Anti-Leak Law Would Give Government Too Much Power
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
I have to agree with the W administration's position on the proposed "leaks law."
Sen. Richard Shelby, from Alabama, is the ranking Republican member on the Intelligence Committee.
He has been on a mission to pass a law criminalizing all leaks of classified information.
On Wednesday, the Intelligence Committee scheduled a rare public hearing. Attorney General John Ashcroft and CIA Director George Tenet were supposed to testify.
But the hearing was scuttled at the last minute after W's guys told Shelby the administration wouldn't support the bill.
Inevitably, if the hearing went on as scheduled, the press would have asked the administration for comment.
Shelby, realizing the politics of the matter, bagged the public hearing.
But Shelby is not deterred.
According to The Associated Press, Shelby said, "It's not an issue that's going to go away. ... The leaks are too prevalent. The news people like all the leaks because they give them stories, but there has been and will be damage to national security because of leaks. Some of these leaks are going to cause people to get killed."
And:
"This bill is going to be back in the hopper, if not by me then by others. ... This is not a this-year legislation, necessarily. It's long-term legislation. This legislation is not going away, because the problem is going to get worse, not better."
The same anti-leak bill passed last year with little fanfare.
All the hubbub this time around comes in the shadow of two recent Justice Department cases that are a bit unsettling to me.
Justice supported the jailing of book researcher Vanessa Leggelt, who refused to reveal her sources to a federal judge.
And Justice also subpoenaed telephone records of AP reporter John Solomon in an attempt to identify law enforcement sources who told AP about a government wiretap of Sen. Robert Torricelli.
For anybody who believes in open government, civil liberties and free press, this should be scary stuff.
Of course no one wants the Washington Post to publish classified information that would compromise national security.
And I suppose I am reasonably confident the editors of the Washington Post wouldn't do that anyway.
But the whole idea of the government passing a law that makes it easier for government to operate in secrecy is troublesome.
Sure, there are government operations related to national security that demand confidentiality. And there are laws in place that preclude discussion of those matters.
Existing law already makes leaking national defense information a crime punishable by a 10-year prison term.
The government has other ways of dealing with leakers of classified stuff, too. You can get fired, demoted, fined or lose your security clearance.
But Shelby's bill expands the law to include matters beyond national security. Any information that is "properly classified" to be exact. Felony charges and up to three years in prison await the violators.
That could have a chilling effect on whistle-blowers, legitimate news sources and even government spokesmen.
And it begs the question:
If the government is going to fine and imprison people for leaking classified information, who gets to decide what's classified?
Why, the government, of course.
I would guess the guidelines for what is and isn't classified could be quite murky.
Besides, I think the government tends to classify too much information already. And there is no law against improperly classifying something, is there?
If Shelby's bill becomes law, I would guess anybody asked about anything that even came from the same filing cabinet as a classified document would probably think twice about discussing it.
That would be a bad thing.
Much that we the people learn about fraud, waste, abuse, neglect and mismanagement in government comes from leaks.
The bill would tend to plug those leaks.
The bill also would give the government a back door method of identifying leakers - by going after a journalist who reported something embarrassing to the government.
Those who support the bill say that reporters can already be compelled to reveal sources but rarely are.
(Tell that to the AP's Solomon.)
I believe this law would make reporters even more attractive targets.
When the bill passed the first time, President Bill Clinton vetoed it.
He said it had the potential to "chill legitimate activities that are at the heart of a democracy."
I think he was right. [[In-content Ad]]
I have to agree with the W administration's position on the proposed "leaks law."
Sen. Richard Shelby, from Alabama, is the ranking Republican member on the Intelligence Committee.
He has been on a mission to pass a law criminalizing all leaks of classified information.
On Wednesday, the Intelligence Committee scheduled a rare public hearing. Attorney General John Ashcroft and CIA Director George Tenet were supposed to testify.
But the hearing was scuttled at the last minute after W's guys told Shelby the administration wouldn't support the bill.
Inevitably, if the hearing went on as scheduled, the press would have asked the administration for comment.
Shelby, realizing the politics of the matter, bagged the public hearing.
But Shelby is not deterred.
According to The Associated Press, Shelby said, "It's not an issue that's going to go away. ... The leaks are too prevalent. The news people like all the leaks because they give them stories, but there has been and will be damage to national security because of leaks. Some of these leaks are going to cause people to get killed."
And:
"This bill is going to be back in the hopper, if not by me then by others. ... This is not a this-year legislation, necessarily. It's long-term legislation. This legislation is not going away, because the problem is going to get worse, not better."
The same anti-leak bill passed last year with little fanfare.
All the hubbub this time around comes in the shadow of two recent Justice Department cases that are a bit unsettling to me.
Justice supported the jailing of book researcher Vanessa Leggelt, who refused to reveal her sources to a federal judge.
And Justice also subpoenaed telephone records of AP reporter John Solomon in an attempt to identify law enforcement sources who told AP about a government wiretap of Sen. Robert Torricelli.
For anybody who believes in open government, civil liberties and free press, this should be scary stuff.
Of course no one wants the Washington Post to publish classified information that would compromise national security.
And I suppose I am reasonably confident the editors of the Washington Post wouldn't do that anyway.
But the whole idea of the government passing a law that makes it easier for government to operate in secrecy is troublesome.
Sure, there are government operations related to national security that demand confidentiality. And there are laws in place that preclude discussion of those matters.
Existing law already makes leaking national defense information a crime punishable by a 10-year prison term.
The government has other ways of dealing with leakers of classified stuff, too. You can get fired, demoted, fined or lose your security clearance.
But Shelby's bill expands the law to include matters beyond national security. Any information that is "properly classified" to be exact. Felony charges and up to three years in prison await the violators.
That could have a chilling effect on whistle-blowers, legitimate news sources and even government spokesmen.
And it begs the question:
If the government is going to fine and imprison people for leaking classified information, who gets to decide what's classified?
Why, the government, of course.
I would guess the guidelines for what is and isn't classified could be quite murky.
Besides, I think the government tends to classify too much information already. And there is no law against improperly classifying something, is there?
If Shelby's bill becomes law, I would guess anybody asked about anything that even came from the same filing cabinet as a classified document would probably think twice about discussing it.
That would be a bad thing.
Much that we the people learn about fraud, waste, abuse, neglect and mismanagement in government comes from leaks.
The bill would tend to plug those leaks.
The bill also would give the government a back door method of identifying leakers - by going after a journalist who reported something embarrassing to the government.
Those who support the bill say that reporters can already be compelled to reveal sources but rarely are.
(Tell that to the AP's Solomon.)
I believe this law would make reporters even more attractive targets.
When the bill passed the first time, President Bill Clinton vetoed it.
He said it had the potential to "chill legitimate activities that are at the heart of a democracy."
I think he was right. [[In-content Ad]]