Exposing the CIA: Can We Really Trust the Government?

In 2006, New York Times journalist James Risen published “State of War,” an exposé that claimed that, starting in 1997, the CIA had “employed” a Russian engineer to mislead Iranian scientists who were seeking to build a nuclear bomb. In actuality, this engineer was bribed by the CIA to pose as a scientist who was selling nuclear weapon designs because the CIA knew that Iran would be quick to jump at this opportunity. The main goal of this plan was for the Iranians to build the weapon, which would fail because it was purposefully flawed.

But because the engineer felt guilty, he attached a note to the blueprints stating that they were flawed and that he could help the Iranians identify the flaws. No one knows how the Iranians reacted after learning this information, but according to Risen, correcting these blueprints may have helped Iran create even more nuclear weapons. The operation was completely shut down in 2006 when Risen’s book was published despite opposition from the CIA.

Unexpectedly, instead of supporting Risen and criticizing the government’s actions, critics and the press began attacking him. They believed that it was illegal for Risen to expose such information without the government’s approval. He was tracked and repeatedly interrogated by government officials, who wanted the name of his source. Risen refused to disclose his source, citing his right to free speech.

However, he was unaware that the CIA was also reading personal emails he had sent, and in 2011, arrested the man who had informed him of this botched mission. The man, Jeffrey Alexander Sterling, was an ex-CIA officer with access to classified documents. After a legal battle, Sterling was convicted in 2015 under the Espionage Act in a court case called United States vs. Sterling.

The Espionage Act criminalizes any negative interference with the armed forces and operations of the United States. So while Risen was simply doing his job as a journalist by reporting on pertinent news, Sterling was a target for indictment under the Act.

Sterling justified his move by saying that during his time as an officer, his superiors had made intentionally racist moves towards him, often removing him from assignments or expecting more of him than his co-workers. He had also been the only black officer there and was often faced with the threat of unemployment. But when he filed a complaint, he immediately lost his job. “I had dedicated myself to that agency, I couldn’t just walk away from something that was so vital to me and that I knew I was good at, proved I was good at. That was it for me,” he said.

Rather than continuing to turn a blind eye to his complaint, while considering the verdict of the case, the Supreme Court should have given special consideration to Sterling’s motives. He had been loyal to the U.S. government for years, but because of the lack of attention to his complaints, Sterling felt that he had no choice but to get back at the government through revealing their flawed operations. Legally, the government won the case, but only because they were able to use the Espionage Act to indict him.

The public condemnation of both Risen and Sterling show that Americans are blindly trusting and supportive of the federal government’s decisions regarding national security while remaining in an extremely removed position. A 2016 poll conducted by the APPC of the University of Pennsylvania found that only 26 percent of people could name the three government branches, and 31 percent could not name any of the three branches. 40 percent of people also said that Congress could forbid the news media from “reporting on any issue of national security without first getting government approval,” displaying a disregard for the freedoms protected in the First Amendment.

The CIA is regulated by a system of checks and balances, but under the 1949 Central Intelligence Agency Act, it is allowed to keep information on its organizational structure and staff secret. And although there is no specific clause that requires the CIA to reveal the details of its intelligence operations, an independent journalist should not be the one to break the news of its shortcomings.

Sterling may have made a mistake in revealing classified information, but the government and the media’s response was morally wrong. The media is supposed to be the biggest supporter of free speech, but here they are only endorsing the government’s limits on journalism. By mostly reporting and discussing the government’s opinions and point of view on issues, the press fails in its duty to provide an objective platform for discussion. The only reason Sterling violated the Espionage Act was because the CIA and the government tolerated racism and discrimination despite its assurances of equal treatment. Since the operation would have failed either way, Sterling was justified in revealing information, especially as he helped stopped the operation before it was too late.

But his case is a unique one. As a general rule, one should not risk the safety of millions just to seek “revenge” for their personal issues. The Sterling case, though, has shown that we should remain cautious of the government’s actions. As Americans, we deserve to know what our government is up to, especially as its actions are likely to affect us in the future. As responsible citizens, we need to find a way to remain critical of what the government does. Otherwise, the government will continue to violate our rights with no opposition from its constituents or the media.