Just because there is no law against something, doesn't mean it's a Good Thing to do.
"Good" or "bad" isn't going to "do anything" for you, as long as it's legal.
It's like the "porn" debate, in that there's a whole lot of people who think it's really bad to have it out there. But, then again, you've got a whole lot of people who say, "Mind your own business and don't get it if you don't want it! It's my choice and you can't interfere with my choice!"
Now, you've got that kind of situation where you and other here will say, "That's a real bad decision there! Look at what harm it does to catching these terrorists!" But, then again, someone else is going to say, "It's freedom of the press and as long as it's not illegal, then the public has the right to know about it, regardless of whether the terrorist reads about it!"
So, all you've got then is simply one side arguing with the other -- and the stuff still gets printed (just like the "porn" still gets distributed). Nothing changes.
If you want to change something -- then change the law regarding what the press can and cannot print -- especially in regards to state secrets.
Otherwise -- keep complaining, because as long as there's no law preventing it -- you're gonna see this continue on -- into perpetuity.
I prefer that if something is "serious enough" to want it stopped -- then -- you make a law about that, to prevent it -- and you enforce that law. And, of course, making a law doesn't stop things from happening, as we still have murder and theft and all sorts of other crimes, but at least, you can "put away" the perpetrators for printing state secrets. And there are only so many papers and so many writers [they'll run out of writers quick enough, if you keep jailing them for doing that].
So you are willing to give up on the Constitution and the people? I'm not, not yet, not ever.
Now there might be civil remedies, not involving the government, except in so far as the courts are the mediators. Reckless endangerment suits by the families of those harmed by the printing of the leaks, would be a possibility.
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
John Adams, Notes for an oration at Braintree (Spring 1772)
I prefer that if something is "serious enough" to want it stopped -- then -- you make a law about that, to prevent it -- and you enforce that law. And, of course, making a law doesn't stop things from happening, as we still have murder and theft and all sorts of other crimes, but at least, you can "put away" the perpetrators for printing state secrets. And there are only so many papers and so many writers [they'll run out of writers quick enough, if you keep jailing them for doing that].
Just like we're running out of drug dealers?
The plain fact is that most of these leaks are done by politicians or their syncopants trying to score political points They can be prosecuted for violation of their security agreements. The "reporters" can be punished by civil suits and not buying their crap.
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
o Letter to Abigail Adams (1775-07-17)