In 1954, in a famous exchange during congressional hearings, the mild-mannered Boston attorney, Joseph Welch, asked Sen. Joe McCarthy, “At long last, sir, have you no sense of decency left?”
It’s time to raise to another level the thought embodied in that question: How far should bureaucrats be allowed to go with secrecy laws? Can journalists be forced to reveal their sources at the discretion of a prosecutor? Have Mr. Bush and company, who support such a position, “no sense of decency left”?
US News and World Report recently published a two-page debate about a proposed federal shield law that would broadly define “journalist” and would specify under what conditions journalists may be subpoenaed to reveal sources. Arguing for the bill in the magazine article was a representative of a reporter’s association, who maintained it to be desirable. Against was a member of the U.S. attorney general’s staff, and her argument caught the eye like a rocket on a dark night. According to her, the bill would break the anti-terrorism machinery of the United States into small bits.
This bill is called “The Free Flow of Information Act.” It is an attempt to strike a balance between the legitimate secrets of government and the right of a free press. There are 35 states with their own shield laws (not including Maine) and 14 with varying procedures that offer some protection to journalists. In the case of the federal government, however, no such law currently exists. This bill, drafted with years of compromise between the press, public interest groups, academics, prosecutors and government, is designed to fill that void. It passed the House 398 -21. The attorneys general of 40 states plus the District of Columbia have signed a resolution in its support, and 60 top media organizations (including Murdoch News) recommend passage. It now awaits Senate action.
Despite this broad support, the U.S. attorney general, the secretary of Homeland Security and the director of National Intelligence are opposed – and they are supported by the threat of a presidential veto. With those government sumos stomping the mat, can everyone else be wrong – or is it possible that the Bush administration simply wishes to protect itself for political purposes? Is there really “no sense of decency left?”
The question was posed to Lucius Flatley, retired Gorham law professor and bon vivant. He noted that currently the Justice Department approves requests for subpoenas by federal prosecutors and wondered if reasonable people – journalists or not – would feel comfortable in the hands of people like former Attorney General Gonzales and company. He added, “We should be in favor of anything that would make government, especially this government, accountable.
“The officials who object to the bill are creatures of a political party notorious for abuse of secrecy classifications. Without a free press, such abominations as Abu Graib, Guantanamo, renditions – ‘outsourcing’ torture – and illegal politics in the attorney general’s suite would still be buried. Beyond those, there very likely remains a treasure trove of malfeasance, dishonesty or partisanship that Mr. Cheney and his spaniels are keeping out of sight under the label ‘security.'”
Flatley continued: “Any future administration prejudiced enough to believe that torture produces useful information is certainly stupid enough to believe that the press should be controlled.
“And while the present crew in charge of Justice and subpoenoas will be forced to find other work very soon and things should improve,” Flatley said, “the fact remains, it is better to pass the proposed law. It would at least provide some precedent in case we ever get another set of benighted cowboys in charge of the ranch.”
Rodney Quinn, who lives in Gorham, is a former Maine secretary of state. He can be reached at rquinn@maine.rr.com.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
