Authorized leaks
================

Authorized leaks is John Kiriakou's term for the routine, unprosecuted disclosure of classified information by the American government to the American press.

The two categories

The volume is not in dispute: the major outlets publish classified information daily, "and usually it's the White House or the Pentagon that's doing the leaking." What determines the consequence is not the content but the sponsorship. "When those leaks are authorised, eh, you know, everybody's happy. When the leaks are unauthorised, then the White House is very upset, and the CIA will file something called a crimes report with the FBI, and then the FBI has to investigate it."

He adds that he can identify particular leaks by their originator: "I can point to leaks that I'm positive came from the CIA just in the last two weeks about Israel/Palestine."

The worked example

Asked whether an authorised leak is not simply called sharing information, Kiriakou described the full cycle. "The CIA leaks: we got it right on Gaza, we predicted three days before that they were going to launch this attack. And then they leak that to the Post, and then the Post says: classified CIA paper says the CIA got it right. And then the CIA says, oh no, that information was classified. It makes us look really good. We probably should report it to the FBI. But they probably won't be able to figure out who leaked it anyway. That's an authorized leak."

The interviewer's summary, which he accepted, was that it resembles accidentally posting a flattering photograph of yourself.

Why it matters to the prosecutions

The asymmetry is the foundation of the New York Times problem: if the daily authorised leak is not a crime, the same act cannot coherently be a crime when the leaker is Julian Assange or a whistleblower.

See also

- The New York Times problem
- Over-classification
- CIA media relations
- Espionage Act
