On November 2, Dana Priest of the Washington Post published an article revealing that the CIA has been holding "terror suspects in secret prisons."

Here is the third paragraph of that article:  "The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism.  It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions."

That written, what does the Post do?  Why, reveal everything it can, based on about as many anonymous sources as can be crammed into a piece, most of whom are just beside themselves that the agency would do such things.

After exposing as much history, as many details and as much criticism as it could, the Post then made a stunning concession:  "The Washington Post is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior U.S. officials.  They argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere and could make them targets of possible terrorist retaliation."

Well, wasn't that magnanimous?  Didn't that just prove the Post's responsibility to national security?  Doesn't the Post deserve an instant Medal of Freedom?

In the aftermath of the story, the CIA requested that the Justice Department investigate the leaks.  Of course.  The spy agency has lately spouted such a gusher that requesting investigations must now require a full department.  The ever-vigilant EU is pursuing an investigation of any member countries possibly in "secret-prison" cahoots with the U.S.

Senate Majority Leader Frist and House Speaker Hastert demanded a bicameral congressional investigation, information about which was leaked even before the Speaker knew he had joined the demand.

It wouldn't surprise us much if several city councils also intend to investigate, "investigations" in our current culture providing such great opportunities for grandstanding and hand wringing by elected officials whose only public policy contributions seem to be grandstanding and hand wringing.

Hell, why don't we just have a nationally televised Town Hall meeting, followed by an instant poll which would dictate intelligence agency policy?  Let's just get all that nasty national security skullduggery right out there on the table for all of us to discuss.

We think not.

In a most-likely-erroneous but much-believed story from World War II, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill allowed the Luftwaffe to bomb the British city of Coventry rather than prematurely reveal that German codes had been cracked.  True or not, the story illustrates the awesome responsibility that falls on the shoulders of leaders in wartime, terrible burdens that must be borne in anguished silence if the greater good is to be protected.  Foremost among world leaders, Churchill understood and promoted the value of intelligence...and protecting it.

Every war shapes its own circumstances, and the war against terrorism is like no other.  Its extraordinary threat requires an extraordinary defense. Given much of the current public debate, including the slithering participation of those whose jobs require silence, we have begun to wonder exactly how many Americans have attention deficit disorder.  Was 9-11 really that long ago?

With regard to terrorists, we have some suggested policy:  Don't do anything worse than you must to those intent on destroying this country.  If you accept a job with the military or one of this country's intelligence agencies, try to keep your mouth shut, even for a time after you leave.  If you're a member of the press, think for just a few minutes that there are national security ramifications, to this country and others, more critical than your transitory scoop.