Psyche!
Columnists, pundits, and editorial writers are all gradually weighing in on the not-so-veiled threat by Attorney Generalissimo Betito Gonzales to prosecute journalists for publishing state secrets. He suggested recently that a World War I espionage law was still on the books and would allow for such prosecutions. Steve Chapman, a Chicago Tribune columnist, was the latest to mull over Gonzales' comments in a piece publsihed here:
Critics often accuse the news media of helping Al Qaeda by printing government secrets, and it's starting to look like they have a point. Lately Republicans in Washington are so busy with search-and-destroy missions against journalists that they may have no energy left to focus on Islamic terrorists.
Conservatives have never much liked the press, particularly The New York Times, but they are enjoying the chance to graduate from charging it with liberal bias to charging it with deliberately betraying the nation in wartime. They spied that opportunity in December, when the Times reported the National Security Agency's secret eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mail communications between the United States and foreign countries.
But it's not enough to vilify the news media for letting the public know things the administration would prefer to keep quiet. The latest idea is to start putting people in prison when they publish such information. Recently that idea got a favorable response from Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales.
"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," he declared. "We have an obligation to enforce the law and to prosecute those who engage in criminal activity."
... Their thinking goes: Why should it be a felony to give secret national security information to Osama bin Laden but not to give it to the millions of people who read The New York Times? Either way, the bad guys find out things the government doesn't want them to know. So why shouldn't these reporters be punished?
The simple answer lies in a passage of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution that says: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." What part of "no law" is hard to understand? Punishing a newspaper for what it publishes is an excellent example of what the 1st Amendment is supposed to forbid.
... Freedom of the press has its limits. A newspaper certainly could be prosecuted for publishing details of when and where the Army was planning an attack. But the Supreme Court concluded long ago that the government can't take action merely because the press makes disclosures that have some connection to national security. As a rule, the story has to pose a "clear and present danger" of serious harm--not a speculative or distant possibility of something-or-other.
To get a conviction, the Justice Department would have to prove the story posed a grave risk, which would be a high hurdle. The Times, after all, didn't alert Al Qaeda confederates to the possibility that they were being wiretapped, which has always been allowed--only that the government might be listening without a warrant instead of with one. It's hard to imagine what they'd do differently knowing that detail. [Emphasis added]
I think Mr. Chapman and all of the other media experts are overlooking something. I suspect that the Justice Department is fully aware that it probably would never get a conviction to stand up under these circumstances. I also think it really doesn't care. That's not the point. The point is the investigation, the harrassment, the threat of long periods of questioning under oath in depositions or before a Grand Jury. The threat of prosecution is all the government really needs to hold out in front of the press to chill any future investigative journalism.
And you know something? I think it just might work. The press hasn't exactly been the bulwark of freedom the founding fathers believed it would be the last fifteen years. Truth has been replaced by what Stephen Cobert brilliantly calls "truthiness." Balanced reporting, when known facts are offset by partisan or wishful thinking, has replaced intelligent objectivity. Reporters dutifully print what they know to be lies and half-truths from government spokesmen as if it were gospel.
Nicely played, Mr. Gonzales. Nicely played.
Oh, and that sound you hear? It's just Tom Paine spinning in his grave.
Critics often accuse the news media of helping Al Qaeda by printing government secrets, and it's starting to look like they have a point. Lately Republicans in Washington are so busy with search-and-destroy missions against journalists that they may have no energy left to focus on Islamic terrorists.
Conservatives have never much liked the press, particularly The New York Times, but they are enjoying the chance to graduate from charging it with liberal bias to charging it with deliberately betraying the nation in wartime. They spied that opportunity in December, when the Times reported the National Security Agency's secret eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mail communications between the United States and foreign countries.
But it's not enough to vilify the news media for letting the public know things the administration would prefer to keep quiet. The latest idea is to start putting people in prison when they publish such information. Recently that idea got a favorable response from Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales.
"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," he declared. "We have an obligation to enforce the law and to prosecute those who engage in criminal activity."
... Their thinking goes: Why should it be a felony to give secret national security information to Osama bin Laden but not to give it to the millions of people who read The New York Times? Either way, the bad guys find out things the government doesn't want them to know. So why shouldn't these reporters be punished?
The simple answer lies in a passage of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution that says: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." What part of "no law" is hard to understand? Punishing a newspaper for what it publishes is an excellent example of what the 1st Amendment is supposed to forbid.
... Freedom of the press has its limits. A newspaper certainly could be prosecuted for publishing details of when and where the Army was planning an attack. But the Supreme Court concluded long ago that the government can't take action merely because the press makes disclosures that have some connection to national security. As a rule, the story has to pose a "clear and present danger" of serious harm--not a speculative or distant possibility of something-or-other.
To get a conviction, the Justice Department would have to prove the story posed a grave risk, which would be a high hurdle. The Times, after all, didn't alert Al Qaeda confederates to the possibility that they were being wiretapped, which has always been allowed--only that the government might be listening without a warrant instead of with one. It's hard to imagine what they'd do differently knowing that detail. [Emphasis added]
I think Mr. Chapman and all of the other media experts are overlooking something. I suspect that the Justice Department is fully aware that it probably would never get a conviction to stand up under these circumstances. I also think it really doesn't care. That's not the point. The point is the investigation, the harrassment, the threat of long periods of questioning under oath in depositions or before a Grand Jury. The threat of prosecution is all the government really needs to hold out in front of the press to chill any future investigative journalism.
And you know something? I think it just might work. The press hasn't exactly been the bulwark of freedom the founding fathers believed it would be the last fifteen years. Truth has been replaced by what Stephen Cobert brilliantly calls "truthiness." Balanced reporting, when known facts are offset by partisan or wishful thinking, has replaced intelligent objectivity. Reporters dutifully print what they know to be lies and half-truths from government spokesmen as if it were gospel.
Nicely played, Mr. Gonzales. Nicely played.
Oh, and that sound you hear? It's just Tom Paine spinning in his grave.
posted by Diane at 3:50 PM
1 Comments:
Indeed, Good 'ol Tom is turning over and grimacing.......as are ALL the other founding fathers.
AJ
Post a Comment
<< Home