However, in 1971, the New York Times attracted the attention of the citizens when the company authoritatively wrote a headline that could make other Countries like the Vietnam withdraw their allegiance with America, this was after the official News Paper called the Pentagon Papers, discussed on the US-Vietnam relations in the House. It was then published by the New York Times without authorization from the senate to do so and the way the article was written could scare other Nations from associating with the American government since the paper clearly defined the future plans of the US government, which suggested that they were still interested in War with other States.
It is worth noting according to the views of McCombs Protess (pp 117), New York Times got the access of the Pentagon Papers from Daniel Ellsberg. Together with his close ally Anthony Russo, they gave the articles containing the secrets of America and the plans to a news reporter Neil Sheehan, one of the writers of New York Times, he then decided to write on the issues that were regarded as secret to the general public raising an alarm on American relation with the other States or the Allies. It was not even published once but the News Paper (New York Times) had a series of publications that raised animosity to the general public. In fact, most people demonstrated since they were against the governments intentions on war and as a result it turned to be a court case that was so controversial.
Court Case between the New York Times and the Pentagon Papers
Since the image of the government had been painted negatively by the members of the public and the international community for scheming a way to engage in War, the US government sued the New York Times Publishers for reporting the senate discussions in public without authority, raising an alarm and exposing the intentions and strengths of the government. According to experts, such publications could even lead to war or result in negative perceptions of the government by exposing the government tricks and plans to the enemies. Senator Mike Gravel who was a democrat wanted to secure the public on the content of the paper and therefore decided to forward the papers to the Public. Building and some of the sections of the paper were published by the Beacon Press.
Fortunately, the trial could not be easy since section 6 of the American constitution States that no discussion or debate by the senator(s) shall be questioned anywhere hence Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska, could not be questioned by the court. This led to serious damage of the government image since according to Daniel Ellsberg, who gave the information to the New York Times reporter, argued that the government had acted against the Oath of the office in relation to stopping War (Penenberg Barry, pp 142).
He specifically blamed the then President Richard Nixon and extended his accusations on the negative intensions of Mr. Truman and Mr. Lyndon Johnson and accused the two for not giving proper direction to the government and misleading the general public. This led to the revelation of the US governments intention to raid Cambodia, North Vietnam and the Laos. As a result, it worsened the relationship between the States and the United States of America. However, according to the views of Penenberg Barry (pp 141), the intension to widen US superiority was long stated by Mr. Lyndon Johnson when he was a Presidential candidate in 1964. He argued that the US government should not be humiliated by any individual or State. The US had to retain South Vietnam from China and to help in ensuring that the people of South Vietnam enjoyed their fundamental rights and freedom without external interference.
Finally, he argued that the US government must protect the rights and freedom of its Citizen from any external attacks. His campaign was grounded on War principles and reservation of American heritage and its influence on other States, such as the Vietnam and Cambodia hence, supported war as a way of solving international challenges. The New York Times revealed a lot of secrets in relation to intentions of President Lyndon Johnson, who in the shadow, pretended to consult with the advisors dealing with the issues of international relations and yet he did not. The paper clearly stated that the motive of President Lyndon Johnson was not promoting peace but advocating war and superiority of the United States. In fact, the paper was so specific on the event that took place in Vietnam on the 17th July, 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to Vietnam that led to the massive killing of the Vietnam population hence contravening the Oath of office (McCombs Protess, pp 117).
The legal action by the New York Publication
As discussed prior, publications of vital information especially on issues to do with government security and secrets is against the constitution of America. The media is therefore barred from such publications since they can result to demonstration or instability. The New York Publishers were so keen and smart to seek legal advice from the legal experts before they could publish the paper to the general public since the information was more to do with the government secret plans to attack other States such as Cambodia, through carpet bombing. For the fear of legal actions that could follow after the publication, the New York Times had a clear strategy to use Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska to deliberately extract the vital information from Pentagon Paper and send it to New York Times for publication (Berry, pp 101).
President Richard M. Nixon Injunction against the New York Times Publisher
According to Berry (pp 101) the House counsel Goodale James was the first to defend the New York Times Newspaper, for not violating any law governing publication and argued that the first Amendments supports Publishers, to publish any information that is of public interest and information to do with government intentions and policies hence according to him, there was no mistake or error done by the New York Times for publishing the article to the general public.
The Appeal at the Supreme Court
However, President Richard M. Nixon blamed the action of the New York Times on Daniel Ellsberg and his close friend Russo for leaking information to the reporter yet they knew it was vital information, which was to be protected from public awareness. According to his argument, the two committed a crime that would result to death penalty in line with the Espionage Act of the year 1917 and that they had no mandate as per the constitution to publish such vital information to the general public. After a short period of blame games on who was on the wrong side, President Richard M. Nixon, took a court injunction against the New York Times forcing the Publisher to stop any further publications of the News on the Paper (Nixon, pp 10).
However, according to Mills (pp 126), the publisher by the name Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, argued that there was no breach of security since the government claimed that the Newspaper sent an alarm to the enemies which could result to serious security problems in future. In response to injunction that was taken by Nixon, the New York Publisher appealed at the Supreme Court and the ruling was made after. The court had to come out clear and defend the Amendments of the constitution on the regulations and the fundamental rights of the media to publish information relating to the Executive intentions and actions. The Amendments gave the New York Times the mandate to publish information that is of National interest without intimidation or censure. One of the sections that gave the New York Times an upper hand in the case was Section 793 of the Espionage Act. According to the then Attorney General John Mitchell, he clarified that the publication did not violated any section of the Amendments hence he deserves no penalty for publication by New York Times (Penenberg Barry, pp 149).
Conclusion
The decision that was made by the Supreme Court did not defend Mr. Nixons argument on violation of government plans by the publisher of the New York Times. In fact, the court made a ruling stating that the two Publishing firms, New York and Washington Posts, had no legal restrictions to authoritatively publish information that is contained in the Pentagon Papers and such action cannot be censured by the government. The government lost the battle and could not even bar the New York or the Washington Posts Newspapers from Publications.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment