Danger of military spying on citizens -- Akahata editorial, May 30

The Defense Agency has been found to have examined the personal data of individuals who made requests for records from the agency under the Free Access to Information Law.

The agency tried to collect information about not only the occupation and the date of birth of those who have requested documents, but also about organizations they belong to and the type of ideology they have.

The Defense Agency officer in question worked before at the agency's intelligence section for the protection of the Self-Defense Forces' secrets, assessing public sentiments. Assigned to work at the Free Access to Information Room, the officer gathered information about, and even made lists of those who requested agency records.

The list has been delivered to the agency's related secretariats and the Ground, Maritime and Air Self-Defense Forces.

This explains why contingency bills are dangerous.

The present revelation suggests that the Defense Agency has been keeping the public under constant surveillance.

Clearly, this is against the law banning the use of information for unspecified purposes.

The collected data even included personal information which the seekers never referred to when they requested Defense Agency records. A person who is a former SDF personnel was referred to as an "anti-SDF man." It's a virtual espionage activity.

This is a transgression of fundamental citizens' rights, including the freedom of thought and belief.

If the information disclosure system is abused to examine people's ideology, people will be discouraged from requesting any information from the Defense Agency.

The present affair reveals the dangerous nature of the bills which are now under consideration in the current Diet session: the three bills on contingency legislation and the bills related to so-called personal information protection .

The set of bills concerning the protection of privacy, if enacted, would "put restrictions on the purposes of the use of information" and "take preventive measures against leaking personal information." But, it wouldn't punish government agencies if they commit illegal collection of data like the recent revelation concerning the Defense Agency.

Not that the Defense Agency is doing such illegal things. What will happen if the contingency legislation for national mobilization is enacted?

Has the Defense Agency already started keeping the public under surveillance in preparation for the implementation of the contingency legislation which will punish citizens who refuse to obey government orders to take custody of supplies?

If the contingency bills are enacted and top priority is given to prosecution of war, the Defense Agency will legally sort out people into "cooperative" and "non-cooperative' designations.

Apparently, a system is being constructed to bind the people by the obligation to cooperate in a war when the government invokes the contingency laws. The Defense Agency's investigation and ideological surveillance show that such a danger is real.

Basically, the contingency legislation is hostile to the people, as shown by provisions that would force the people into cooperating in a war and punish anyone who refuses to comply with orders. This is what the contingency legislation is all about. Its aim is to allow Japan to participate in U.S. wars, instead of serving the people's well-being.

What will happen to the Defense Agency, which is by nature hostile to the people, if the contingency legislation is in place? No one can deny a possible terrible outcome.

Government must make public all facts

Since the incident came to light, Prime Minister Koizumi Jun'ichiro and Defense Agency Director General Nakatani Gen are repeatedly saying that strict measures are necessary against acts of violation of official obligations. The government is responsible for establishing all the facts, as this may be the Defense Agency's crime.

The allegation is about a crime that affects the citizens' basic human rights, lives, and properties.

Who ordered the staff to investigate citizens' ideology? Who received the reports? How have the reports been used? The government is responsible for making public everything about the allegation.

The dangerous nature of the contingency bills and the bills related to the "protection of privacy" are becoming clear.

The Koizumi Cabinet must withdraw these bills and respond to people's doubts and concerns. (end)