The folks at the Weakly
Substandard have joined the ranks of "conservatives" calling for a crackdown
on journalists who "leak" national security "secrets." In an essay entitled
and the Law," Gabriel Schoenfeld tries to make "the case for prosecuting
the New York Times":
"Can journalists really be prosecuted for publishing national security
secrets? In the wake of a series of New York Times stories revealing
highly sensitive counterterrorism programs, that question is increasingly the
talk of newsrooms across the country. …
"Although the editors of the Times act as if prosecution is
not a possibility, not everyone concurs. One person who is still mulling the
matter over is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Asked in late May about the
prospect of prosecuting the Times and others who publish classified information,
he by no means ruled it out. 'There are some statutes on the books,' he said,
'which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that
is a possibility.'"
Schoenfeld goes on to mention a 1949 Senate report that noted how a book published
in the early 1930s about U.S. successes in breaking Japanese codes had caused
"irreparable harm" to our national security because it supposedly prompted the
Japanese to come up with more secure codes. The report concluded that this was
why we weren't able to "decode the important Japanese military communications
in the days immediately leading up to Pearl Harbor."
Never mind that Pearl Harbor was brought on by U.S. government-led economic
sanctions, an oil embargo, and a naval blockade. In Schoenfeld's view, all that
matters is the media's alleged responsibility for "leaks of classified information."
Schoenfeld sums up his criticism of a free press this way:
"At stake here for Attorney General Gonzales to contemplate is not
just the right to defend ourselves from another Pearl Harbor. Can it really
be the government's position that, in the middle of a war in which we have been
attacked on our own soil, the power to classify or declassify vital secrets
should be taken away from elected officials acting in accord with laws set by
Congress and bestowed on a private institution accountable to no one?"
"Accountable to no one?" That sounds a lot like the ruling elite in Washington.
After all, they are the ones with the power to fine, imprison, and kill
with impunity. Despite what "conservatives" like to think about their enemies
in the mainstream press, the fact remains that the New York Times does
not have that kind of power. But since when did facts matter?
We have already seen similar assaults on liberty in our nation's history. Abraham
Lincoln, for example, fought freedom of the press during his war against the
South. He shut down newspapers that were critical of his illegal invasion and
arrested editors who were sympathetic toward the Southern states and their right
Now it seems the Bush administration is prepared to pick up where Lincoln left
off. And, as Schoenfeld's article demonstrates, there is no shortage of "conservatives"
willing to go along with the plan.
It isn't difficult to spot the usual suspects. Those who support the prosecution
of journalists for reporting the truth are the same ones who supported every
other encroachment on our civil liberties under the current administration.
They stood proudly by President Bush when he signed the anti-free speech Incumbent
Politician Protection Act (AKA the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act) into law. They cheered when the PATRIOT
Act made every American citizen a potential terrorist suspect. They praised
the REAL ID Act
and its creation of a de facto national ID card.
As a reminder of the kind of nation we once had, here's what Thomas Jefferson
said about freedom of the press: "The basis of our government being the opinion
of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were
it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers
or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer
the latter." How soon we forget.