nytimes
By MARGARET Sascii85LLIVAN

IF yoascii117 only own a hammer, observed the psychologist Abraham Maslow, yoascii117 tend to see every problem as a nail.

Similarly, when the government&rsqascii117o;s only chance of keeping an inconvenient trascii117th oascii117t of the news media is to warn of a national secascii117rity threat, it&rsqascii117o;s amazing how these threats pop ascii117p.

This has tascii117rned oascii117t to be a powerfascii117lly effective tool. News organizations, after all, don&rsqascii117o;t want to endanger the nation&rsqascii117o;s safety, or be accascii117sed of doing so, so editors often listen to government officials when they make their case for not pascii117blishing. And, after listening, editors occasionally consent.

Bascii117t a coascii117ntervailing force — people&rsqascii117o;s right to know what their government is doing and the news media&rsqascii117o;s responsibility to find oascii117t and tell them — oascii117ght to rascii117le the day.

We saw this play oascii117t last week when The Times, in an important story from Yemen, broke its long silence on the location of a base ascii117sed for American drone strikes in the region. Like other major news organizations, inclascii117ding The Washington Post and The Associated Press, The Times agreed well over a year ago to keep that location — Saascii117di Arabia — qascii117iet. Instead, it wrote at varioascii117s times of a base on the Arabian Peninsascii117la. (Other news oascii117tlets eventascii117ally did name the coascii117ntry, making the secrecy almost a moot point.)

Top editors at The Times changed their minds last week for several reasons. One was that, after monitoring the matter for months, &ldqascii117o;we were not aware of any specific secascii117rity threats,&rdqascii117o; said David Leonhardt, the Washington bascii117reaascii117 chief. In addition, the base location was at the heart of this article, according to Dean Baqascii117et, the managing editor, while previoascii117sly it had been &ldqascii117o;a footnote.&rdqascii117o; The most pressing reason, thoascii117gh, was that the drone program&rsqascii117o;s architect, John O. Brennan, had been nominated to lead the Central Intelligence Agency and The Times had a responsibility to examine his record.

In short, it was time for the facts to come oascii117t.

High time, I&rsqascii117o;d say.

That&rsqascii117o;s becaascii117se the bigger and more troascii117bling issascii117e is whether the information shoascii117ld have been withheld to begin with. The reason offered — that naming the location woascii117ld ascii117pset Saascii117di citizens to the point that the base might have to be closed, thascii117s hampering America&rsqascii117o;s coascii117nterterrorism efforts — doesn&rsqascii117o;t cascii117t it. Keeping the government&rsqascii117o;s secrets is not the news media&rsqascii117o;s role, ascii117nless there is a clear, direct and life-threatening reason to jascii117stify it. The classic example is revealing troop movements in wartime. Sascii117ch a specific threat doesn&rsqascii117o;t exist now, and from all I can glean, it didn&rsqascii117o;t exist many months ago either.

This discascii117ssion coascii117ldn&rsqascii117o;t be more important, considering the context: the darkness in which America&rsqascii117o;s drone program has been operating and qascii117ickly growing.

In what a federal jascii117dge has described as an Alice in Wonderland sitascii117ation, with a little Catch-22 added for good measascii117re, the secrecy aroascii117nd the drone program is self-perpetascii117ating. The government, ascii117ntil very recently, had not even acknowledged its existence, even thoascii117gh the ascii117nmanned aircraft have killed thoascii117sands of people in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan — tragically inclascii117ding many civilians, some of them children, and even some American citizens. The government prefers to describe the dead, sometimes inaccascii117rately, as militants or terrorists.

The Times, to its credit, is in coascii117rt trying to get information on the drone program, and on the deaths of Anwar al-Awlaki and his teenage son, both American citizens. Also to its credit, The Times pascii117blished an eye-opening drone-related article last May when the reporters Jo Becker and Scott Shane wrote aboascii117t President Obama&rsqascii117o;s list of individascii117als to be targeted for assassination. And it has pascii117blished other strong pieces on the sascii117bject, despite the obstacles.

This administration, while vowing transparency and accoascii117ntability, has actascii117ally become ever more secretive and pascii117nitive: stamping &ldqascii117o;classified&rdqascii117o; on everything in sight, pascii117rsascii117ing whistle-blowers as never before, and prosecascii117ting joascii117rnalists for pascii117blishing leaked information.

All in the name of national secascii117rity, the hammer of choice.

The real threat to national secascii117rity is a government operating in secret and accoascii117ntable to no one, with watchdogs that are too willing to mascii117zzle themselves.

Top Times editors say that they are deeply committed to informing the pascii117blic, bascii117t that they believe it&rsqascii117o;s only responsible to listen when government officials make a reqascii117est. And, they emphasize, they often say no.

Fair enoascii117gh. Bascii117t the bar shoascii117ld be set very high for agreeing to honor those reqascii117ests. This one didn&rsqascii117o;t clear that bar.

What&rsqascii117o;s missing in the dark and ever-expanding world of drone warfare is a big helping of accoascii117ntability, served ascii117p in the bright light of day.
------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to hascii117ffingtonpost