The 'secrecy' noose tightens

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Mon, 28 May 2001 10:03:04 GMT

FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 27, 2000
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
The 'secrecy' noose tightens

Proposed by Janet Reno's Justice Department and drafted by Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby -- chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- a new piece of legislation has been passed by Congress without public hearings as part of a larger intelligence bill and now wends its way to the White House.

The proposal would criminalize leaks of all "properly classified" government information, for the first time putting the full weight of criminal law behind the government's classification system. Such a law would make the willful, unauthorized disclosure of classified material a felony punishable by up to three years in prison.

"This legislation contains a provision that will create, make no mistake about it, with not one day of hearings, without one moment of public debate, without one witness, an official secrets act," argues Rep. Robert Barr, R-Ga. -- himself a former CIA official and U.S. attorney.

Though it's belated, other conservative Republicans now join with the more traditional civil libertarians of the left in echoing Rep. Barr's warning: "It has profound First Amendment implications, and goes to the very heart of the ability of the public to remain informed about matters of critical public interest, which often relate to governmental misdeeds," write Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde, R-Ill. -- chairman of the Judiciary Committee -- and ranking Committee Democrat John Conyers of Michigan, in a recent joint letter.

Proponents say the law will help stop security leaks. But current law already makes it a crime to disclose without authorization "national defense" information with the intention of aiding a foreign power or harming the United States.

Sorry, but I'm not buying this rationale any more than are Reps. Barr, Hyde, and Conyers. In peacetime, with no major military adversary on the horizon, an administration that has overruled its own advisers to OK sales of militarily sensitive information to the Red Chinese -- an administration which can't even be bothered to keep the doors locked at Los Alamos -- is not a very good fit for this particular set of sheep's clothing.

The real "enemies" from which the bureaucrats wish to keep their affairs secret are, clearly, the very American taxpayers who fund them -- which is why the initiative for this measure came not from the agencies of military intelligence, but rather from the Clinton internal security apparatus over at "Justice."

What the new law allows -- what it actually invites -- is the use of enhanced criminal powers to subpoena newsmen and other "civilians" to identify the sources of "leaks" -- not to protect our men and women in uniform, but to protect bureaucrats who don't want their systemic waste, fraud, and corruption exposed.

Under the new provisions, "I could ... see more journalists going to jail for contempt of court than I see leakers going to jail for leaking the information to begin with," comments Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters' Committee For Freedom of the Press.

This proposed law is an abomination. If it's allowed to go into effect, the very Republicans who now moan and yodel about it must be made to explain how it was allowed to slip through in the final days of a discredited, lame-duck administration. Doesn't anyone read this stuff?

Or are we to assume that, given the chance, the GOP plans to acknowledge her good works by re-confirming Ms. Reno for "four more years"?

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and editor of Financial Privacy Report (subscribe by calling Newton at 612-895-8757.) His book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998," is available by dialing 1-800-244-2224; or via web site http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html.

Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com

"When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right." -- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926)

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

Add comment Edit post Add post

Previous Posts:
Goofy 9th Circuit finds new reason to reverse convictions
Will rewrite nation's history to suit new tenant
Deaths in Merced
High court hears arguments on Indianapolis drug checkpoints
He said, 'If you come on my land, I'll kill you'
Thoughts on the occasion of the October moon
Autumn, 1942: It came down to one Marine, and one ship
What Bill of Rights?
Of abstinence and the Roman Catholic church
'Resolved from each and every legal consideration'

Navigation

History

Quotes

Government doesn't work. Never did. Never will. Can't. But there are lots of good people. Love them.

-- Bill St. Clair

The Atlanta Declaration

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

-- L. Neil Smith

Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings.

-- L. Neil Smith

A Penalty Clause for the Bill of Rights

Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify, evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

-- L. Neil Smith

Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

-- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report on gun control laws.

Who is a libertarian?

Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

-- L. Neil Smith

(Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP")

Why Did It Have to be... Guns?

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

-- L. Neil Smith

Concise

"Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."

-- Mike Vanderboegh

Also from The Atlanta Declaration:

... like going to the bathroom, breathing, eating, sleeping, or making love, it turns out that self-defense is a bodily function one cannot safely or effectively delegate to a second party.

-- L. Neil Smith

This does not mean that "Marijuana should be available by prescription." It means that morphine sulfate should be available in five pound bags at the supermarket for a couple of bucks, like sugar... but probably in a different aisle, to avoid confusion.

-- Vin Suprynowicz

If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law.

-- Edward Abbey

The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war.

-- Bill St. Clair