The American Spectator

Narrator (a familiar and distinguished voice, perhaps that of Kelsey Grammer, Tom Selleck, or Rudy Guiliani): The freedoms we have in this country are worth protecting. We defended them against fascism and Nazism during the Second World War and against atheistic communism during the Cold War. Among these liberties are the freedom of speech, religion, and the press. But when a newspaper publishes classified information that benefits terrorists, that newspaper endangers these liberties and puts real lives at risk.

Just as there is no freedom to extort, defraud, slander or defame, even though one may use speech to do so, there is no liberty to publish classified information that will help those who want to destroy liberty.

In World War II, the U.S. government published posters that warned its citizens, “Loose Lips Sink Ships.” It is no different today. When well-intentioned people, including newspaper reporters, publish the details of our secret operations, they put in danger all of us, and they make another September 11 more difficult to stop.

So, remember that loose lips sink ships, and not all the news is fit to print. Please be careful if you think you know something about any aspect of our war on terrorism that would help those who want to hurt America.

Our lives, and our freedoms, depend on it.

I CAN EASILY IMAGINE OTHER commercials and public service announcements that include citizens and military personnel who explain how the administration’s secret operations have worked to protect them, their families, and millions of people around the world. Such testimonies could have a powerful impact on helping the country to understand that the publishing of classified information on the acquisition of intelligence is deadly serious business, and that those who willfully ignore the gravity of the situation are aiding and abetting the enemies of America and its liberties.

Rather than waiting for the New York Times or the Los Angeles Times to strike again, the administration should act preemptively. This would shift the terms of the debate and force the mainstream media to justify their actions to a public adequately informed of its real-life ramifications.