Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law

by Gabriel Schoenfeld

An intensely controversial scrutiny of American democracy's fundamental tension between the competing imperatives of security and openness. "Leaking"--the unauthorized disclosure of classified information--is a well-established part of the U.S. government's normal functioning. Gabriel Schoenfeld examines history and legal precedent to argue that leaks of highly sensitive national-security secrets have reached hitherto unthinkable extremes, with dangerous potential for post-9/11 America. He starts with the New York Times 's recent decision to reveal the existence of National Security Agency programs created under the Bush administration. He then steps back to the Founding Fathers' intense preoccupation with secrecy. In his survey of U.S. history, Schoenfeld discovers a growing rift between a press that sees itself as the heroic force promoting the public's "right to know" and a government that needs to safeguard information vital to the effective conduct of foreign policy. A masterful contribution to our understanding of the First Amendment, Necessary Secrets marshals the historical evidence that leaks of highly classified government information not only endanger the public but, in some extraordinary circumstances, merit legal prosecution of those who publish them.

Genres: Politics, Law, American History, Nonfiction

320 pages, Hardcover

First published May 24, 2010

Reviews

[Glen Stott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Schoenfeld tackles the problems generated as a result of leaked governmental secrets from the 1790’s to 2010 (the book was published in 2010). I found the book interesting in several ways. Schoenfeld examines the needs for secrecy from the point of view of the government officials and public interests. From the first days of the country, leaks of secret information occured and were used for political purposes. Politicians from both parties have used leaked information to gain political advantages – often at the expense of the country as a whole. This has been especially damaging during times of war and threatened war. While this has always been a problem, it has grown exponentially in this new century as the political parties have become almost hysterical in their push to reveal everything that can be spun to political advantage no matter the cost to the country.

Another area of concern Schoenfeld deals with is the balance of national security versus the First Amendment right of those who have acquired secrets and the news media. He provides an analysis of several important cases where these issues were addressed. The news media of today does not want the government to hold secrets, yet it guards its own secrets with every available tactic, including defying courts when ordered to reveal sources, for example.

Schoenfeld also discusses the rights of leakers. Although there are stiff penalties for treasonous leaks that harm the country, the process and the nuances of how treason can be applied in these kinds of situations makes in nearly impossible to get convictions. For the hundreds of people who have leaked sensitive information there have been few attempts at prosecution and most of those have not been successful.

Schoenfeld thought leaking of governmental information was dangerously out of hand in 2010 when he published this book. Unfortunately, leaking has taken quantum leaps since the election of Donald Trump as the deep state tries to destroy his administration.

[Walt · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read NECESSARY SECRETS as a fluke. It isn't my normal fare.

At the height of the WikiLeaks and Julian Assange news blitz, I had a conversation with my brother-in-law. I told him I didn't think there was much room for keeping secrets. A secret, of course, is defined as "something kept hidden or unexplained." Thus, it seemed to me antithetical to everything I was taught: that knowledge is power and its application is wisdom. Keeping things hidden and unexplained kept me from knowledge and, hence, from having wisdom. "Necessary" of course means absolutely essential.

My brother-in-law reminded me, however, that there was a need for secrecy — times when it is absolutely essential. Some secrets are necessary. For example, he suggested I probably didn't want anyone knowing my daughter's bank account information. (It gave me pause that he didn't use my bank account information for his example.) Otherwise, he said someone could go in and withdraw willy-nilly. It is necessary, he argued, to keep the critical information secret or unscrupulous individuals or entities will make you regret it.

My conversation with him got me thinking more and more about secrecy, more than I ever had before. It even spurred me on to start writing a novel with secrecy, privacy, or confidentiality, or all three, as a theme. It also caused me to start considering those matters — secrecy, privacy, and confidentiality — more fully. I ended up, through happenstance, picking up NECESSARY SECRETS to read and learn more about the subject.

Obviously, since my immediate take on secrecy with my brother-in-law was to want to do away with it, I wasn't very close to the position of Gabriel Schonfeld, the author of NECESSARY SECRETS. Schonfeld argues that some classified information is so sensitive it needs to be kept secret and not disclosed, because, if it is disclosed, it will be harshly detrimental to Americans. And Schonfeld argues that those individuals and organizations who do make such disclosures of a harmful nature should be punished harshly under U. S. laws.

The Schonfeld book was written before WikiLeaks and Julian Assange hit the newsstands big time. It basically covers the history of secrecy in the United States from its inception to the time the book was completed. Since it focuses mostly on the history of secrecy in the United States, including case law and issues covered in the news, it moves quite slowly, especially in comparison to much of my normal fare. However, it is well written and not difficult at all to move through or understand. Schonfeld basically tries to make the case that the press should not be releasing sensitive classified information that could bring harm to individuals or to the U. S., and if it does, it — including all individuals who participated in its release — should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

It seems to me that secrets are only necessary when there are individuals or entities that are dishonest and unscrupulous. Of course, there are such individuals and entities. It also seems to me that, over time, the ability to keep things secret becomes more and more difficult with modern technology and social media being what it is today. Hence, it was informative to read NECESSARY SECRETS and to contemplate its history and arguments. I am not certain I am where its author is on the subject, but I'm certainly much more informed on the subject matter as it pertains to the United States because of his book.


I wrote TIME FOR ALL ETERNITY.

[Patty · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting look at the public's "right to know" and a nation's need to protect its citizens. Where do we draw the line? And can it be a static line, or does it flow based on threat levels or other circumstances? With American history as the backdrop, key moments are singled out throughout the debate.

[Breanna Joy]

"Secrecy can best be preserved only when credibility is truly maintained."
- Justice Potter Stewart

Do I agree with everything Schoenfeld says here? Of course not. But this is an extremely impressive book: well-researched and moderately explained, giving dignity to those who disagree. This book, for me, provided a model to help me consider how to translate ideas into law, especially where two essential values clash.

[Luc · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a must read book about the rule of law, the role and responsibility of the media in disclosing state secrets and the executive privilege (and duty) to safeguard the secrecy of particular activities and documents that are of particular importance for the security of the United States.

The author is questioning the interpretation of the first amendment of the Constitution invoked by the media outlets in order to justify the disclosure of state secrets. In the end, we have to ask ourselves if the media industry has the necessary legitimacy to put itself above the law by disclosing top secret documents acquired through anonymous sources that can potentially damage ongoing clandestine operations and put at harm's way individuals involved in such operations. Put differently, is there a line to be drawn between our constitutional rights of free speech, as well as to be informed about current issues in our society, and our duty as citizens to ensure the safety of our country?

[Anthony · Rating 3 out of 5]

Given the fact that it's on a not-particularly exciting topic, and that it's based mostly on history and case law, this book is surprisingly readable. While the author clearly believes the press should be less willing to release classified information and prosecute those who publish it, he does a good job of giving both sides of the argument and discusses situations where classification is overused. A good, readable overview of secrecy - while it was written before the latest WikiLeaks scandal, it lets readers understand some of the terms and cases that pundits and columnists are throwing around when discussing it.

[Tim Lundquist · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating review of the relationship between national security secrets and the press. Contra current understanding, the First Amendment has never been a license for the press to print what it wants, and Schoenfeld makes a convincing case that the modern press is nearly dererlict in duty given their cavalier attitudes towards national security programs. The modern roots of today's press is a familiar story, but here is an excellent discussion of relevant law and history.

[Tom Mueller · Rating 3 out of 5]

From the back cover: ". . . best account ever of the relationship between the press and the government concerning the protection and disclosure of national-security secrets . . ."
Extensive bibliography. Contains insight into why National Security must at times trump the First Amendment.

[Blake Maddux · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very good, interesting, and informative book. The author argues that there are legal precedents and legitimate laws, whether one agrees with them or not, that make speech less free than First Amendment absolutists would like to think.

[Tiffany · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting, but only if you are very into this topic. It's a little too opinionated for my taste.