Secrets, Leaks and US History

Rahul Sagar's new book Secrets and Leaks: The Dilemma of State Secrecy is both an important new work on the deep problem of political accountability in the context of U.S. government secrecy, and it is an excellent teaching resource.  My seminar on War and Security in Law, Culture and Society found the book to be their favorite so far this semester.  I'm posting the student's questions and mine to Sagar via Twitter.  First up: the book is a fine and helpful treatment of secrecy in the founding period and after, but the discussion of the founding does not appear to make an originalist argument.  So I've asked Sagar to weigh in on what role he thinks history plays.   Others might draw upon the book either as part of an original public meaning analysis, or to make a "gloss of history"/historical practice argument about how the past informs the lawfulness of contemporary government practices.

The book description is below.  And here is Sagar's Twitter feed.

Secrets and Leaks examines the complex relationships among executive power, national security, and secrecy. State secrecy is vital for national security, but it can also be used to conceal wrongdoing. How then can we ensure that this power is used responsibly? Typically, the onus is put on lawmakers and judges, who are expected to oversee the executive. Yet because these actors lack access to the relevant information and the ability to determine the harm likely to be caused by its disclosure, they often defer to the executive's claims about the need for secrecy. As a result, potential abuses are more often exposed by unauthorized disclosures published in the press.

But should such disclosures, which violate the law, be condoned? Drawing on several cases, Rahul Sagar argues that though whistleblowing can be morally justified, the fear of retaliation usually prompts officials to act anonymously--that is, to "leak" information. As a result, it becomes difficult for the public to discern when an unauthorized disclosure is intended to further partisan interests. Because such disclosures are the only credible means of checking the executive, Sagar writes, they must be tolerated. However, the public should treat such disclosures skeptically and subject irresponsible journalism to concerted criticism.

Rahul Sagar is assistant professor of politics at Princeton University.