Found this article on an Air Force web
site...
Jon Beets
Pacer Communications
Washington Post
August 24, 2001
Pg. 26
No More Secrecy Bills
LAST YEAR President Clinton properly vetoed an intelligence
authorization bill that would have criminalized virtually all leaks of
classified information. Unfortunately, this year the idea has resurfaced and is
due to be considered by the Senate intelligence committee in September. The
leaks bill is still a bad idea and should again be rejected.
We don't pretend to be neutral on this subject. Newspapers publish leaked
material; our reporters solicit leaks. And some of the leaked material we
publish is classified. But it is a mistake to imagine that all leaks of
classified information are bad. Some expose wrongdoing or allow the public to
debate relatively nonsensitive matters that government would prefer to handle
without scrutiny. The government massively overclassifies information, so a law
banning all leaks of supposedly sensitive material would inevitably criminalize
conversations between officials and citizens about subjects that are not
genuinely sensitive and chill in dangerous ways the ability of officials and
former officials to speak out on important policy questions.
Traditionally, the law has respected this fact and has made criminal only
leaks of specific types of classified information -- the names of intelligence
agents, for example, or material related to encoding systems used in
intelligence work. Certain disclosures of defense information, if done with
intent to harm national security, can be prosecuted under espionage laws. And no
one is suggesting that every government employee should be free to decide what
remains secret and what does not. Generally speaking, leaks are handled under
administrative personnel rules; if you get caught, you can lose your job.
One trouble with creating a blanket criminalization of classified leaks is
that it gives the executive branch almost unchecked authority to remove
information from public discussion. Classification rules are generally not made
under statutes but by executive orders, meaning that the president would have
the authority both to decide what information is classified and to prosecute
people for leaking it. Such unchecked power would be dangerous even if
overclassification weren't rampant.
But there is hardly an area where government is more capricious than in its
determination of what secrets it needs to keep. Several years ago, to cite one
example, the Federation of American Scientists sought historical and
contemporary data on the aggregate intelligence budget under the Freedom of
Information Act. After some litigation, the government released the figure for
fiscal year 1997 and then, voluntarily, for 1998. It has refused, however, to
release data for subsequent years and claims that releasing the figures for the
years 1947-1970 could compromise "the interest of national defense or foreign
policy" and "intelligence sources and methods." There have been times when the
disclosure of irrationally or unjustifiably classified information has served
the public. Certainly, in a system that depends on an informed and skeptical
electorate, the government should not be moving in the direction of
criminalizing public debate.