Nobody disputes the need to protect sensitive information, especially when it pertains to national security. But U.S. Sen. John Kyl's proposal to create an American version of Britain's Official Secrets Act goes too far and undermines basic American liberties.

The Arizona Republican is proposing an amendment to the Espionage Act that would make it a crime to publish any information "concerning efforts by the United States to identify, investigate or prevent terrorist activity." Kyl is planning to attach it to an unrelated bill dealing with data mining, thus avoiding the need to have a public debate on the subject.

A red flag should go up anytime a senator or representative attempts to change the law significantly without providing a chance for debate or public notice. It's a sign that someone is doing something that is not in the public's best interest.

This amendment represents a dangerous infringement on the public's ability to learn what its government is doing.

The law Kyl is seeking to amend is narrowly drawn. It prohibits disclosure of information pertaining to communication intelligence, such as codes and ciphers. Nobody wants an enemy to know how we are intercepting messages. However, the measure also expands the law to cover anything pertaining to fighting terrorism, thus infinitely expanding the information that could be labeled classified. For example, it could have made it a crime for journalists to report on how the government was going through the private telephone records of Americans as it sought potential terrorists.

Kyl's vaguely worded amendment could have allowed the government to claim that the pictures of prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison were classified data related to anti-terrorism programs and those who divulged them were criminals. The potential penalty for such a "breach" is a 20-year prison sentence.

Don't laugh. The government made a similar argument about the release of the Pentagon Papers, which revealed how the United States was losing the Vietnam War.

The disclosures mentioned above did not imperil national security but only ensured that the United States remained true to its core values by exposing violations of civil liberties and flawed policies.

Kyl's amendment to the Espionage Act would ensure that such embarrassing information never sees the light of day. All a government official would have to do is declare that information, no matter how trivial, is part of a terrorist investigation. Suddenly, releasing it becomes a felony. Whistleblowers will understandably decide that exposing malfeasance and abuse by the government is not worth the risk of spending 20 years in a federal penitentiary.

Not only would Kyl's proposal provide cover for abuses of power, it would also render the United States unsafe from espionage. If a person who is actually attempting to harm the nation is brought up on charges under this law, and if the courts strike it down as unconstitutionally over-broad (as they should), then a dangerous criminal will escape justice.

The amendment would also put all anti-terorrism efforts off-limits to public scrutiny or question. The 9/11 commission called for greater public involvement in the fight against terrorism, not less. If Kyl's amendment were in place, the commission's report itself might never have seen the light of day, and the public might not have pushed for reforms to prevent another attack.

There is a need to balance national security concerns against the public's right to know. But that balance can only be struck through public discussion, not through amendments quietly tacked onto other legislation.

We hope Utah's senators will push for that debate and not let well-meaning people create a state of official secrecy.