If none of this was classified, the logic of this kind of story means revealing more rather than less. When the Washington Post reported on secret prisons the U.S. had in Europe to hold top-level terror suspects, it didn't identify the countries involved, but the European press quickly outed Romania and Poland. The two countries could now be terrorist targets; they have been subject to intense criticism within Europe; and they have reason never to trust the U.S. again. One Polish insider told NR's Byron York, "The next time we are asked to do an operation in common, we will always think twice about your intelligence community's ability to keep a secret."
Think twice? How about think three or four times? We have become utterly incapable of secrecy. Ever since Vietnam and Watergate, many people don't trust the government with any secret programs whatsoever. It is true that openness and transparency are important, but it can't be that secrecy is never a good idea — the operating assumption of the left that hails every leak except Libby's.
The media shares the assumption. In a review of the new book by James Risen, the New York Times reporter who disclosed the NSA program, author Walter Isaacson notes that Risen "appears to feel that if something is secret and interesting, it should be exposed."
The U.S. is in a kind of arms race with al Qaeda. They innovate in their methods and we try to innovate in ours, but without revealing too much so the terrorists can't adjust in turn. The advantage our enemies have is that eventually some reporter is always going to give them a heads-up.