The New York Times editorial board asks:
Editorial: The Anderson Files
Is the public really best served in the age of high-tech terrorism by having F.B.I. agents rifling through a dead reporter's files?
No fracking way! Are Jack Anderson's papers really that important? I doubt it.
The reasons should be clear to anyone who values the free exchange of ideas. First, much of the substance in those documents has been published. Second, whatever is classified is probably old, and may not have deserved to be classified in the first place. At a recent hearing, Representative Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican, said there was widespread agreement among secrecy experts that 50 percent to 90 percent of material currently withheld from the public should not be classified. Finally, the F.B.I. should not have the right to rummage through the files of a journalist, living or dead.
I've done a small amount of rifling through government files (spent most of a year at the LBJ library in Austin working on my senior thesis re: the rise of the surveillance state), which is mostly as boring as it sounds, and there really is no excuse for classifying 98% of the crap that gets classified. The government is supposed to be servants of the citizenry, not the other way around. Is it really going to become a crime to be able to read memos and phone logs from past administrations?
I'm guessing most of Mr. Anderson's papers that are in dispute are from the 50s-70s, and not much past that. What could possibly be contained in these documents that would provide such a security risk to the current occupants of the White House? Feh.
F.B.I. officials say “no private person” may possess classified documents provided to that person “illegally.” That sounds as though some in the administration are trying to turn the old and ambiguous Espionage Act into something approaching an official secrets act. It raises fears of a government merely stamping something secret and making it illegal for a journalist to possess it.This administration always excuses its obsession with secrecy by citing national security. If that's the larger issue, is the Anderson estate really a priority? Is the public really best served in the age of high-tech terrorism by having F.B.I. agents rifling through a dead reporter's files from Iran-contra, the Keating Five and Watergate?
He's likely got lots of dirt on Poppy Bush!
Ahh, no doubt. I had forgotten about Poppy B. being in the CIA and ambassador to wherever it was.