Last year, a dangerously misguided piece of legislation that would have
criminalized the disclosure of any kind of classified information was
killed by President Clinton's veto. Now, emboldened by the presumption that
President Bush would be more likely to sign such a measure, its principal
sponsor, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, is preparing to resurrect the idea.

In an abdication of its responsibility to subject important legislation to
thoughtful debate, Congress blithely approved the bill last year without so
much as holding a single public hearing on the matter. We trust that
Senator Bob Graham, who became chairman of the Intelligence Committee when
the Democrats took control of the Senate, will not want to abuse his powers
in a similar fashion. The single day of hearings that the committee has
scheduled immediately after Labor Day cannot possibly do justice to the
sensitive issues raised by the Shelby scheme.

If they invite a robust debate about the bill, Mr. Graham and other
committee members, including the Democrats Carl Levin and John Edwards and
Republicans Richard Lugar and Pat Roberts, should recognize that the broad
restrictions of the Shelby plan could seriously harm American democracy.
They can then do the country a favor by burying the proposal in committee.
The measure is likely to be offered as an amendment to the annual
intelligence authorization bill.

On more than one occasion in recent years, the nation has been well served
by the timely disclosure of information the government has been trying to
keep secret. By subjecting such revelations to criminal penalties, even
where no legitimate national security interests are involved, Mr. Shelby's
approach would impoverish public debate.

Last year's bill would have criminalized disclosure of the kind of
information Americans need to debate issues like the effectiveness of
Washington's military aid to Colombia's drug war or the chances for success
of a new peacekeeping operation in Macedonia. It would have made it easier
to cover up the lawlessness of the Iran-contra affair and would even
penalize public disclosure of government historical papers. Although its
penalties are aimed at leakers, not journalists, those who publish leaked
material could be summoned before grand juries and asked to reveal their
sources.

The government already has ample powers, including criminal sanctions, to
investigate and prosecute officials suspected of revealing especially
sensitive information. Responsible news organizations, for their part, are
mindful of the security concerns when they handle this kind of information.
For less serious cases, the government can use a range of administrative
penalties, from taking away security clearances to dismissal and even a
lifetime ban on future government employment. There is no reasonable
justification for extending criminal penalties to broader categories of
classified information.