Chihak: Sen. Secrecy, aka Jon Kyl, blocks free flow of info
Bipartisan support expected at open House:
Photos & images All Slideshows ยป
Click Photo to Enlarge
ADVERTISEMENT
- Most Commented Stories Today
- Most E-mailed Stories Today
Sen. Secrecy continues to live up to his dubious yet well-earned reputation.
Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl last week cast one of four "no" votes on S. 2035, the Free Flow of Information Act, which was approved in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The vote was 15-4. Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas voted "no" with Kyl. Later, Sens. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., changed their votes from "pass" to "no."
The bill aims to limit government secrecy, including protecting reporters from having to disclose confidential sources under certain circumstances.
Reporters would not be protected in cases involving information judged to be vital to the national security or when they witness crimes.
Kyl's opposing vote came after he failed to amend the bill to require that reporters disclose sources of published information that was improperly classified, had nothing to do with national security and exposed government wrongdoing.
The senator's opposition to government openness - via the media - leads one to think that had he been a Founding Father, he would have voted against the First Amendment
.
Earlier this year, he was labeled "Senator Secrecy" by the Society of Professional Journalists
after the organization exposed him as the senator who had put a secret hold on a bill for open government.
That occurred last spring when Kyl, exercising a privilege any U.S. senator can do under its arcane rules, secretly blocked the bill from going to the Senate floor for a vote.
That's the epitome of irony and the epitome of gall. Is Kyl a public servant or not?
"Not" is the correct answer, as he demonstrated with his secret hold on the open government bill and now with his attempt to derail the Free Flow of Information Act.
Now the U.S. House version of the bill, which is similar to the Senate's, is coming up for a vote. Significantly, 71 representatives are sponsoring the bill in a true bipartisan showing - 45 Democrats and 26 Republicans.
The vote is scheduled for Tuesday on the House floor, and it will be an important moment in the continuing fight for transparency in government.
"The need for a federal shield law is long overdue," John Sturm, president of the Newspaper Association of America, wrote to group members Wednesday.
"Over the last few years, more than 40 reporters and media organizations have been subpoenaed or questioned about their confidential sources, their notes and their work product in criminal and civil cases in federal court," Sturm said.
That kind of government intrusion on those truly representing the people via the First Amendment must be stopped.
And the secrecy that Jon Kyl and others want to use to hide the activities of the government of the people, by the people and for the people must not be allowed to prevail.
Call your congressional representative and urge a "yes" vote on H.R. 2102.
Reach Michael A. Chihak at 573-4646 or mchihak@tucsoncitizen.com.
- Read All Comments » 2 TOTAL COMMENTS
-
William M. (#1469)
Oct 13, 2007 @ 10:54amAgain, I agree with Bernoulli. A free press is not a free pass to publish 'opinion pieces' and intimidate government officials, further; the first amendment grants only free speech, not free speech without accountabilty. -
Meathead B. (bernoulli)
Oct 13, 2007 @ 7:46amWait. So requiring reporters to disclose their sources is shielding "government secrecy"? That doesn't make sense, Chihak, and I think you know it. This is just the "special privileges for reporters" piece again; you're just trying to deflect attention from the fact that you're pushing the media's agenda rather than trying to defend the rights of the people. - Post a Comment »