Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Vetoes Classified-Leaks Bill
Last night, I read this
New York Times article
(free reg. req.) about Clinton's veto of what would have been a new law to prevent leaks of classified information. But I didn't understand its significance until I read
this earlier Salon.com article
by Daniel Ellsburg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers so that U.S. citizens could learn how their government had lied to them about Vietnam. "If Congress were so scrupulous about the First Amendment, it wouldn't have passed this law," says Ellsburg. I'm gratified to see a politician refusing on principle to extend government's powers. Here's
the President's statement; and here's
the bill (sponsor: Rep. Goss, R-Fla.).
If this was meant to be a 'oooo, Bush, scarey' remark in favor of Gore, I would ask, why this faith that the guy would _not_ blithely go along with this sort of thing? I think that faith is misplaced, completely misplaced. But then I _would_ think that as I'm voting for Nader and to hell with vote trading or whatever- the Democratic Party is a corpse, and maybe some of us will have to just keep being politically active _after_ a very possibly Bush-won election.
I hope the libertarians and socialists etc etc keep being politically active too :) but I can only say that even if they don't, I will. I hope the Dems or Reps win this election and GO TO SLEEP. To wake up again four years hence to a vastly more hostile public climate...
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
True and not true -- there are three, and they deal with different kinds of classified data.
18 USC 793 -- disclosure of National Defense Information; namely, anything classified under DoD rules. In order to violate this section, you don't have to have lawful access to classified info; you only have to disclose "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" to those "not entitled to receive it". Punishment: 10 years, $250,000.
18 USC 798 -- Codes, ciphers, and communications intelligence. The difference in this one, as I've heard it explained, is that 793 requires you to know that it's classified and that you're willfully violating the law. Under this law, it's enough that you disclose the information at all. Punishment, 10 years, $250,000.
18 USC 794 -- The big one: the espionage statute. To be in violation of this law, you have to willfully deliver "information relating to the national defense" to a foreign government or agent of a foreign power, "with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States." The bar to be in violation of this law is very high -- while disclosure of any kind of information could result in prosecution under this statute, prosecution must prove you knew the U.S. would be harmed. That's not the case in the previous two sections. Punishment: Death, or life imprisonment.
This latest act would effectively lower the bar for prosecution under the first two sections: Even if the material isn't directly defense-related, and even if you don't have a clearance to hold it yourself, and regardless of intent, you could still be prosecuted for releasing any information the gov't considers classified, and be subject to the same penalties.
Thus, whistleblowers disclosing non-defense, non-crypto classified information, who would have a much harder time being prosecuted under 793 and 798, have a lot more to fear from this act. Espionage disclosures still are and have always been illegal under 794, and you could always make a case for reckless endagerment or other laws if someone gets killed because of your actions.
I commend President Clinton for opposing it -- I was surprised to see that he did.
(A big ,,!,, to the socialist who modded down my last post. Hypocrits, all pompous about "freedom of speech" until someone disagrees with you.)
Ha! Rational distribution of national assets... rational to the unelected bureacrats who run the government monopolies. If you disagree with them, well, that's too damn bad. Unless you've got money or ambition, then you can go to America.
Ah, so you fear the poor, and think if you give them goodies they'll leave you alone? Gee, how enlightened. I bet you'd fight the school choice bill we're going to vote on Tuesday here in Michigan that'd break the government education monopoly and give the "underclass" a decent shot at a real education.
And here's a clue: they aren't "resources", they're people, and if you have to set up barriers to keep them from running away, YOU HAVE A DYSFUNCTIONAL SYSTEM! Gotta love that Soviet thinking: "if we don't build the Berlin Wall all the smart people will leave!"
Clinton is, as usual, not at all interested in the rights of anyone but himself. The biggest reason he vetoed this was that it would have further criminalized his administration's very deliberate leaks of secret military technologies to the Chinese (missiles, nuclear, etc.) and Russians (stealth tech, etc.), all of which are quite well-documented now...
Don't ever believe this man does anything for other than his own interest...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
I'm gratified to see a politician refusing on principle to extend government's powers
... especially for Clinton.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
In a world where everyone (especially the gummnt ) did everything correctly and constitutionally, perhaps we would not need leaks, in the real world, they have probably helped prevent things from being even worse than they are with regards to bureaucratic excess and violations of laws and personal freedoms.
enough is too much
If your on the ACLU's action email list (free registration), they alert you to important violations of free speech and other laws and bills, then they provide a link where u can send a free fax (or email) to your representative, senator, president, etc. The last email I received asked us to fax the President and ask him to veto this bill.
- *Normality Is The Root of All Evil*
I'd suspect it's more likely that he'd do it for himself, than for his party. It's arguable that his "leadership" has done significant damage to the party, ranging from fundraising excesses, to the calculated screwing-over of traditional constituencies (for instance, welfare advocates, homosexuals, union members, and environmentalists might all feel betrayed; but, as the President knows, with very high probability they'll vote Dem. anyway, so the downside to screwing 'em over should be absolutely minimal from his POV.).
