Proposed bill: Tell the American public about government eavesdropping, go to jail
Here’s a bill sure to give journalists and pesky free speech types the night sweats until a court hopefully slaps it down with the constitutional sledgehammer:
WASHINGTON — Reporters who write about government surveillance could be prosecuted under proposed legislation that would solidify the administration’s eavesdropping authority, according to some legal analysts who are concerned about dramatic changes in U.S. law.
The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who “intentionally discloses information identifying or describing” the Bush administration’s terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law.
Under the boosted penalties, those found guilty could face fines of up to $1 million, 15 years in jail or both.
Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the measure is broader than any existing laws. She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified.
“The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact,” said Martin, a civil liberties advocate.
DeWine is co-sponsoring the bill with Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. The White House and Republican Senate leaders have indicated general support, but the bill could face changes as it works its way through Congress.
David Tomlin, the AP’s assistant general counsel, said government officials with security clearances would be potential targets under DeWine’s bill.
“But so would anyone else who received an illegal disclosure under the proposed act, knew what it was and deliberately disclosed it to others. That’s what some reporters do, often to great public benefit,” he said.
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said the language would allow anyone _ “if you read a story in the paper and pass it along to your brother-in-law” _ to be prosecuted.
“As a practical matter, would they use this to try to punish any newspaper or any broadcast? It essentially makes coverage of any of these surveillance programs illegal,” she said. “I’m sorry, that’s just not constitutional.”
The British have similar restrictions on journalists to a much more sweeping extent. Coverage of someone being in trouble for disclosing information the follow-up articles can’t even allude to is as bizarre as you might imagine.
No Comments »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
