There are moments in the life of a nation when its destiny can be glimpsed. The images in the crystal ball align themselves to prefigure what is in store for us. Usually the opportunity to foresee the future is lost in the clutter and clamor of current obsessions. Today we are experiencing one of those moments. Failure to discern what the emerging constellation means could well ensure the decline of the American republic as we have visualized it. The flare-up over “kill lists,” cyber war and the manipulation of information by our leaders has revealed deep seated flaws in our political culture and the mentality of our political class that are toxic to a healthy democracy.

Let’s put the headlines in context and then consider their full implications. The key elements are these. One, the United States government has been engaged in a massive, multifaceted violation of the laws and principles that have guided government behavior since the country’s founding. New Age electronic “wiretapping” without warrant, surveillance of whole communities, arbitrary arrest and detention without cause or appeal (DAD Act), summary execution of American citizens deemed a threat by an anonymous Executive Branch official¸ transgressions of the Fourth Amendment, abridgement of the First Amendment, and analogous undercutting of civil liberties at the state and municipal levels have made a mockery of America’s most cherished traditions. The massive acquiescence in these assaults by professional associations, the media and the people at large are the permissive cause and reinforcing effect of this degeneration in our political system. Aggression by the few matched by passivity of the many is the classic formulation for transmuting liberty into autocracy. We are following a well-trod path.

All of this has occurred under the guise of a “war on terror” that cannot identify a specific enemy, that embraces the globe, that has sent Uncle Sam on a relentless hunt for imagined enemies at home as well as abroad. It is a war without end as unavailing in its foreign missions as it has been successful in institutionalizing the politics of fear and the policies of repression that the fear encourages – even demands. Cynical elites whip the citizenry into periodic frenzies to bolster their personal ambitions while expanding their powers of intrusion and control into matters that have little or no bearing on any tangible dangers to our collective well-being.

Two, the President of the United States has arrogated to himself the right to pronounce the death sentence on anyone in the world without constraint and without accountability. Guilt is presumed unless proven otherwise posthumously. This power of tyrants has been seized despite a decade of evidence that Americans will be more at risk rather than less as a result.

Three, this information is leaked by several members of the administration to a favored reporter for The New York Times. The product is a feature story of exceptional length that reads like the legendary account of a mythic hero who unnatural strength and character are the salvation of the Republic. That hero is the philosopher-king Barack Obama. Like Marcus Aurelius, he ponders the entwined ethics of personal morality and political responsibility before ticking the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ box next to each name on the list. Those pencil marks are symbolized by the long shadow cast by the Washington Monument over the White House – to borrow from Pasternak. Obama in reality is a self absorbed actor in the nation’s celebrity culture than a philosopher-king. He has not the erudition or intrinsic virtue for profound philosophical reflection on morality, obligation and responsibility.

A companion revelation, also based on inside information, exposes the United States as the creator of the Stuxnet virus that is portrayed as the ingenious weapon deployed by Washington to cripple the Iranian nuclear program.

Four, these actions evoke widespread approval – if not acclaim. There is virtually no critical reaction from any association or figure in the mainstream of American public life.

Five, Republicans in Congress become agitated by the White House’s propaganda coup. They launch a campaign of outrage that classified secrets have been leaked. In this attack, they are joined by the strident voices of some Democrats, e.g. Senators Feingold and Levin, who claim that America’s security thereby has been compromised. There is no logical argument made, however, as to why this is the case. After all, the targets of Washington’s drone attacks and assassinations know perfectly well that they live a misstep away from being in the crosshairs. No technical knowledge of any kind has been revealed that affects the equation between hunter and hunted whatsoever. Indeed, it could be asserted that confirmation of the program’s extent and arbitrariness will have the effect of paralyzing the bad guys. As for the Stuxnet virus, the Iranians know perfectly well that they have been the target, and have suffered damage from attack virus launched by the official cyber terrorists of Israel and the United States. Nothing has been revealed that improves the Iranians’ chances of preventing them.

Six, Attorney General Holder hurriedly announces that he is assigning two Justice Department attorneys to probe into this grave leakagese of government secrets. He is shocked! Shocked! that leaks of highly classified material have occurred. He promises to be as relentless in pursuit of the leakers as he has been in the prosecution of Drake, Manning and Assange - among other menaces to the national interest. President Obama confirms that “yes, we will” get to the bottom of this. Of course, that sordid bottom is to be found within the inner sanctums in the White House and Justice Department – where the investigators cannot and will not look.

Are we sure that the NYT’s story was a sophisticated plant - not a leak by a rogue official? The evidence, I believe, is overwhelming that indeed this was orchestrated by the White House. David Sanger himself provides two compelling bits of evidence. One, he has stated publicly that he had received various pieces of the story from a number of people in different offices over a period of months. That indicates institutional encouragement to make the administration’s exploits known. Two, he further states that he showed an outline of the story to a White House staffer who nodded a green light to go ahead with it. Furthermore, the account itself smacks of administration cooperation. Its thoroughness, its detail, and its verisimilitude match the classic insider recounting of a self congratulatory team. Similar pieces after the fact of a major policy decision appear fairly frequently in the NYT and Washington Post – as well as in Bob Woodward’s semi-official portraits of the great and the good in action. Finally, the delayed reaction of the White House, otherwise hyper sensitive to leaks on matters of far less consequences, is the tip-off that this was a plant.

When one views the entire picture in perspective, we see the distinct portrait of a political system lacking in basic honesty, integrity and accountability. The base dishonestly is so total as to escape the awareness of the principals themselves. That is due in part to the progressive corruption of our public life to the point where conduct of this kind is not just acceptable –but, indeed, the new norm. The credible democracy we have prized throughout our history cannot thrive in this setting. The question is whether it can survive.

