I’ve gotten several e-mails making the point that while there may be partisan leakers at the CIA, this does not mean that leaking can be attributed to the CIA as such. Of course that is true. But on the other hand, it is important to understand that there will always be strong currents of anti-administration basis within the civil service of any agency — whether the administration is Democrat or Republican — and sometimes that bias can shape the institutional culture in crucial ways. And while the problem is not new, I don’t think that federal civil servants have ever enmeshed themselves so actively (and illegally) in politics as under this administration.

I hope we can all appreciate (including Republicans, who will soon be the beneficiaries of similar subversion when the Democrats retake the White House) that this independent activism within a civil service created to assist the elected president in the execution of his Article II responsibilities under the Constitution, is anti-democratic and diminishes the essence of popular self-government. And as long as the New York Times can get away with publishing politically motivated leaks of classified information, it is not just Article II of the Constitution that is threatened, but also our entire system of intelligence gathering and analysis — at the start of a century when those capabilities will be needed more than ever.

Now, for example, the administration has to choose between defending itself against the predictably inaccurate (because incomplete) New York Times story, which it can only do by declassifying the whole report, or remaining silent and protecting the national security instead. That is a choice it should not have to face. It’s not fair, and it’s not good for the country. If the New York Times wants to argue that the Iraq war has made our enemies angrier, it can do that well enough with open sources — and without damaging the national security.

On the institutional side, I don’t know what the culture is at CIA, and indeed I suspect that it is generally right-of-center, but I can say that at the State Department, the institutional culture is so strong–and so independent–that my friends there often explain their thinking by saying “this building thinks” this or that. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think that these “buildings” are supposed to think anything. They were created to implement the policies of the elected chief executive of the people. It may seem to many civil servants like it’s a noble thing to protect the foreign interests of the United States from whoever happens to be in the White House, but that project is unconstitutional. And, when they leak top-secret information, it is also a felony.