Wikileaks
Wikileaks .The political/diplomatic equivalent of seeing how the sausage is made. And that's all it should be: an embarassing documentary of diplomatic reality. We don't like everyone. Shocking. Not everyone likes us. Even more shocking. But perhaps underlying the hue and cry is the realization that while the general public always thought politicians and diplomats danced around the truth, that much of what they said was polite euphemism, that they banked on our not being smart enough or concerned enough to realize that we were being lied to, now we know it. In redacted black and white.
30 years ago, it was the Pentagon Papers and their publication by the New York Times that provoked similar outrage in Washington. The top secret report on US involvement in Vietnam was not a flattering portrayal of several administrations, and its publication resulted in a similar cry for the head of Daniel Ellsberg, and the Times' editorial board. But on June 30, 1971, the United States Supreme Court ruled in New York Times Co. v. The United States that the government had not proved its case for prior restraint and ruled in favor of the Times.*
To quote Justice Black: "Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell." —Justice Hugo Black
The opposing argument, of course, is that if we don't want deception exposed, we must restrain the press. Just like they do in North Korea. And Eritrea. And Turkmenistan, Iran, Burma, Syria, Sudan, China, Yemen, Rwanda, Laos, Equatiorial Guinea, Cuba, and Vietnam.
*Yes, it is true that while the Supreme Court case is seen as a First Amendment victory, it more narrowly concerned itself with the government's assertion of prior restraint. It did not void the Espionage Act, or permit the wholesale publication of classified documents.
30 years ago, it was the Pentagon Papers and their publication by the New York Times that provoked similar outrage in Washington. The top secret report on US involvement in Vietnam was not a flattering portrayal of several administrations, and its publication resulted in a similar cry for the head of Daniel Ellsberg, and the Times' editorial board. But on June 30, 1971, the United States Supreme Court ruled in New York Times Co. v. The United States that the government had not proved its case for prior restraint and ruled in favor of the Times.*
To quote Justice Black: "Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell." —Justice Hugo Black
The opposing argument, of course, is that if we don't want deception exposed, we must restrain the press. Just like they do in North Korea. And Eritrea. And Turkmenistan, Iran, Burma, Syria, Sudan, China, Yemen, Rwanda, Laos, Equatiorial Guinea, Cuba, and Vietnam.
*Yes, it is true that while the Supreme Court case is seen as a First Amendment victory, it more narrowly concerned itself with the government's assertion of prior restraint. It did not void the Espionage Act, or permit the wholesale publication of classified documents.
posted by Unknown at 2:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home