The Right to Know vs. National Security

By Barry McCaffrey, Daniel Benjamin, James Bamford, Bill Bennett, Timothy Naftali

GENERAL BARRY McCAFFREY, U.S.A. (RET.) Former U.S. drug czar In the 10 years since I've been out of uniform, I've been increasingly aware that without an aggressive free media publicizing shortcomings in government, this nation would work ineffectively at its public business. [The press] talking about a generalized vulnerability we have--that trains aren't protected--and railing against it sufficiently is more likely to protect us than put us in peril. If you publish diagrams of network computer switching, that wouldn't be the case.

DANIEL BENJAMIN Senior fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies I remember when I was at the National Security Council working on terrorism issues, the cooperation of another country on issues of rendition was leaked in the press, and as a result that country didn't cooperate with us for quite a while. When you're dealing with a fairly routine thing like rendition, I would hope the media wouldn't run it because it does damage national security. If there's a strong prima facie case that government is engaging in possibly illegal activity, then the press has a responsibility to go with it.

JAMES BAMFORD Author of A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies I far more trust the press than I do the Administration with judgment of what should be secret and what shouldn't. How many scandals has the Administration uncovered on its own? It was the press that uncovered Abu Ghraib, the massacre at Haditha, the abuses at Guantanamo. I think the press has been very responsible in the past. When I was at ABC, we always checked with the Administration in power when we thought we had something of concern, and there was usually some way to work it out.

BILL BENNETT Host of the radio show Bill Bennett's Morning in America The reporting from the mainstream media has been shameful and biased. There's a disposition to believe any bad news, whatever the source, and an indisposition to believe the good news, no matter how reliable. The media reward themselves for leaking classified information--which may be a violation of the law--give Pulitzers for that. We're in a war, and I don't think a lot of the media think we're in a war. They think that it's some kind of skirmish, largely contrived by the Bush Administration.

TIMOTHY NAFTALI Author of Blind Spot: The Secret History of American Counterterrorism I think the media have not played a helpful role. I'm convinced the media have been an unwitting handmaiden to those who play upon people's fears. If there is a shred of possibility of a dirty-bomb attack, the media will report the possibility without knowing the odds. The media want to be fair to both sides, but they should attempt to get at reality. I'm a threat skeptic. The organizations we're facing now aren't military-like. They're much less organized. The training camps are virtual. I suspect they're much less likely to acquire and deliver WMD than al-Qaeda was in its heyday. I fear we lack public information to have this debate. And without that, we can't figure out if we're in the right spot between security and liberty.