We will give U.S. Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., the benefit of the doubt that his legislation to dramatically lower the threshold for prosecuting those who leak classified information is well-intentioned.
But the measure goes way too far, and is - quite frankly - inappropriate for a free society.
Under current law, prosecutors must show that someone who leaked classified information did so knowingly and that actual damage to national security did result or could result.
Bond wants to, as he says, "simplify" the law to say that anyone convicted of leaking "classified" material, regardless of whether it harmed or even truly dealt with national security, can be fined and sent to prison for up to three years.
The problem is the definition of "classified." Despite federal sunshine laws, the U.S. government has become a secret-making machine when it comes to disclosing legitimate information to the public. A low-level bureaucrat wielding a "classified" stamp can shut out the citizens, and they do so on a routine basis.
Bond wants to characterize his measure as a response to a President Bush-hating media that has gone on a destructive binge of revealing state secrets to al-Qaida. But the fact is Bond introduced similar legislation in 2000, long before the war on terror.
The public must be allowed to know, in substantial measure, what its government is doing.
Some want to point to the domestic spying program detailed by The New York Times, L.A. Times and other news organizations as evidence that so-called leakers are harming the country. We will vehemently disagree.
First, the domestic spying program was not necessarily a secret, even though it was classified. Second, there is considerable debate whether the program meets constitutional muster (we feel it clearly does not). Third, no one has offered evidence that the stories harmed or would harm national security. Lots of rhetoric, but no evidence.
In fact, months after the newspapers reported domestic spying, British and U.S. intelligence agencies, with the help of Pakistan, broke up a terrorist cell intending to use liquid explosives to blow up airliners.
If the voters are to judge whether their constitutional protections are being violated, they must have adequate information. Sometimes this comes from patriots from within the system who feel strongly the public needs to know what is going on.
No one thinks newspapers, radio or television stations or Internet sites should report troop movements or strategic plans. The occasional wacky Geraldo Rivera-like incidents aside, the media has neither sought nor published this information.
But criminalizing those who reveal "classified" information without even the slim protection of prosecutors having to show that national security was, indeed, at stake is wrong and goes against our core national values.
