If Director of National Intelligence James Clapper thinks you need to know about US intelligence, he’ll tell you.
A remarkable bit of news was made this week by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists (Secrecy News, 4/21/14). And it sends an ominous message about how can journalism is practiced.
Aftergood writes:
The Director of National Intelligence has forbidden most intelligence community employees from discussing “intelligence-related information” with a reporter unless they have specific authorization to do so, according to an Intelligence Community Directive that was issued last month.
One might think–or want to think–that the new rules are intended to stem the flow of classified information. But, as Aftergood points out:
The new prohibition does not distinguish between classified and unclassified intelligence information. The “covered matters” that require prior authorization before an employee may discuss them with a reporter extend to any topic that is “related” to intelligence, irrespective of its classification status.
He adds:
Essentially, the Directive seeks to ensure that the only contacts that occur between intelligence community employees and the press are those that have been approved in advance. Henceforward, the only news about intelligence is to be authorized news.
It’s hard to see how a move to criminalize routine discussions between government officials and members of the press is anything but an attempt to shut down such conversations. The story was since picked up by reporters like McClatchy‘s Jonathan Landay (4/21/14), who pointed out that the directive
includes a sweeping definition of who’s a journalist, which it asserts is “any person… engaged in the collection, production or dissemination to the public of information in any form related to topics of national security.”
That would apply to a whole lot of people, every one of whom should be alarmed and outraged by this policy.
For once, Canada was ahead of the U.S.! The Harper regime prohibits all kinds of civil servants from talking to the media or giving public speeches without advance approval. Of course in Canada the “intelligence” community won’t say much anyway and is essentially unaccountable.
That’s 21st-century liberal democracy, as Hugo Chavez might say.
A good model to preach to Russia, Venezuela, etc. No?
No, Eric, that’s not ‘liberal democracy’. It’s unadulterated, overt fascism.
You have to wonder if these attempts to put greater pressure on leakers and crack down on whistleblowers will ultimately squeeze out more leaks and whistles.
Especially in the NSA, where the huge number of people with access to official intelligence data gives them some greater measure of anonymity. There must be some who are, even as we speak, becoming more and more doubtful of the virtue of defending the secrecy of a government that’s growing more and more fascist by the month.
Of course this new ruling is completely unconstitutional. Government employees do give up their constitutional rights in order to work for the government. They are still protected by the First Amendment right of free speech.