The New York Times
November 2, 2000
The Secrecy Legacy
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
WASHINGTON — President Clinton has until Saturday to sign or veto a stealth attack on American freedom. On his desk is a bill to prosecute any government whistle-blower who dares make public any corruption or abuses of power any official stamps "classified."
This assault on free speech under the phony cover of national security was conceived by a criticism-averse C.I.A., embraced by resentful bureaucrats at Janet Reno's Justice Department and rammed through by Congressional intelligence chairmen Richard Shelby and Porter Goss without public hearings or a recorded vote.
We already have anti-espionage laws on the books to prosecute anyone who willfully reveals national security secrets to aid a foreign power. But now, to cover up past blunders and egregious lapses in using those laws to protect real secrets, bureaucrats want to treat as a criminal anybody who publicly discusses anything that nervous officials consider "confidential."
Can this be happening in America? Are we about to adopt the sort of "Official Secrets Act" that lets British officials decide what news is suitable for the public? Is Congress handing the next president the weapon that so many dictatorships use to stifle dissent and hide misdeeds?
If this law threatening whistle-blowers with jail had been in effect, no Pentagon Papers would have been published; no pressure would have been applied to investigate intelligence fiascoes in Iran or security lapses at Los Alamos. No heat would have forced Justice to look into illegal Asian campaign contributions and their influence on arms transfers.
Disclosure of personal interest: This affects every journalist, as well as every person in government fearful of getting fired or reprimanded for going to higher-ups with unwelcome news about embarrassing mistakes or outright wrongdoing.
I remember reporting decades ago that electronic surveillance showed Billy Carter, Jimmy's brother, talking to the Libyan embassy about a contract; the president then stopped him. Under this new Jail-the-Leakers Act, my Times office would be wiretapped and the guy who tipped me to the petty corruption would spend three years in the slammer — with me in the next cell for contempt in refusing to testify.
(Let's face it; there are people in the Clinton White House who lick their lips at that prospect. But the shoe may soon be on the other political foot. Does Clinton want to give George Bush the power to make Clinton the last president to be investigated?)
In the face of this sellout to the protectors of posteriors, legislators of both parties have belatedly spoken out. Henry Hyde, whose Judiciary Committee was neatly bypassed, says this "would grant the administration a blank check to criminalize any leaking they do not like." Georgia's Representative Bob Barr, a former C.I.A. man, calls it "an official secrets act that would silence whistle-blowers in a way that has never come before this body." Democrats John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi agree.
Shelby (my hero on privacy) justifies his villainy on plumbing by arguing "journalists are protected" and "the bill says `properly classified.' "
Wrong on both counts. Journalists would be followed, tapped and coerced in court to reveal sources, chilling the flow of information to the taxpaying public. And who would decide what's "properly" stamped secret? The same government officials who routinely overclassify today.
What if I were to write that I'm told that George Tenet, the diplomatically naïve director of what will now be known as the C.Y.A., was taken in by Yasir Arafat's security operatives in the West Bank? And that he personally passed on a wholly misleading assessment of Palestinian intentions to President Clinton?
Any cable traffic showing Tenet's analytical misjudgment would be "properly classified," of course. Would the shut-mah-mouth intelligence committees protect my source from newly empowered prosecutors?
Let's see where the candidates stand. Al Gore's spokesman tells me "the bill raises serious and troubling questions." That says he fully understands the question he is ducking.
George Bush's spokesman says "we must do a better job of protecting national security secrets" but "we have not weighed in on that specific bill." That suggests lightweightedness on civil liberty.
They'll leave this systematic squelching of criticism to Clinton, probably hoping he signs this un- American abomination and slams the White House door after him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/02/opinion/02SAFI.html?printpage=yes
November 2, 2000
The Secrecy Legacy
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
WASHINGTON — President Clinton has until Saturday to sign or veto a stealth attack on American freedom. On his desk is a bill to prosecute any government whistle-blower who dares make public any corruption or abuses of power any official stamps "classified."
This assault on free speech under the phony cover of national security was conceived by a criticism-averse C.I.A., embraced by resentful bureaucrats at Janet Reno's Justice Department and rammed through by Congressional intelligence chairmen Richard Shelby and Porter Goss without public hearings or a recorded vote.
We already have anti-espionage laws on the books to prosecute anyone who willfully reveals national security secrets to aid a foreign power. But now, to cover up past blunders and egregious lapses in using those laws to protect real secrets, bureaucrats want to treat as a criminal anybody who publicly discusses anything that nervous officials consider "confidential."
Can this be happening in America? Are we about to adopt the sort of "Official Secrets Act" that lets British officials decide what news is suitable for the public? Is Congress handing the next president the weapon that so many dictatorships use to stifle dissent and hide misdeeds?
If this law threatening whistle-blowers with jail had been in effect, no Pentagon Papers would have been published; no pressure would have been applied to investigate intelligence fiascoes in Iran or security lapses at Los Alamos. No heat would have forced Justice to look into illegal Asian campaign contributions and their influence on arms transfers.
Disclosure of personal interest: This affects every journalist, as well as every person in government fearful of getting fired or reprimanded for going to higher-ups with unwelcome news about embarrassing mistakes or outright wrongdoing.
I remember reporting decades ago that electronic surveillance showed Billy Carter, Jimmy's brother, talking to the Libyan embassy about a contract; the president then stopped him. Under this new Jail-the-Leakers Act, my Times office would be wiretapped and the guy who tipped me to the petty corruption would spend three years in the slammer — with me in the next cell for contempt in refusing to testify.
(Let's face it; there are people in the Clinton White House who lick their lips at that prospect. But the shoe may soon be on the other political foot. Does Clinton want to give George Bush the power to make Clinton the last president to be investigated?)
In the face of this sellout to the protectors of posteriors, legislators of both parties have belatedly spoken out. Henry Hyde, whose Judiciary Committee was neatly bypassed, says this "would grant the administration a blank check to criminalize any leaking they do not like." Georgia's Representative Bob Barr, a former C.I.A. man, calls it "an official secrets act that would silence whistle-blowers in a way that has never come before this body." Democrats John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi agree.
Shelby (my hero on privacy) justifies his villainy on plumbing by arguing "journalists are protected" and "the bill says `properly classified.' "
Wrong on both counts. Journalists would be followed, tapped and coerced in court to reveal sources, chilling the flow of information to the taxpaying public. And who would decide what's "properly" stamped secret? The same government officials who routinely overclassify today.
What if I were to write that I'm told that George Tenet, the diplomatically naïve director of what will now be known as the C.Y.A., was taken in by Yasir Arafat's security operatives in the West Bank? And that he personally passed on a wholly misleading assessment of Palestinian intentions to President Clinton?
Any cable traffic showing Tenet's analytical misjudgment would be "properly classified," of course. Would the shut-mah-mouth intelligence committees protect my source from newly empowered prosecutors?
Let's see where the candidates stand. Al Gore's spokesman tells me "the bill raises serious and troubling questions." That says he fully understands the question he is ducking.
George Bush's spokesman says "we must do a better job of protecting national security secrets" but "we have not weighed in on that specific bill." That suggests lightweightedness on civil liberty.
They'll leave this systematic squelching of criticism to Clinton, probably hoping he signs this un- American abomination and slams the White House door after him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/02/opinion/02SAFI.html?printpage=yes