Editorial
In our view: Bond plan goes too far
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.
- Editorial
-
-
In our view: The future of Iraq
At least as far as direct, full-scale combat operations, the Iraq war is over. On the international front, Iraq is not a threat to any of its neighbors or others in the international community.
-
In our view: Hal Roper’s map to life
It’s one thing to receive a great honor.
It’s another thing to earn it. -
In our view: Failed tenure
Mark Templeton, director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, turned in his resignation on Monday and will gone by Wednesday.
-
Voices: County roads
As a Newton County resident, I want to give a hearty “thank you” to the county administration and workers for the wonders performed this spring and summer on our county roads.
-
Voices: Politics as usual?
I can’t help wondering why our governor just spent $86 million on broadband Internet access for “rural” Missouri in the northern 59 counties that include the cities of St. Louis, Jefferson City, Columbia and Kansas City.
-
Voices: No confusion here
In the Aug. 20 issue of the Globe, a lady wrote to complain about the Missouri State Proposition C. Her complaint was that the wording was so confusing that she could not understand it. I believe that her real problem was that she was opposed to its passage.
-
Voices: Too subtle
I fear many missed Pete Peterson’s subtle point with his letter (Globe, Aug. 20) aimed at Mexico and its government’s tacit encouragement of illegal immigration.
-
Other views: Stick with voters’ wishes
Lawmakers should stick with new rules for renewable energy compliance.
Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved a renewable-energy mandate known as Proposition C two years ago. -
Jim Stone, guest columnist: Armed, but not necessarily safe
It is an American mythology that access to a handgun is equivalent to effective self-defense. No other country maintains the persistent attitude that individuals may not be safe unless they own and sometimes carry handguns.
-
In our view: Soldiers paid price of Iraq war
Was America the evil one forcing its imperialistic will upon the peaceful citizens of Iraq resulting in millions of innocent deaths or was she at her best; toppling an evil and repressive dictator and securing freedom for the Iraqi people?
- More Editorial Headlines
-
In our view: The future of Iraq
