New York Times Sounds Alarm on Proposed Anti-Leaks Legislation

The New York Times followed up its report yesterday on the FBI’s ongoing leak investigation and the new anti-leaks measures that just passed the Senate Intelligence Committee with an editorial today explaining exactly what’s wrong with those proposed measures:

Under the measure, only the director, deputy director and designated public affairs officials of intelligence agencies would be permitted to “provide background or off-the-record information regarding intelligence activities to the media.” Briefings on sensitive topics by lower-level or career officials, who are not quoted by name, would be prohibited, shutting off routine news-gathering and exchanges that provide insight into government policies. None of these traditional press activities compromise the nation’s safety. There is no exception carved out for whistle-blowers or other news media contacts that advance the public’s awareness of government operations, including incidents of waste, fraud and abuse in the intelligence sphere.

The bill would even curtail the flow of unclassified information. It draws no distinction between information that is properly classified and the vast pile of information that poses no national risk but has been deemed secret thanks only to a dysfunctional system of overclassification of government documents.

It contains a constitutionally questionable provision that would prohibit a wide range of former government employees from providing paid commentary, including opinion articles, on “matters concerning the classified intelligence activities of any element of the intelligence community or intelligence related to national security.” Yet the bill, which would enhance senior officials’ ability to engage in politically motivated leaks, is not tailored to prevent disclosures truly harmful to national security. Those are already illegal under current law.

The Times places its hopes in the measures dying on the House Intelligence Committee and the White House, who haven’t publicly supported the measures yet. Considering yesterday’s Times report noted this administration is prosecuting more leakers than all previous administrations combined, the hope in Obama may be a little misplaced. The bill passed the Senate Intelligence Committee with just ONE dissenting vote (Ron Wyden), so I’m not sure where the hope that the House Intelligence Committee would be different comes from either.

Any effort to stop the legislation is most likely to come from the small coterie of civil libertarians who have expressed reservations to the expanding surveillance state, a mix of mostly freshmen Republicans and some Democrats who didn’t suspend their support for civil liberties (if they had them in the first place) after their team took the White House.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • tarran||

    So, New York Times!

    How's that big, powerful, centralized state you've been shilling for working out for ya?

  • Adam330||

    Has the Times editors forgotten that it's a corporation and that corporations have no first amendment rights? I'm not sure why they are complaining that this law is "constitutionally suspect."

  • BakedPenguin||

    So, Russians don't like Jamaican runners?

  • ||

    The Times places its hopes in the measures dying on the House Intelligence Committee and the White House


    (takes breath)


  • Lost_In_Translation||

    What, traditional government cover-ups aren't working anymore, have to enshrine them in law now?

  • John||

    Yup. The internet has made it too easy to leak stuff. So you have to scare people with prison to keep them quiet now.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    might as well just make every government official part of the military...and let the tribunals handle it.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    Let God sort them out.


  • John||

    Just be pedantic. Military members are not subject to tribunals but instead the Rules for Courts Martial that read just like the federal rules and are in many ways better for the accused.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    except for a jury of peers and habeus corpus right?

  • R C Dean||

    Personally, I would be just as happy if the military were not directed to "produce the body" as part of due process. It might have, what's the phrase, "unitended consequences".

  • Adam330||

    For most crimes, I'd actually rather have a panel of military members (all of my rank or higher) than a civilian jury (the dregs of society).

  • John||

    except for a jury of peers and habeus corpus right?


  • wareagle||

    any jury, the defense, the prosecutor, and the judge are ALL an accused service member's peers, much better odds than the 12 civilians who couldn't talk their way out of jury duty.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Yup. The internet has made it too easy to leak stuff. So you have to scare people with prison to keep them quiet now.

    Official White House Policy: Snitches get stitches.

  • R C Dean||

    Now, if only the NYT were this solicitous of rights that weren't essential to its corporate well-being . . . .

  • Tulpa Doom||

    And since the DOJ would be in charge of investigating and prosecuting said leaks, this will do zilch to curb the intentional "positive" leaks the BO administration has become famous for.

  • TiggFooo||

    That looks like it might jsut work. Wow.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.