(IAPA/IFEX) – The following is an IAPA press release: IAPA voices concern over any effort in US to introduce legislation that would punish disclosure of classified information Miami (May 26, 2006) – The Inter American Press Association (IAPA) today voiced its concern over the possible introduction of legislation in the US Congress that would punish […]
(IAPA/IFEX) – The following is an IAPA press release:
IAPA voices concern over any effort in US to introduce legislation that would punish disclosure of classified information
Miami (May 26, 2006) – The Inter American Press Association (IAPA) today voiced its concern over the possible introduction of legislation in the US Congress that would punish the disclosure of classified information generally. At the same time, it endorsed views expressed by two national newspaper organizations whose arguments were prepared for a legislative public hearing to take place today in Washington, DC.
The debate was revived in the US on May 21 when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was questioned as to whether he could prosecute journalists for publishing classified information. His response was that “there are some statutes on the books which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility. That’s a policy judgment by the Congress in passing that kind of legislation.”
In recent years the attention of the US media and national and international press associations has centered on leaks of classified information and attacks on the media, in particular the threat of incarcerating journalists who protect their sources when challenged in court, following the well-publicized case of Judith Miller in 2005.
The Newspaper Association of America (NAA) and the National Newspaper Association (NNA), opposing the need for an “Official Secrets Act”, addressed a letter to Representatives Peter Hoekstra and Jane Harman, Chairman and Ranking Member of the House of Representatives’ Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, respectively, which asked that their views be presented as part of the record in the Committee’s public hearing today. The hearing has been called on the media’s use of unauthorized disclosures of classified information to inform the public on important public policy matters.
Diana Daniels, IAPA President, stated: “Like NAA and NNA, we are extremely concerned with any ‘legislation that would fundamentally alter the way in which government officials deal with the press, the way in which the press gathers and reports the news, and the way in which the public learns about its government.'”
She added, “historically, the US media’s role in informing the public and ensuring governmental accountability has been supported by access to public information, including that from official sources who sometimes remain anonymous out of fear of reprisals and who are convinced that only through leaks will the public be informed of matters of importance, such as abuse of power and corruption. Without such information the public would be less able to understand what the government is doing and to hold the government accountable.”
The NAA/NNA letter – which is available in English at http://www.sipiapa.com/doc.pdf – concludes with the thought that “legislation that criminalizes all disclosures or publication of classified information is an anathema to a system that places sovereignty in the hands of the people. That has been the prevailing view for the first two-and-one-quarter centuries of our nation’s existence and there is no compelling reason to change a system that has worked so well for so long to preserve the liberty of so many”.
Daniels, vice-president of The Washington Post Company, Washington, DC, declared that “even though the IAPA respects the duty of a government to preserve national security, there is a delicate balance between the public’s right to know and the need of a government to protect secrets. We feel that the passage of any legislation that punishes the disclosure of classified information generally should be rejected as being in direct contravention of the fundamental principles of the First Amendment with its guarantees of a free press and in contravention of the special importance of a free press to a democracy.”
