When I was preparing my article "The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama" for publication, I had a conversation with a source from the intelligence agencies. A month before, he had spoken to me, on the record; now he was in a panic.

It wasn't that he had disclosed classified information; he hadn't. It was that, as he said, "everything had changed" in Washington, with the furor over the "leaks" that had resulted in the New York Times' two front-page stories on classified national-security programs, the first on targeted killing, the second on the Stuxnet computer virus. He had originally spoken to me when the Obama administration appeared to be on the verge of officially acknowledging a targeting program that had taken the lives of three American citizens, including that of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old who had never been accused of terrorism. He was calling me back to ask that I change any quoted reference to "the program" — because mere use of the word "program" might be construed to represent, in itself, acknowledgement that a program exists; and because the administration was under intense pressure to revert back to the first rule of the targeted-killing program, which is that you never talk about the targeted-killing program.

I told him that I'd do what I could for him, and did; I also told him that I thought he was being alarmist, and that surely nothing would happen to officials quoted uttering a word popular in Washington for its very lack of specificity. Now I'm not so sure, as the FBI has begun conducting a criminal investigation into the leaks that resulted in the Times's stories; as the leaks have become a Republican talking point; and as the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, has authorized legislation that would regulate the interactions between journalists and intelligence officials.

Now, let's be clear: The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama has leaked information about its lethal operations to its own advantage, as it realized early on the political utility of a president accused of being "soft on terror" decisively dispatching terrorists. But it has not leaked information about its lethal operations primarily for political advantage. Rather, it has leaked information about its lethal operations in an attempt to reconcile its promises of transparency with a program that gives it the power to decide, in secret, to summarily kill those identified as America's enemies. It has leaked information about its lethal operations because it understands that Americans have a compelling political and moral interest in knowing what the Administration is doing in their name. Indeed, it is said to have leaked information about a memo authorizing the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki to The Washington Post as a backdoor way of giving al-Awlaki notice of his impending execution and thus giving him something like due process.

But the main reason that the Lethal Presidency has leaked information about its operations is that journalists of diligence and talent have asked for it. The word "leak" is prejudicial: It is a political word rather than a reportorial one. It implies that journalists receive their information from sources of encompassing ambition and low motive; it implies furthermore that at some level journalists are doing their sources' bidding. But if my own experience is any guide, the "leaks" of the Lethal Presidency are the result of discussions not with manipulative officials, but rather concerned ones — that is, officials who recognize that the Lethal Presidency is constitutionally-challenging and morally problematic, and believe that at the very least Americans should be given the information they need to discuss it.

Which is why it is confusing to hear Mitt Romney operating in full witch-hunt mode — calling for the sources of the leaks to be "exposed" and all but accusing of them of being un-American — at the same time as the Senate has finally moved to fulfill its oversight responsibility and demand that the Obama administration provide that legal memos that justified its killing of American citizens without trial.

Is the problem with the Lethal Presidency the fact that Americans know too much about it or too little? Should we be concerned with the existence of a secret kill list or the threats to its secrecy? Is the answer to the prevailing dread that American instinctively feel in regard to the president stepping into the role of executioner more transparency or less — more journalism or less?

I answer from my own experience: For four months, I tried to find out what happened to Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. I never did. Nobody has. There have been no "leaks" about him. By the terms of the current debate, however, the silence regarding the death by drone of a 16-year-old American is what should be applauded. Indeed, by the terms of the current debate, any official who steps forward and finally reveals how Abdulrahman al-Awlaki died would be liable to criminal prosecution, not to mention the shrill castigation of the likes of Mitt Romney and John McCain.

But if as a journalist I would call him a source instead of a leaker, it's as an American I would call him a hero instead of a criminal.

MORE ON THE LETHAL PRESIDENCY OF BARACK OBAMA:

• PART 1: The Administration Killed a 16-Year-Old and Didn't Say Anything About It

• PART 2: America Targets People to Kill. Why Is Congress AWOL?

• PART 3: Secrets and World Ties: Obama's Killer Contradiction

• PART 4: What Happens When Assassination Replaces Torture?

• PART 5: Obama's Real Killing Problem... Is Our Problem, Too

• UPDATE: For Obama's Lethal Presidency, New Suit Aims at Justice

• FROM THE MAGAZINE: The Full Story

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io