Other Views: Vetoing excess secrecy

President Clinton absolutely did the right thing in vetoing the entire intelligence authorization bill to kill one small section that would have greatly constricted Americans' right to know what their government is up to.

The section would have subjected government officials who disclose classified information - leakers or whistle-blowers, depending where you sit - to criminal penalties. The provision had nothing to do with espionage or information theft; there are plenty of laws on the books already dealing with those crimes. What it would do is allow federal officials to use the threat of prosecution to suppress disclosures that might prove embarrassing or awkward - money misspent, policies that failed, incompetent conduct.

Under this law, the public might never have learned of the lax security at the national laboratories, the planning that went into Waco, the National Missile Defense failures, not to mention such landmark disclosures as the Pentagon Papers that showed the nation's Vietnam policy had been consistently misrepresented to the public.

Government agencies across the board tend to classify information wholesale, much of it needlessly. It's conceivable that any well-informed federal official, including the president himself, might inadvertently disclose information that was obvious but, for whatever reason, classified.

Attorney General Janet Reno tried to assure reporters that the law would not be used against news organizations that print or broadcast classified information. And it's true that the criminal penalties do not apply to news organizations, but the provision would have subjected them to surveillance, wiretaps and subpoenas.

In vetoing the bill, Clinton noted that the anti-leak penalties ''might discourage government officials from engaging even in appropriate public discussion, press briefings or other legitimate official activities.'' After a criminal referral or two, it certainly would.

Clinton's veto is somewhat surprising because his own administration, in the form of the CIA and Justice Department, supported the draconian provision, which some have called without great exaggeration an attempt to impose a European-style Official Secrets Act on our traditionally open government.

Also surprising - or maybe discouraging - is that, in a year when Congress can't get itself together to pass the bills it has to, this assault on free expression raced through without public hearings, House or Senate debate or roll-call votes.

SHNS