New media
In the last couple of days, the Republican leaders of Congress have been piously demanding a full investigation into the sources of a Washington Post article about the Central Intelligence Agency's chain of secret prison camps. These same leaders have spent 18 months crushing any serious look at the actual abuse of prisoners at those camps, and at camps run by the American military. And for more than two years, they have expressed no interest in whether the White House leaked the name of a covert C.I.A. operative to punish a critic of the Iraq war.
So why did they jump on last week's article in The Post before you could say "double standard"? The answer is painfully obvious: G.O.P. leaders, doing the White House's bidding, are trying to shut down discussion of the policies that led to the horrors of Abu Ghraib and the C.I.A.'s "black site" prisons. They are also delivering an oblique warning to the Democrats who want the Senate to say more than the White House wants to be said about another sensitive intelligence matter: whether President Bush and his team hyped Iraq's weapons programs.
This new political drama makes an excellent case study for why it is so vital for news organizations to be able to give the public information that the government wants to suppress for political reasons. That sort of journalism depends on maintaining the confidentiality of sources. For that reason, we generally oppose leak investigations.
This page did support the independent investigation into the Valerie Wilson case - rather than having the administration continue its own inquiry - not to stop leaks, but to determine whether administration officials had abused their power and possibly endangered Mrs. Wilson, an undercover C.I.A. officer, to undermine her husband, Joseph Wilson. He had drawn the White House's ire by disputing one of the central and ultimately false justifications for war with Iraq: that there was an active effort by Saddam Hussein to get parts for a nuclear bomb.
The current talk of leaks is utterly different. The Post article provided powerful details that expand what we know about the camps and the abhorrent practices there. The administration and its allies in Congress want to suppress this information merely because they don't want a full accounting of how American soldiers and intelligence agents have been turned into torturers, and because the administration wants to go on abusing prisoners.
Some Republicans are saying The Post's article damaged America's image, harmed national security and jeopardized American soldiers and agents. We've heard that absurd attempt to blame the messenger before. It sounds particularly preposterous at a time when the administration is attempting to stave off attempts to outlaw the use of torture against prisoners.
The truth is that the damage is caused by the administration's underlying acts and policies, not by the news media's disclosures, which serve only to hold officials accountable for their actions. It is the secret camps themselves and the abuse and torture of prisoners that smear America's image and jeopardize Americans serving their country, not newspaper articles.
If Republican leaders in Congress want to open investigations that serve the public, they can back an independent investigation into the origins of the Abu Ghraib scandal - and they can take the handcuffs off the unfinished Senate investigation into the prewar intelligence on Iraq.
 
blamingt the messenger