The Pentagon Papers Case - Research Paper Example

The Pentagon Papers Case Introduction The U.S democratic system contains “free press” as one of its major pillars. The significance of a free press was apparent since independence. After the constitution was drafted, the public was dissatisfied and disappointed that it failed to talk about individual freedom and rights as well as protecting them against infringement by any arm of government. It was panicked that a strong central government may; in absence of any limitations or restrictions use its powers to restrain freedom press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. The New York Times Company versus United States (1971) was a case brought to the New York Times newspaper brought by the federal government for publishing narrative stories based on Pentagon papers. The case is commonly referred to as ‘The Pentagon Papers Case’ (Henken, 1971). Discussion In the “Pentagon Papers Case’ the U.S government was seeking court orders to block the New York Times from publishing the documents arguing on the basis that they enclosed classified government information whose discharge would jeopardize the U.S security. The article in question was a seven thousand page file about the Vietnam War that had taken place between 1967 and 1969 detailing the government dishonesty concerning Vietnam War. The papers revealed how the government lied to public and Congress about the details and truths of the war. The man responsible for copying the Pentagon papers was Daniel Ellsberg, a worker of the RAND Company and the Department of Defense (D.O.D) under McNamara and who was part of the group that assembled the Pentagon papers. Daniel Ellsberg released the report to The New York Times. On June 13, 1971 the company began printing the content (David, 1996). The government warned the company to stop publishing more of the content but it declined (cooper, 1996). The government then sought a prior court restraining order that prevented the paper company from publishing any more of the material. This issue since then has been thought to be the utmost structure of restriction since it was the first time since Abraham Lincoln’s rule that the courts gave a prior restraining order. The paper company sought a court appeal but before the appeal could be considered, Daniel Ellsberg released the copies of the information to The Washington Post. The government sought a sanction to stop the Washington Post but this was declined. In about two weeks, the case ended up in the Supreme Court and by a verdict of 6-3, the Supreme Court verdict was that the prior restraining order was unconstitutional and unlawful. The issues that the court had to establish were the degree to which the First Amendment freedoms were confined; whether they were unconditional or if they could be restricted in some situations (James, 1980). In addition, the Supreme Court also had to establish what entails a danger to national security and whether the requirements to maintain security superseded the First Amendment that guaranteed the freedom of press. Lastly, the judges were subjected to with the charge of deciding whether publication of the Pentagon Papers led to a security threat. According to New York Times lawyers, the First Amendment assured the freedom of the press under its provisions. The the first Amendment protected the press freedom from deserving any liability. The attorneys argued on the fact that press should be allowed to do what it does, keeping the American citizens knowledgeable. They also said that the governments unsuccessfully fell short of proving beyond any reasonable doubt that by revealing the details on the Pentagon papers, the paper would jeopardize national security. The government’s attorneys on the other side argued that the First Amendment does assure a complete press freedom and that freedom must be exercised with accountability mainly in matters pertaining national security are concerned. The government asked the court to consider balancing between protecting the free freedom of press and the similarly essential need for the government to uphold the nation’s security. The government argued that permitting the publication of the papers would threaten the nation’s security, threaten the American soldiers abroad by creating opposition and aggression towards them and set a dangerous example for the future. The government however failed to prove to the courts that there was a genuine threat to the nation’s security. In a short time, judges made a ruling and came to a verdict that did not favor the government’s side. The judges differed on the finer facts of the case but they all agreed that only a free press can efficiently expose dishonesty in government and that in exposing the government’s works that led to the Vietnam War, the press virtuously did that which the Founders trusted they would do. The judges observed that the government had unsuccessful failed to prove to two lower courts the justification and constitutionality for the infliction of such a restraint. The judges agreed with the two courts that the government had not met that burden. The judges noted the government’s appeal for prior restraining an infringement of the first amendment both in letter and spirit. According to Justice Black ‘every moment’s persistence of the restrictions against press leads to a deliberate, vulnerable, and ongoing violation of the First Amendment’ (Michael, 2004). The First Amendment was considered to give the free press the safety it ought to have from the law to play its part in cementing democracy. The judge stated “the press is there to serve the governed and not the governors.” The government’s powers to condemn the press were faded by the First Amendment. The press is mandated to serve the public by exposing the government’s secrets to the public so that the federal government can work towards full service of citizens without any errors. The press was acting within the law in revealing the government’s deception that used lies to send its citizens to missions to go and die in a distant country trying to achieve a task the same government had previously confirmed a failure. As the government defines “security,” this term was declared by the courts as indistinct generality. The courts observed that confining and protecting the secrets of the military at the cost of a knowledgeable delegate government offers no real security for the state.” Among the three rebellious judges was Chief Justice Burger who pointed out that the case was a complex one and that the freedom of the press assured in the first amendment is really not absolute. In the present multifaceted modern government the requirements of a free press must be equal to the needs of the Executive in implementing certain constitutional powers presented to it. The Chief Justice noted the case was a hard one as it was made to appear because no judge had all the details of the case. The Court’s judgment instant result is that in permitting the press to carry on publishing the Pentagon Papers, the Executive was pressured to refrain from the Vietnam War. The government obeyed and America’s involvement in the Vietnam War soon ended. The crucial part the publications played in ending the Vietnam war cannot be undervalued and this would not have occurred had the court ruled in support of the government. The position of the press in imposing responsibility in government via an informed public was made stronger and more fortified. Conclusion The court’s verdict highlighted on the importance the First Amendment and a free press. The decision was brave judging by the content public view of the day and the Pentagon Papers. The public had turned sturdily against the Vietnam War. The 6-3 judges’ decision showed there was a variation in judging the case which means it was not a simple subject of deciding who is right or wrong. The necessity to protect the press freedom and the requirement to give the Executive a free hand to execute its constitutional obligation of upholding the nation’s security would be put on the focus going forward. Though the judges disagreed on some details of the case, they all agreed on the value of a free press in examining the extremes of the Executive in a way the government and the Judiciary arms would not be able to. References Cooper, K. (1996). “The Right to Know”. New York: The Associated Press David, R. (1996). The day the presses stopped: a history of the pentagon papers case 33. Arguing the Pentagon Papers never would have leaked but for Daniel Ellsberg. The wake journal of law and policy Henkin, L. (1971). “The Right to Know and the Duty to Withhold: The Case of the Pentagon Papers.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Vol. 120, No. 2. 271-280. Michael, J. G. (2004). Legal and constitutional issues, in INSIDE THE PENTAGON PAPERS 197, 200. (Eds) John Prados & Margaret Pratt. James, J.M. (1980). Mr. Justice Black: Absolutist of the court 26. The pentagon case. Wake forest journal of law and policy. P.51 Read More