The Press and National Security.
What a fiasco, from beginning to end.
Freeman claims the press is different from, and better than, Wikileaks.
What is the difference between a whistleblower, a patriot, a traitor, and a rat?
Bullshit.
"...I will never forget the excitement with which I read those words in a St. Louis newspaper, in the midst of my four months' active military service at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Years later, my friend Tom Kerr heard them read from the pulpit of the National Cathedral, and watched Nixon, Mitchell, and other leading members of the Administration walk out down the middle aisle. They were, he said, purple with rage. Justice Black's words live on...." DK
My own views are more in sympathy with the likes, even, of Nixon, though he at first said they (The P Papers) sounded good to him because queering his Democratic predecessors; or with the Times' own historic counsel, Lord Day and Lord, in the Pentagon Papers case; not at all with the likes of Ellsberg, Assange, DK, or Snowden.
My professor for federal civil procedure, long ago, was Alexander Bickel's son. Take a look at Freeman's lecture on just how pathetic the whole PP litigation situation was as it unfolded.
Most interesting was how the government chose the wrong, and the losing relief, whereas they should have gone directly for prosecution under the Espionage Act, as the lecturer (himself longtime counsel to the NYT) should know, pointed out.
My professor for federal civil procedure, long ago, was Alexander Bickel's son. Take a look at Freeman's lecture on just how pathetic the whole PP litigation situation was as it unfolded.
Most interesting was how the government chose the wrong, and the losing relief, whereas they should have gone directly for prosecution under the Espionage Act, as the lecturer (himself longtime counsel to the NYT) should know, pointed out.
Some things are true even if Putin, or Xi, publishes them.
Should we guarantee their First Amendment Rights?
After all, for Americans, First Amendment Rights, just like human rights, are not at all limited to Americans: they are global rights, the birthrights "that are right for all people everywhere" as W said!
After all, for Americans, First Amendment Rights, just like human rights, are not at all limited to Americans: they are global rights, the birthrights "that are right for all people everywhere" as W said!
"...A second, more interesting case, for me, was Afghanistan. Here Woodward's treatment reveals a lot not only about Trump, but about our national security establishment 17 years after 9/11. It has learned nothing...." DK
The national security establishment has learned nothing. Why not extend this time frame back, not back to the beginning, but just back to post WWII.
Especially back to the Korean War and Vietnam era. Back to the era under discussion in The Pentagon Papers above.
Whose fault has it been?
What has the national security establishment learned from, and since, the NYT expose in the Pentagon Papers?
If you believe David Kaiser's remark, nothing, nothing.
Well then why even have First Amendment protection which accomplishes, in what has apparently now been a relatively quite long run (even for an economist), nothing? Why?
Why reward failure, either in government or in the media?
Why protect incompetence, either in government or in the media?
The classic argument of the media has been that it has been its job to bring rectitude to wayward government.
The classic argument of the media has been that it has been its job to bring rectitude to wayward government.
It has been demonstrated, particularly by the current international scene debacle under Trump, that the media have all singularly failed in their announced (but illusory) mission, the very basis and ground of their prerogative under the First Amendment, to call out and correct bad government!
No comments:
Post a Comment