuing flow of
information—information which they know is classified and hence being illegally turned over to
them—from their “criminal” sources. An important difference is that Hirsh has a political agenda:
he publishes only information that serves that agenda. Assange, on the other hand, seems willing
to publish material equally critical of all governments. For engaging in such journalism, Hirsh
wins Pulitzer Prizes, gets invited to White House dinners and to lecture at schools of journalism
which teach these methods.

Woodward is different in some respects and similar in others. Whereas Hirsh’s sources tend to be
beauracratic dissidents, Woodward relies on high ranking members of the administration who
want their “spin” on the story he is publishing to a very wide audience. Some of those politicians
may be authorized to disclose the material, but certainly some are not, and much of the material is
classified (though it probably shouldn’t be).

Both authors recognize the reality that many, if not most “state” secrets are designed not to
protect the security of the nation, but rather to protect (and enhance) the reputations of the
incumbent officials. In this regard, I recall a joke that made the rounds of the Soviet dissident
community when I represented several of them in the 1970s. It is set during the period of the
Stalin Show trials, when a dissident is arrested for calling Stalin a “fool.” He wanted to defend
himself by showing that Stalin was indeed a fool, but he was cut off by the judge who said: “If
you were being charged with defamation, truth might be a defense.
But it is not a defense to what you are being charged with.” The dissident was taken aback and
asked the judge, “If I am not being charged with defaming Stalin for calling him a fool, what am I
being charged with?”

The judge responded solemnly: “You are being charged with revealing a state secret!”

Many current state secrets are really secrets whose disclosure would embarrass—properly
embarrass—office holders. Even the Solicitor General who argued for the Nixon Administration
to prevent publication of the Pentagon Papers later acknowledged this reality. That’s why
selective leaking and selective withholding of classified material is so damaging to truth,
accountability and historical accuracy. And that’s also why it is so prevalent in every
administration.

Wikileaks is different precisely because Assange is not publishing selectively in order to tell a
story favorable to one group or another. He has no political agenda. His goal is transparency for
the sake of accountability. With the exception of some names and addresses, Wikileaks has let

126

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017213