He's going to retire soon. He probably does NOT want a legacy rife with mentions of impeachment, perhaps disbarment, and accusations of everything from perjury and rape, to espionage and conspiracy to commit murder, with varying levels of circumstantial evidence.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
It's ironic in more ways than I can describe that you would defend this law claiming the "protection of lives" when part of the subject of this post was an article by a gentleman who did what he did to prevent the wanton disregard for american lives...
It should never be illegal for somebody to expose government miss-management/corruption/lies/incompetence even if they are hidden in a shroud of Top Secret secrecy.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
The Constitution lays out how the Government works. Any attempt to do things differently would require an Amendment, which is a lot harder to pass than a regular law (thank goodness).
As we speak, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Missouri's representatives. The Missouri people passed a reform: "when you're elected, you must sign this form saying you'll do everything in your power to get congressional term limits passed." If they don't sign the form, a black mark appears on their re-election ballot. If they go to Washington and don't write term limits stuff, or vote against term limits stuff, another black mark. I have a feeling the Supreme Court will empathize with the voters, but strike it down; once elected, Constituents cannot force the hand of the Representative so strongly.
Smaller elements of process, such as whether House votes are done by voice or are held accountable, may be changable. I hope so. C-SPAN has gone a long way to exposing the process to so many more people, but it's no where near enough.
[
This law is much more broad than that. Read the text yourself. It says nothing about causing death or endangering American lives. It basically perpetually silences anyone who has ever had classified information about that information unless they go and obtain "authorization" to reveal it. The flaw I believe lies in the fact that a ton of information is "classified" and this bill bears no sensistivity to the nature of the degree or the type of information.
Last year, I recall that my amazing Journalism teacher(who almost idolizes Mr. Ellsburg) was able to get Mr. Ellsburg in to talk to us about sundry things (this was during our unit on Vietnam). It was a very interesting experience. As I recall, this was in the middle of the IMF/World Bank protests here in the DC area, and Mr. Ellsburg was in town for them. He urged us all to go out and stand up for our rights, get arrested, commit acts of civil disobedience, etc.
And this to a bunch of 10th graders. Either a really good thing or a really bad thing; I'm not sure.
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
despite that he's broken every major law, and most of the minor ones himself
Right wing propaganda. He committed perjury; he lied during an investigation on a matter unrelated to the actual investigation itself. He lied about an affair. Now how does this equate with breaking "every major law"?
I'm proud I voted for him; I'd do it again.
--
Losing your job or your clearance is one thing, and that can have a chilling effect, sure. But felony jail-time liability would have an even greater chilling effect on those occasional leaks that are important to a free society.
What Congress needs to do is look at the specific leak (it is said, I recall, to have had to do with bin Laden and the press revelation of electronic intercepts of his phone calls) which prompted this criminalization proposal, and craft a narrowly tailored offense to address it, if it was really the Congress's intent to deal with that particular situation (which it wasn't really, by the way, not in this election year with a lame duck Pres all concerned with his legacy and who was intentionally put into a political catch-22 when they timed this bill to arrive on his desk just when it did).
You can't depend on regulatory or prosecutorial discretion to take away the chilling effect of such a law, because you never know what kind of folks might get into power in the future some day, and who would put this kind of broad law to use. Read up on the various Sedition Acts which have been implemented at various times in our nation's past to see what I'm talking about.
I'm still not voting for his veep, but I am glad Clinton vetoed this law. Now, if only someone had screamed so loud before he signed the DMCA and the ATEDPA and the ...
Ed
I'm not so sure. That process was employed during the battle for direct election of senators (the constitution originally had them appointed by the legislature of their state), so presumably the Supreme Court thought it was ok, at least at one time. There's an essay on the battle for direct election of senators here. Unfortunately, that particular essay doesn't talk about the "black mark on the ballot" that some states employed.
I agree. However, it isn't enough to just sit passively and watch. To be really effective, you have to write to your representatives and let them know the consequences of their actions. An effective control system requires feedback.
By the way, I'd add a category of "bills sponsored" to your list. Those bills which a representative endorses, not just votes for, can tell you a lot about where his/her priorities are.
The reason this doesn't happen is because our politicians aren't honest about how they vote. They use public polling to discover popular opinion, run with that mentality, and once elected vote the way that curries the most favor at that time in that legislative body. Now sure a few don't but honestly, just 1 would be too many. So...how do we clean up this country (and specifically the legislative body)? Any ideas?
Never underestimate the power of the letter j
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
I think this speaks very strongly towards the nature of the openness of our country. In many situations, the national government chooses to keep certain information secret, supposedly to protect the state of the government, and its peoples. Now to state that any government should be completely open is a silly suggestion; there are many secrets that are worth keeping in order to ensure the security of the country. To be outright against such privacy in regards to the power of the state is ignorant in my opinion.
I do however understand the objections that arise in the present situation and in regards to how it has been handled in the recent past of this country. Some secrets that have been kept do not need keeping and corruption or political maneuvering to mask mistakes are most likely the cause of many of these. The fact that the recent deal with Russia was kept secret (albeit a part of the agreement which I cannot understand Russia caring about) in regards to sales to Iran of arms and other things including a submarine should not have been kept secret from the people of the U.S, much less the senate! This seems to be an attempt to mask a politically unfavored action. Luckily the media uncovered this story and we now know about it. But would you favor someone leaking information to the public regarding the military deployment of our factions in a hostile situation, and having the person who leaked that information not recieve major repercussions?
