Originally created 06/04/06

Why can't secrets remain secret?



I am responding to Jay Collett's letter to the editor May 30th ("You call this national security?"). He condones a journalist's right to access military classified information, citing a free press. (He also cited "fascist lies," but I had to scratch my head on that one.)

Using logic and choosing to keep our military secrets "secret" is not ignoring the Constitution. It's protecting those who serve to uphold it. I must ask: Does Mr. Collett know what "national security" is? And could he please explain the thought process behind sharing classified material with the enemy? That would benefit us ... how?

Publishing classified and gathered intelligence can be deadly to those defending the right to demand the same. Does Mr. Collett care at all? It's classified for a reason - and we do not have the need to know! This is not rocket science here. You want to be privy to sensitive material, classified documents and military strategy? Do what I did - join the Army!

American soldiers are citizens of this country as well, are they not? What gives Mr. Collett the right to compromise their safety? He actually justified journalists printing information that may be lethal to our war fighters for his reading pleasure. Why? What is his point? He should be ashamed to even suggest that his right to a "good read," at the expense of the men and women fighting on his behalf, is "one of the cornerstones of our great country."

Mr. Collett, and those like him, do not even look back to view the destruction created and left by their selfish misuse of our priceless liberties. I hate to be the one to point this out to Mr. Collett - but it's not all about him. I hope he enjoyed your Memorial Day holiday.

Paula Wahlert, Evans