Then there is the enormous cost that the United States is incurring abroad. America historically has been a living symbol of civic virtue. While our adoration by others is easily exaggerated, the idea of America has been powerful and enduring. For very many, it confirmed the possibility of achieving the good society. The vibrancy of the American ideal explains why the country has been accorded exceptional respect even when its actions did not warrant it. It is striking that the American idea survived slavery/lynchings, survived Hiroshima/Nagasaki, survived Vietnam. Our crude, hypocritical policies in the Greater Middle East post 9-11 provide another stern test. The positive American image might even have survived that test – however impaired. What it cannot survive is America’s assault on itself. Its self mutilation. For that makes it impossible for others to superimpose their dreams on what had been a reasonable approximation of the imagined American ideal. An America that no longer respects its truest self cannot hold the respect of people elsewhere. Bitter disenchantment is the residue. American “soft power” wafts away with the four winds. We have become ordinary. The United States, therefore, is a double loser from its blind descent from the lofty into the mire.

The law is clear. Leaking sensitive, classified information is a crime, and it should be. Lives are at stake, and the security of the United States hangs in the balance. But just as the law is clear, so are the rules of Washington strategic communications. The ship of state leaks from the bridge. Senior officials leak and leak often to blow their own horn or to sell Administration policies. Bureaucrats leak to thwart rivals or brag about their power. Whistleblowers leak to deal with their angst and their self-righteousness. Reporters --- damn their enquiring minds --- link leaks lasciviously, often creating stories that backfire on the original leakers. Publish one leak and the government may be after you, but publish a thousand, and you are Bob Woodward. Every reporter knows this, and each jealously guards his or her contacts.

The leak cure may be worse than the leak disease. Presidents have often resorted to letting loose the special prosecutorial hounds, only to find that these dogs often had more zeal than commonsense. The Iran Contra prosecutors nabbed Cap Weinberger, who fought against the Iran-Contra machinations with every fiber of his being. He was indicted for lying about notes that he thought had been destroyed but instead had been sent to the archives. A President was impeached for lying about an affair so tawdry that we are still wondering what the definition of “is” was. President Bush, incensed over the outing of a once-covert operative, let loose the hounds, who smelled blood in the Office of the Vice President, convicted a mid level official for lying, and created a lasting crack in the solidarity of the White House team. As it turns out, the inadvertent “leaker” in that case worked in the State Department, a fact known to the FBI all along.

So, Mr President, be very careful with these special prosecutors. Their loyalty is not to you, but to the law and their own stars. They don’t serve your Administration as much as they serve themselves.

While serving 26 years in the US Intelligence Community, we were dogged by numerous harmful leaks of classified information--some just as damaging as the one at issue right now. The most galling aspect of such continuing leaks is that senior politicians--perhaps even some of those publicly denouncing them--have been among the worst offenders.

High-ranking political appointees within the executive branch, members of Congress, and ranking Congressional staffers have nothing approaching the appreciation of the damage done by leaks involving highly classified intelligence and covert operations possessed by the vast majority of less ranking government professionals assessing and given access to intelligence as a substantial part of their daily business and a far more compelling partisan motive for exploiting classified material for political advantage.

Adminstrations--both Republican and Democratic--have leaked sensitive classified material for various political purposes going back decades. Several times when I was serving in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) and was infuriated by a particular leak, I was informed by superiors that they had been told the leak had been "authorized" (as if that somehow excused the violation of relevant laws and documentation signed upon appointment by politicians pledging not to do so). Since leaving government in 2005, a number of other apparent leaks of classified information have taken place without generating the strident congressional demands for action we are seeing now in a presidential election year.

In early 2003, a classified formal INR assessment I wrote warning the Bush Administration of the various reasons why an invasion of Iraq probably would not only fail to acheive its intended goals but would be otherwise problematic was leaked within two weeks to the Los Angeles Times. Based on several factors, many of us believed it most likely was leaked by someone affiliated with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (which, as with its counterpart in the House, receives a stream of sensitive intelligence matching much of that which is provided to senior Administration officials).

Confirmation that there was widespread official toleration of such leaks allowing most all perpetrators to go unpunished came in the early years of the George W. Bush Administration. In a special two-week program in which several dozen highly valued senior professionals from the Intelligence Community are recognized each year as "Intelligence Fellows," those in attendance are given access to a number of high-profile briefings, one of which when I went through the program was the head of the FBI's leak investiation office.

Everyone in our group had long been angered by intelligence leaks, so the number one question posed was why did it seem to us that so few leaks were aggressively and successfully investigated so that appropriate punishment could be meted out. This senior FBI official told us of his own frustration in that despite a case load at that time of something like 60-70 important leaks, he had been instructed by his Justice Department superiors to follow up on only a tiny fraction of the total. He described what he believed was a wide-ranging and appalling arrangement in which Justice typically was informed by the White House that suspected senior administration officials and congressmen should not be investigated in an arrangement he likened to an exchange of favors (you ignore most all of our leaks, and we will ignore most all of yours). Needless to say, our collective outrage was considerable at this blatant toleration of intelligence leaks spanning both the executive and legislative branches of government as well as successive presidential administrations. I can only assume that for most part this situation has changed little in the 7 years since I left.

Disclosing classified information to parties who do not hold the proper classification levels is illegal. The laws are clear.

Everyone who has access to such information signed a form or series of forms. All sorts of penalties are described quite clearly in the forms.