Dana Priest Live Chat

Main problem with Dana Priest's article yesterday exposing a classified CIA detention system: Not enough disclosed. From today's live chat:

Washington, D.C.: Dana-Congratulations on the amazing article. However, as a reader, one paragraph really jumped out at me:

"The Washington Post is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior U.S. officials. They argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere and could make them targets of possible terrorist retaliation."

Could you elaborate on your decision not to publish the names of the countries? Frankly, I find it amazing that The Post would withold such information from the public. Don't you have a duty to the public -- both American and foreign -- to report the news?

Dana Priest: The decision was made by our executive editor, Len Downie, after many hours, over many days, of conversation and debate with a small number of people, myself include. So I can't speak for Len on whether it was an easy decision, but it certainly didn't feel like it. To me, it was a question of weighing the relative benefit to the story of naming the countries (exposing an illegal act in that country, authenticating a program that's been denied by the administration and that rests of unnamed sources) versus the potential risks of naming the countries; most notably that they might decide to curtail valuable counterterrorism cooperation with the US and that they might be subject to terrorist retaliation. Using the formulation "several Eastern European countries" seemed to address the authenticity and impact question.

There's no arguing with reporters who disclose classified information. They wouldn't do it if they didn't believe in the goodness of their own reporting:

Columbia, S.C.: Great Work!

How do you answer critics who point out this may be a 'leak' that could potentially compromise national security, ala the Plame leak?

Dana Priest: I don't actually think the Plame leak compromised national security, from what I've been able to learn about her position. As for my article, we tried to minimize that by not naming the countries involved and, otherwise, no, I don't believe it compromised national security at all.

At all? Wow. So this isn't about weighing benefits and risks like the loss of cooperation on terrorism after all. It's a cost-free decision, for the Post, anyway. With reporters and Eastern European countries playing Clue over which ones are involved and the entirely plausible outcome (as Priests attests) that the facilities may be closed as a result, nevertheless, national security hasn't been compromised at all. "Other than naming the countries." For starters, this puts Priest in the position of having decided that the program wasn't producing any valuable intelligence at risk of being disrupted by its destruction. I envy that much self-confidence. Or maybe she was just writing a memo to the White House.

Most of the questions posted were love letters, but there were several along these lines:

Washington, D.C.: I find it quite alarming that more and more classified information is being released by leakers to people without a secrurity clearance or a need to know. There is a classification level for a reason, because release of this information could do varying levels of damage to our national security. What is the motive of releasing this information? It sounds as if there is some oversight and discussion going on within the proper channels.

Dana Priest: I believe the classification system is totally abused by this and previously administrations. That is also the finding of several bipartisan, independent commissions that have looked at this issue, as well as the office in charge of overseeing classification. "Proper channels" is an odd concept for journalists. The public are the "proper channels" in most cases. Although there are exceptions.

What's in that quip about "proper channels" that's grating me? Not sure. Elsewhere Priest says her goal is is "just to define a little better how the US is fighting the war on terror." But there's something of a game here. Reporters say their job isn't to suppress information, but to reveal it. Somebody else can worry about keeping secrets; now let the match begin.

But I guess a sense of detachment isn't in play here. Priest decided it was improper for this program to be classified, so she and her allies in the CIA exposed it. Oh, and check out an exchange near the end of the chat with "Washington, D.C." wherein Priest is amused by the evidently outlandish suggestion that her sources in the agency are trying to undermine Bush.