In 2001, Congress passed -- and President Clinton vetoed -- what would have been this nation's first "official secrets act," criminalizing leaks of any "properly classified" information. This web site presents the essential background for the public debate over this "pernicious secrecy bill," sponsored by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), who will no doubt propose leaks legislation again this year. Official Secrets Act [ OSA Homepage | The Issues | 2001 Attack | Congressional Letter | 2000 Attack | Links ] "We don't pretend to be neutral on this subject. Newspapers publish leaked material; our reporters solicit leaks. And some of the leaked material we publish is classified. But it is a mistake to imagine that all leaks of classified information are bad." Editorial, The Washington Post, August 24, 2001 "A dangerous piece of legislation pushed for the past 50 years by the Central Intelligence Agency is once again on Congress' agenda. Designed to silence federal whistle-blowers, the bill would criminalize the disclosure of any classified government information, even information that had no bearing on national security" Editorial, The St. Petersburg Times, August 24, 2001 "The . . . law written by Congress goes far beyond any reasonable effort to protect legitimate secrets. . . . The measure is blind to distinctions between genuinely important secrets and those that serve to shield misconduct, block access to historical papers or deny Americans the chance to debate critical national issues." Editiorial, The New York Times, November 3, 2000 "But a free country requires an open government. Whistleblowers and people of conscience -- but more often high government officials themselves -- provide classified information to reporters to expose abuses and cover-ups or to allow them and the public to better understand the reasoning behind certain policies." Editorial, The Harrisburg Patriot, October 27, 2000 "The provision . . . would go far beyond protecting real national secrets and would include all classified material, from merely confidential to the most secret . . . The draconian penalties would cause even more over-classification, official secrecy and harassment of reporters investigating government." "A Bill That Curtails Public's Right to Know," San Francisco Chronicle, October 9, 2000 "A government has not only the right but the duty to guard its real secrets. Current law allows that to take place . . . Under the current system, the criminal system is reserved for egregious and willful incidents. Broadening the law will invite criminal investigations for whistleblowers, as well as for relatively mundane leaks that ought never warrant prosecution." Editiorial, The Washington Post, October 12, 2000 "The law comes despite the fact government agencies often are too quick to classify information that need not be secret to protect national security. So if an agency needs to disclose some information to serve its own or the national interest, it often does so through a "leak" to a jounalist. [This] law . . . does not differentiate between innocuous information leaked and information leaked that is vital to national security, requiring only that it was deemed 'classified.' That's too broad." "No Secrets Act," The Houston Chronicle, November 3, 2000 "If those in charge of classifying documents were less enthusiastic about using their 'secret' stamp, this bill might be less disturbing. . . An "Official Secrets Act," approved based on secret testimony, does not bode well for a country that prides itself on freedom, openness and government of the people." Editorial, The Pantagraph, Bloomington, IL, November 3, 2000 "For several weeks now, the federal intelligence community has scrambled to explain a string of embarrassments. . . So what does the intelligence community do in the face of all this? It rushes to Congress to push legislation that would send people to prison for leaking classified information to the public and press." "Plugging a Leak by Puncturing Freedom," Freedom Forum Online, June 16, 2000 "It is true that information is power. It is also true that many government officials don't enjoy sharing that power with the people. Thus, the nation's capital is awash in secrets; so many, in fact, that we would have democratic gridlock if the machinery of government weren't lubricated by leaks." "A Leaky Bureaucracy is Good for Democracy," Freedom Forum Online, November 10, 2000