Feb. 27, 2006 - 18:39 MST

THAT, I COULD SEE

An article in the editorial section of this morning's Rocky Mountain News by Cokie and Steven V. Roberts puts forth a warning that I think must be one that is listened to by all and acted on to the best of one's ability. With italics and bolds mine, here in full then:

CHILLING PRESS FREEDOMS

"Pat Roberts has a truly terrible idea. The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee wants to revive a pernicious proposal, vetoed by President Clinton, which would make it a crime to receive or disseminate classified information."

"If Roberts succeeds, half the reporters in town would turn into lawbreakers. Congressional staffers, scholars, lobbyists, trade association executives -- they'd all be vulnerable as well."

"At a time when the United States is trying to market it's values of democracy and openness to the rest of the world, how can it make any sense at all to undermine those values here at home ? Reporters are always obligated to use leaked information responsibly, but Clinton got it right when he argued that the anti-leak provision he rejected "may unneccessarily chill legitimate activities that are at the heart of democracy." That's exactly what this administration and its allies want to do, chill and suppress their critics, and Robert's proposal is part of a wider campaign to accomplish that goal.

In Washington today, the public's access to information about their own leaders is in serious jeopardy, says George Terwilliger, a well-connected lawyer who served in the first Bush administration: "The gloves are off in leak cases. New rules apply." The New York Times reports that a "rapidly expanding criminal investigation" is trying to finger the source of the paper's blockbuster story revealing that the Bush administration secretly eavesdropped on American citizens without judicial oversight."

"Porter Goss, the CIA chief, wants a show trial featuring the journalists who were brave and resourceful enough to uncover the program: "It is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information." The Times itself, and not just its sources, could face criminal charges."

"Commentary magazine, a voice for pro-Bush neoconservatives, features an article this month entitled, "Has The New York Times Violated the Espionage Act ?" The magazine's answer is clearly "yes."

"We have never believed that freedom of the press is an absolute right. The right to know has to be balanced against legitimate concerns of national security, and the best journalists do exactly that. The New York Times held the eavesdropping story for a whole year at the administration's request before finally deciding that growing questions about the program's legality changed the calculation and argued for public disclosure."

"The key question is, who decides what is the proper balance betweeen knowledge and safety ? If the government seizes that power, through stiffer statutes and more strenuous prosecutions, then the impulse to impose censorship and secrecy is very tempting."

"AND VERY DANGEROUS."

"Can this White House -- or any White House, for that matter -- really be trusted with one of democracy's most precious principles, the right of the public to know how its elected leaders are performing ? The answer is no. We're all better off with a press corps that's free to pry and probe, investigate and irritate. But that press corps must also act responsibly, it must understand that the greater the right, the greater the obligation to exercise that right carefully and wisely."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If it were possible for me to do so, I think that column would be published in glowing letters ten feet high.

Seems to me the drive by the administration to operate in secret, and to overclassify sensitive things that are not so sensitive after all, has cast a pall on our society.

Seems like every time some new thing comes out that our administration wanted to keep quiet - - - - the first thing they want to do is to hang the messenger, reporter or whoever made it public. They want to turn it around, and make criminal the act of letting the public know what is going on. Basically it seems they admit to these despicable things, just want to punish the person or persons who let the public in on the scam.

In government there are things that must be secret, I think most of us would admit that being something of real fact. Now if any administration wants to prosecute some governmental minion for revealing something secret (leaking it) perhaps that would be construed as a criminal act - - - - - - THAT, I COULD SEE . . . . . . . . . . .

Blog