By Bob Gaydos

Airman Jack Teixeira

     I suspect I am not alone in wondering how, in the name of Jack Ryan, a 21-year-old Massachusetts Air National Guardsman trying to impress an online gamer chat group called Thug Shaker Central, got his hands on hundreds of pages of top secret intelligence briefings on the war in Ukraine, U.S. spying on Russia and lots of other countries (friend and foe) and posted it online, thereby presenting a potential whopper of an international crisis and a not-so-small for-real embarrassment for the Pentagon.

   I also wonder how, in the names of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, a young man who was part of the military, intelligence and computer communities, could not (if the allegations against him are true) appreciate the potential risk in human lives of exposing such information to the worldwide web. How could he not process the difference between real life warfare and video gaming?

    And finally, I wonder how, in the name of basic common sense, could a young man apparently unable or uninterested in making such vital national security distinctions be granted access to so much “secret” information?

     More, as they say, will be revealed, but we already know enough to be concerned.

     So far, there are apparently two threads of “explanation” coming from Pentagon and intelligence services:

1. Yes, the information leaked was important for military and intelligence gathering reasons, but their dissemination is survivable. Ukrainian officials are even said to be glad for the leak, because it exposes their true need for more military support.
2. Young people in the military are given all sorts of important responsibilities and are expected to abide by the rules. In fact, they are essential to the storing and processing of all sorts of important intelligence material.

    This is all sorts of troubling. President Biden has ordered a review of the process of granting clearance to classified material. The Pentagon says it will do so. But what exactly will it do?

      Reassessing the actual classifying of documents would be a good place to start. How many secrets do we actually need? The people who collect them are likely to always think they need more. Maybe some outside eyes are needed.

       Then there’s the issue of who gets to actually look at the secrets. Is it crucial for a 21-year-old living on Cape Cod and serving in the National Guard to have what appears to be easy access to classified reports on the war in Ukraine and USA spying on Russia? Was there anything in his background to suggest an inability to comprehend that casual dissemination of the material he was privy to was a serious crime?

     The airman, Jack Teixeira, apparently knew what he did was against the law, the FBI says, because he was searching the topic of  “leaks“ on the web the day before he was arrested. 

    In response to the online leaks, the Defense Department is reviewing its processes to protect classified information, reducing the number of people who have access, and reminding the force that “the responsibility to safeguard classified information is a lifetime requirement for each individual granted a security clearance.” So said Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks in a memo issued following Teixeira’s arrest.

     That’s all well and good and necessary. But the Defense Department also admits that it has long been concerned about the proliferation and popularity of video war games with many of its younger members and cites its inability to monitor such games for any illegal activity. That’s the purview of the FBI. It’s probably safe to assume that some agents will be working on their video gaming skills in the near future.

    Meanwhile, Airman Teixeira, apparently well-schooled in the victories and defeats of virtual reality, is about to get a crash course in real-life consequences. Wonder if he’ll notice the difference.

rjgaydos@gmail.com

Bob Gaydos is writer-in/residence at zestoforange.com.      

By Bob Gaydos

When Barack Obama was running for president, he promised an administration that would be the most transparent of all time, one that would make sure the public was aware of how its government was operating — who was doing what and why.

It appears the president meant that openness to apply to those branches of government not under his direct or indirect control. Before the news broke this week that the Justice Department had used a secret subpoena to seize the phone records of up to 100 reporters and editors for the Associated Press earlier this year, the Obama administration had already set a record for indictments of present or former government officials accused of being either whistle-blowers or information leakers, depending on one’s point of view. In fact, the six such indictments are twice as many as all previous administrations combined. That suggests more than a passing interest in keeping things less than transparent.

The new case, under investigation by the U.S. Attorneys Office in the District of Columbia, involves a news story disclosing the CIA’s foiling of an Al-Qaeda plot in Yemen to blow up an airliner with an improved version of the so-called “underwear bomb.” Apparently, the CIA had an agent or agents embedded in the Al-Qaeda group. The AP did not immediately report the story as events were unfolding, at the request of the administration, which cited national security concerns. But the news agency released the story after hearing the White House planned to discuss the case publicly. That would seem to override any arguments of national security.

In fact, the national security argument seems to be questionable in the six pending cases as well, all of which were widely reported in press accounts and/or in books. While officials’ obsession with secrecy has occasionally shaken public confidence in the government, the republic has not yet crumbled from the efforts of a free press.

And that is the overriding issue here — not the CIA’s, FBI’s, or any other secrecy-obsessed agency’s ability to do its job, but the constitutionally protected right of a free and unfettered press to do its job of informing the citizens. Make no mistake, when a powerful government agency, without notice or opportunity to challenge in court, seizes a wide swath of journalists’ files or, in this case, phone records, it can have a chilling effect on the press and the public.

The files seized came from AP phone lines in various bureaus, including Washington, D.C. and New York as well as in the Capitol. As the AP pointed out in response to the seizures, the records provided a list of everyone the reporters or editors had talked to over a two-month period. If there is any more effective way of convincing people not to talk to reporters than removing the assurance of confidentiality, I don’t know it. A free press cannot operate as intended if the subjects of its stories can gain access to the possible source of the information reported.

In this case, the Justice Department apparently did not even have to justify the records seizures, and they came only after the department, by its own admission, had interviewed several hundred people and reviewed thousands of other files. In other words, it had nothing to go on, so it decided to go on a fishing expedition at AP offices.

The president is claiming no knowledge of the Justice Department’s actions in this case, which could well be true. It is also irrelevant. What matters is that high-level officials in the nation’s top law-enforcement agency felt justified in going after reporters’ records with no attempt at due process — no need to prove that the convenient “national security” argument had merit. The more citizens of a country surrender their rights to protection from unreasonable searches, seizures, wire-tappings, detentions, or door-bustings, the less secure they make themselves.

There is no telling how people in power will use that power in the future. That’s why laws should protect the most vulnerable, not the most powerful. Those in power have tremendous resources at their disposal to do what is necessary to protect the citizenry without abusing their power at the expense of the citizenry.

In this case, Obama has asked U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, to reintroduce a media shield bill that went nowhere four years ago. It would further protect journalists who refuse to disclose confidential sources and would enable news agencies to ask a federal judge to deny requests for access to phone records.

That would at least give the press a fighting chance against heavy-handed “investigation” by government agencies. But a president who promised an open government and has instead authorized increased secret snooping on United States citizens has an obligation to do much more. Far too much behavior in the Obama administration has been justified as necessary for national security. A free and unfettered citizenry and press are the best evidence of a secure nation.

bob@zestoforange.com