frequently in jeopardy. But to impose a ban on identifying government agents, or to make it a crime to so identify these agents would, in our view, be improper. A case-by-case review must be the rule. Across-the-board exemptions for any government agency are not in the public's best interest. We do not know of a single case in which an FBI informant's name has not been disclosed voluntarily by the FBI. The FBI has made mistakes, by carelessly revealing vital information, but never has the law enforcement agency been forced by a court to disclose vital information. Neither has CIA lost an appeal in court. The plain truth is that neither organization wants any review of its activities. Our tradition is that the executive branch must justify its actions to the land's highest courts, that it cannot be sole judge and jury of its own behavior. Perhaps it is not a fitting example, but it certainly is an historical case that presidential action in the Iran hostage issue had to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Another proposed measure would prohibit release of all law enforcement records until 10 years after investigations have ceased. We must protest this, because some investigations are always "open," according to FBI officials, and because they are allowed to destroy records after 15 years. This would give a very limited time span to review documents. AP/ONE is not opposed to fine-tuning the FOIA. Agency complaints are numerous. Business complaints are numerous and business deserves ample protection concerning trade secrets and other vital material. But it must still be recognized that business dealings with government are vital links to general understanding of agency and department operations. Again we must emphasize our belief that the nine exemptions under FOIA are adequate and to permit business the privilege of so-called "reverse action suits" to prevent public disclosure of their government contracts, their environmental positions and other issues would be in error. The Supreme Court decided in a Chrysler case that these suits are not appropriate. We applaud this decision on thirdparty activity. If reverse action suits to prevent certain types of disclosures are advisable they should be limited to trade secrets. Additionally, time limits should be set for these actions. |