Pass a federal shield law

Few things are as disingenuous as a politician in Washington getting worked up about leaks.

Yes, the wrong kinds of leaks can harm national security, and those instances should be investigated, with appropriate punishments meted.

But leaks also act as an important check against government abuses, and officials in both parties use them regularly. The recent investigation over who leaked the name of former CIA operative Valerie Plame to the media is a case in point. The information most likely came from an undersecretary of state within the administration who may have given it out quite innocently. Along the way, however, a reporter was imprisoned for months, despite the fact she never wrote a story on the subject. The government was interested only in her notes.

That bit of prosecutorial overkill (no one ever demonstrated that a law had actually been breached) gave momentum to a move to establish a federal shield law protecting journalists who obtain information in the course of their work. Now, that law is in jeopardy because of objections from the Justice Department.

As currently written, the law would require prosecutors to convince a judge that the damage caused by a leak outweighs the benefit to the public's right to know. That seems like a reasonable balancing test. It could have been applied when investigators demanded notes from late journalist Jack Anderson's estate. It certainly could apply to two San Francisco journalists who now face possible jail terms for failing to say who gave them grand jury transcripts pertaining to baseball star Barry Bonds and his alleged steroid use.

If a judge decides the damage is greater than the benefit, the journalists would be punished. As it is, the public's benefit doesn't even enter the equation.

The Justice Department says, in effect, that judges aren't qualified to make such decisions. It says such a hearing might tip off the nation's enemies or cause other mischief.

But federal judges already deal with national security issues, especially in the secret court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. What seems obvious here is that the administration is afraid of losing what it considers easy targets for legal harassment without accountability.

Many states already have shield laws in place, recognizing that they protect the public. The federal government should pass one, too.