We (the people, congress, executive, etc.) are demanding that these agencies share their information and break down the barriers to sharing.

It occurs to me that the more sharing there is the more leaks there will be, including a few that sharing enables that are malicious and likely more that are just inadvertent – normal accidents.

Should we have to bear those additional risks of sharing, or is it possible to create some framework that doesn’t damage the first amendment while giving these (very human) agencies a “do over” (mulligan)? i.e. “I’d like that back please.” With those that stumble over things that average reader would think should be secret be obligated to check with the appropriate authorities first?

Any chance the press would cooperate? I know the average citizen would, as seen when they find money (or secrets) in the street, they almost always “do the right thing.”

I’d support an official secrets act given suitable congressional (and regular) review of what’s being protected (in my interest). And rather than a criminal punishment, perhaps allow civil liability judgments (i.e. “someone died, you’re the deep pockets MSN company that published the materials that a jury believes contributed to that death, pay up.”)

Isn’t leaking “sensitive” information, i.e. that which could hurt the national security or important government operations, as corrupt as what Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen did? Our media have substituted political loyalty for loyalty to the nation. They can’t fail soon enough for me.

We have a system of elected representatives. They, not the arrogant press, have been given the responsibility and capability of determining national policy. When the press circumvents that democratically granted capability, though these leaks, it is attacking representative democracy. It empowers the unelected bureaucrat to override the elected official. That attack on democracy is just as dangerous as suppressing a free press.

The press deserves some protection. Otherwise, even more information will be classified for political reasons. But when disclosing the information will endanger a policy, the framers of which believe is important to national security, then the reporter should pay.

Your cynicism is probably justified. I once thought some twenty years ago that Woodward and Bernstein would have vigorously investigated the Watergate scandal regardless of which party was in power. No longer am I so naive. I am now utterly convinced that Ben Bradlee would have discretely stopped everything if a Democratic administration were in jeopardy. Was this an overt conspiracy? No, this sort of nonsense goes on subconsciously. Everybody is on the same page—and nobody has to say anything.

If so, would Dana Priest feel obliged to return her Pulitzer–the Pulitzer for which taking dictation would then seem to be the apparent effort taken? And would the Pulitzer committee change its evaluation criteria?

One can only wish.

Maybe I’m just a cynic, but I can’t help thinking that if somebody tried to “blow the whistle” to Priest during a Democratic administration, then a) the story would not see the light of day, and b) word of the attempted leak would make its way back to the whistleblowers boss in short order.

We should negotiate with some half-friendly destitute country (hopefully with strict Sharia) who, for some small sum, will automatically confer citizenship to any we exile (to remove any legal objection to unreasonable punishment since we will not be making them a “person without a country.”)

Then we should revoke these miscreants’ citizenship, give them a one-way plane ticket, and wish them well.

For those who want to claim that she is a whistleblower and a hero there is one thing they should keep in mind. Someday, maybe soon, a Democrat is going President. And more then likely that President will be involved in a war or intelligence operation that could politically divisive. And, since our intelligence agencies have never been able to stay away from the nations political battles and have internal political struggles of their own, they have set up a standard where agency employee’s are allowed to try to sabotage any war effort or intelligence operation they deem unworthy by leaking selective info to the press.It also allows those employee’s the ability to cripple political races for national office by a well timed leak. Or if they think they can cripple an internal rival by leaking embarrasing info and thus cripple a seniors career by leaking they will. How we handle this case could set up a system that will destroy our ability to conduct intelligence operations for decades.