Trust, leaks and the worries about indicting Assange

Legendary journalist Walter Lippmann had sources in the highest places in Washington. Some evenings would find Lippmann seated opposite President Franklin Roosevelt in the Oval Office and Roosevelt would toss a classified cable at Lippmann and ask: "What do you think?"

Lippmann would give his counsel, but not write about what he had read in that cable. He would not break that trust or, most certainly, destroy his most important relationship.

That kind of relationship between officials and journalists goes on every day in Washington and journalists still keep those confidences. It takes years to develop these kinds of relationships and veteran journalists will not blow up a source relationship for one headline that will soon be subsumed by the churn of the daily news cycle. This exchange of information helps those journalists understand what is happening and the American people benefit from that knowledge.

Conversely, one of my former ambassadors referred to Washington as the world's largest colander, in that leaking is also a daily occurrence. People leak information - some of it classified - to journalists for a variety reasons. It might be a trial balloon or an effort to sabotage a potential policy. Or, sometimes it is just a matter of ego. "Look what I know!"

Roosevelt expected Lippmann to respect the ground rules they had established over many years. Leakers, on the other hand, expect that the information they provide will be made public to achieve their aims whether it is pure politics or an attempt to blow the whistle on government activity that they believe is illegal or unethical.

WikiLeaks takes this philosophy to the extreme, based on the idea that no government secrets are sacred, and that distinction is at the core of the government's case against WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange. Interestingly, the Assange indictment is narrowly focused on his role in helping former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning attempt to crack a classified system - apparently unsuccessfully. It does not focus on WikiLeaks' role in publishing thousands of classified cables.

Most assuredly, Justice Department lawyers understood that in the past the Supreme Court has staunchly defended the First Amendment rights of a free press to act as a check on the government. However, even journalists and free-press advocates are more than uncomfortable with Assange's extreme methods and fear his case could be used to chip away at those rights.

The court's support for the right of the press to publish leaked materials had one its most forceful expressions in the 1971 Pentagon Papers case (New York Times v. United States) when Justice Hugo Black wrote in the majority 6-3 decision:

"In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government."

And …

"The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security … ."

Manning might have thought of herself as justified in arranging for the publication of that information and clearly Assange gave little to no thought about the lives that might be put in danger - especially those who were cooperating with U.S. authorities in conflict zones in Afghanistan and Iraq - or the confidential diplomatic relationships that would be upended. Once leaked, major American media outlets published some of the revealed information, no doubt after consultations with their in-house attorneys.

However, as the extradition of Assange goes forward, the journalistic community in the United States will be watching warily. They fear that pursuit of the Assange case could be used to try to chip away at First Amendment freedoms, especially given the adversarial relationship this Administration has with the media. In a remarkable speech earlier this year, Chief Justice John Roberts asserted that he was the strongest defender of First Amendment rights on the court. If and when the Assange case begins its journey through the courts, the American media and those who understand how crucial those rights are to our democracy will be watching closely to see if that is so.

Keith Peterson, of Lake Barrington, served 29 years as a press and cultural officer for the United States Information Agency and Department of State.