AG says journalists can be prosecuted for publishing leaks

NOW we have six bombings in Bombay India!

Perhaps more WIRE TAPS would have revealed this plot before it murdered so many people?

The left are NOT helping to protect our country.

WE NEED TO VOTE THE LEFT OUT THIS NEXT ELECTION!

A nice fair election so they can see that every vote counted was truly against them and their obstructionist policies..

I didn't say that Rush provided aid and comfort to enemies. However, being in the mass media, he should be more careful in his statements, and not falsely impugn the NYT, a great paper.

Libby did provide aid and comfort to our enemies in outing Plame. In my opinion, this is treason, for which he should be executed.

the public has every right to know what is going on.

Novak says that he was given Plame's ID, but not her name, by someone who later said that this was inadvertent. Who is this person? I think it was probably Cheney. This reminds me of the guy who said he didn't mean to pull the trigger that killed the bank teller.

Is there anyone on the right who is not a sleazeball?

Is there anyone on the right who is not a sleazeball?

Alexandria, VA---Senators Rick Santorum, R-PA, and Conrad Burns, R-MT, support implementation of Official Secret's Act, S.3774, introduced yesterday by Senator Christopher Bond, R-MO, to criminalize the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Bond's bill seeks to enable the Executive Branch in prosecuting individuals engaged in disclosure of government secrets. According to the release issued by Senator Bond's office, the legislation seeks to unify current law and ease the government's burden in prosecuting and punishing leakers by eliminating the need to prove that damage to the national security has or will result from a disclosure. According to the new release by Secrecy News reports, the new Bond bill is identical to the controversial anti-leak legislation sponsored by Senator Richard Shelby in the FY 2001 Intelligence Authorization Act that was vetoed by President Clinton in November 2000. The bill was called the "Official Secrets Act," after the U.K.'s repressive criminal secrecy statutes.



The United States has never had a statute generally criminalizing leaks or the publication of sensitive information. Despite consideration at a number of moments in our history, concern for the First Amendment and the principle that the press acts as an important check on government abuse has thwarted all previous efforts to pass such legislation. According to Professor William Weaver, NSWBC Senior Advisor, "Such legislation is subject to a double standard in its application. For example, much information is leaked to the press with the approval of administrators. These sorts of leaks are an unofficial channel for shoring up administration positions and to influence public opinion. On the other hand, unauthorized leaks would be prosecuted when they undermine administration positions or embarrass the executive branch or reveal illegal agency activity. So whether or not a person is prosecuted depends on whether or not the leak is popular or unpopular with the administration in power at the time of the leak. If the statute were to be applied evenhandedly, the jails would be full of administrators and presidential advisors."

Rather than a genuine effort to enhance national security, this legislation is designed to deter legitimate whistleblowing. The result is that the statute would create an "Official Secrets Act" similar to that found in Great Britain. But, obviously, Great Britain does not have a First Amendment and we do. The government has consistently failed in its burden to prove that recent leaks of national security information somehow harmed the United States. Rather, these disclosures have encouraged public discussion on issues of executive abuses that this administration has tried very hard to cover up. Justice Brandeis wrote: "those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government." Current law already protects against disclosure of specific types of sensitive information, like the design of a nuclear warhead or a covert agent's identities. Legislation that places the First Amendment entirely in the hands of the Executive Branch, such as Bond's Bill, is unconstitutional on its face. The Nation's Founders chose not to implement an Official Secret's Act on our public servants and there is no need for such a law now.

GAP Legal Director, Tom Devine, stated: "This is a bill to protect the bureaucracy, not America's security. It is about covering up government abuses of power that only can be sustained through secrecy. It is about canceling freedom of speech when it counts, by criminalizing whistleblowers who make unclassified disclosures. Most whistleblowers who would be targeted are those exposing cover-ups of the government's own security breaches.".....