I think the government needs to reform its moral values before something like this bill passes but I don't think in a better situation federally, that it would be a bad thing.
Never underestimate the power of the letter j
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
This is good news. I have read it in www.epic.org
....
But the laws which needs to be changed are still there. The worrisome thing is that laws which violate some civil rights and others which give government agencies wide authorities are being made faster than they are blocked!!
The FBI has the right to detain an emigrant without revealing any evidence.
This happened with a guy in the US who was accused to be a terrorist. After three years in PRISON without knowing why he was held, it came out that the evidence was that his X-wife presented this false claim to the FBI. This is a true story.
In the Chinese scientist case, the data which he downloaded was not classified at that time. It was classified retrospectively!
This vito came in a good right time, but it is not enough.
The elections in the coming few days will decide a lot of things especially for civil rights, privacy, health,
It is too bad that Ralph Nader has no chance of getting there; the way I see it is that the more votes he gets, the more his voice will be heard and the better will be the outlook.
This kind of legislation is difficult to implement in practice. Unless someone signs a Non Disclosure Agreement and then releases information that he or she received while under the NDA, how could you prosecute? If the information leaked is not an exact copy of the classified information, who decides where the "dew point" is whereby information could actually be seen as having been "leaked"?
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
If I understand that article, however, there are no laws that currently apply to people who leak non-national-defense classified secrets.
So, basically, all this law is saying is that the same penalties that apply to one type of classified data also apply to other types of classified data.
It seems like nobody wants to admit that, from time to time, somebody leaks a story to a newspaper, the newspaper prints the story, and one or more real actual people get killed as a result. That's not very cool.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
Chances are, he didn't write it. A staffer was probably assigned to write it. President Clinton reviewed it and suggested changes. The staffer then made the changes, and the President signed it. That is how speeches are made nowadays.
Please don't take the above as criticism of President Clinton or modern day politics. I personally believe that if you are going to do something right, hire a professional (in this case a speechwriter) to do it.
In the end though, it doesn't matter what his intent was, he vetoed the bill.
I personally would like to see some more comparative data on those "know your representatives" websites.
For example, lets take a bio from a fictitious Congressman Tony Schnell*:
Tony Schnell, Republican, Anystate
Serving Third Term as Congressman [list defeated opponents]
Further, with some per-visitor preferences, those sites could help you watchdog your own pet issues. "Mark voting records for/against NRA positions," "for/against affirmative-action," "for/against abortion rights," etc.
We're in a Republic, disguised as a Democracy. In either case, a well-informed constituency giving their congress careful attention is the best weapon against the grandstanding anti-progress that we see on Capitol Hill every day.
* Tony Schnell (R), one of the prime supporters of the infamous email tax legislation.
[
Reading Bill's message made me realize just how much I'm going to miss that guy. Of course, I'm speaking as a foreign observer who really couldn't care less how badly you yankees screw yourselves internally. (Just don't annex your buddies up here in Canada m'kay? We're all socialists and we'd throw USA's basically right-wing democratic process out of whack).
Anyway, since I don't have a personal stake in the internal policies of ye olde USA, I think I have a more detached view of the whole situation. Main think I've always liked about Mr. Clinton was his charisma and beautifully-crafted public statements. Before Clinton you really hadn't had a good presidential orator in quite some time.
Also, I'll always have a soft spot for Bill because he tried to do the right thing (Socialized Medicine) even though he must have known he'd never pull it off.
We can publish classified information, but, woe into those who would publish information on the inner workings of a DVD player. Oh well, at least we won this one.
Whenever I read about laws being created to cloak the U.S. government in even more secrecy than it already is, and/or to relieve U.S. citizens of previously held freedoms (for our own good, of course), I am reminded of my 8th grade history teacher (a very politically "right-wing" individual, I might add) who, in the early 1970's, stated his belief that the U.S. was slowly removing freedom from it's constitution while (at the time) the Soviet Union was slowly inserting freedom into it's "order". He predicted a time where both governments reached a common plateau in terms of citizen rights and freedoms. In 1989, of course, the Soviet Union dissolved. However, I am haunted by his prediction: The US govenment is slowly but surely removing freedoms from U.S. citizens by virtue of "The Drug War"(tm), The tremendous "need" for intellectual copyright protection, the need for the govenment to be able to conduct foreign affairs as it sees fit, without the bothersome input from the rank and file citizenship, etc. It is a sad time. I have no doubt Mr. Bush would sign this bill into law without hesitation. The erosion of freedoms has yet to be a campaign issue. Why?
For a white house that's inflicted (or tried to) a significant number of infringements on our rights to privacy, this is very refreshing to see. If you want to be more aware of when these kind of things come up, register at www.aclu.org for their action newsletter. I received an email about this last week and was able to send a fax to Clinton through their web site expressing my objection. You can often do the same when legislation harmful to privacy is considered in both the house and the senate, only the faxes go to your appropriate sen. or rep. Sign up!