On October 26th the JCLU expressed it's opposition to the ‘defense secret’ clause included in the proposed amendment to the Self-Defense Force Law and urged political parties and the Chairmen of both Houses of the Diet to conduct full deliberations of the issue. (The said amendment was adopted into law by the Diet on 29 Oct. and came into legal effect on 2 Nov. 2001.)
The JCLU expressed several major objections to the proposed amendment. First, the scope of the term ‘defense secrets’ is excessively broad and inclusive. This means that even actions similar to the 1965 disclosure of the so-called ‘Mitsuya Study’ by a Diet member could constitute a violation of the law. (The Mitsuya Study included analysis of military scenarios envisaging a second Korean War. Disclosure of the Study caused an outcry due to its conflict with the rule of pacifism embodied in Article 9 of the Constitution.)
Second, the clause applies not only to members of the Self-Defense Forces, but to anyone. Further, the law provides for criminal punishment not only in the case of intentional disclosure of “defense secrets”, but for negligent disclosure as well. Thus, members of the press and public could be found liable for “conspiracy,” “instigation” or “abetting” even a negligent disclosure.
Finally, the content of the amendment is virtually the same as key language in the so-called “National Secrets Act” which failed to gain approval of the Diet in the 1980`s. Moreover, it does not contain the prohibition on overbroad interpretation, intended to limit potential violations of human rights, which was included in the failed bill.
For the above reasons, the JCLU announced its opposition to the proposed amendment, stressing the risk of serious infringement of the rights of freedom of expression, press and publication and that the unclear scope of application renders it incompatible with the principle of nulla poena sine lege (crime and penalty must be defined by law).