Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Clinton Vetoes Classified-Leaks Bill

Posted by jamie on from the good-on-'im dept.

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.).

9 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. RAPID APPLAUD by CAIMLAS · · Score: 3
    By NO means have I ever liked. Clinton (back in '92, I remember waking up in the morning to my radio, and hearing that Clinton won the election. I felt like the world was going to end.) But this one act alone, upholding the constitution (despite that he's broken every major law, and most of the minor ones himself and having dispicable personal and professional character) makes me respect him a lot more. He still has no respect in my book though, other than the fact that he is, indeed, the President of our nation, and that position alone demands respect, since as a whole we did elect him twice. (Those of you who actually voted for him should be ashamed.) Most of the things he has done have been nothing but self-serving and tools for his own personal gain. Maybe he's realized his error, and changed his ways?

    -------
    CAIMLAS

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  2. The horrible truth by karb · · Score: 3
    There are already plenty of laws that will cause you to be prosecuted if you leak classified data. This isn't a new thing. If you purposely leak data that results in american lives being lost, you face the death penalty if convicted.

    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

  3. Re:Is that really Clinton? by Bolero · · Score: 3

    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.

  4. Re: Underhanded by Bolero · · Score: 3

    In the end though, it doesn't matter what his intent was, he vetoed the bill.

  5. More Accountability for Congress by Speare · · Score: 3

    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]

    • Voted for 15 bills ultimately Vetoed by Presidents [list vetoed bills]
    • Voted for 5 laws passed, provisions of which Struck Down by Supreme Court as Unconstititional [list unconstitutional laws]
    • Voted for 73 non-spending amendments to Appropriations bills [list unrelated riders]

    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.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  6. Good ol' Bill. by MaxQuordlepleen · · Score: 3

    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.

  7. The irony of it all! by Cap'n+enigma · · Score: 3

    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.

  8. Erosion of "Freedoms" by Dr.+Noooo · · Score: 4

    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?

  9. clinton and this veto by irishmikev · · Score: 5

    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!