A BuzzFlash Reader Contribution

CONTRIBUTOR ARCHIVES  

The First Amendment, Indeed

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
By William Betz

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is getting a lot of play these days, what with two "reporters" being threatened with jail for refusing to reveal the identities of the persons who told them that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA operative, and The New York Times reporter/martyr ultimately being shipped off to the can. 

It was apparent from the time Wilson's wife's name was published that the "outing" of Valerie Plame was in retaliation for Wilson's challenge to one of Bush's make-believe reasons for invading Iraq, i.e., that Iraq had bought weapons-grade "yellow cake" uranium from the African country of Niger and, therefore, it was likely that Iraq was developing "nucular" weapons.  Wilson, a former ambassador, had investigated that claim and found it to be bogus.  He published his conclusion in a newspaper op-ed piece, and the revelation of his wife's identity and job soon followed in a syndicated column by Robert Novak.  Novak is widely considered to be an enthusiastic propagandist for the Bush administration.  The conclusion followed, therefore, that the revelation of Mrs. Wilson's identity and job was the work of someone working within the Bush administration and the revelation was in retaliation for Wilson's publication of the result of his investigation.  In fact, Novak acknowledged that his sources for the information were two senior Bush administration officials.

But what is this "First Amendment" all about?  It's pretty short, saying simply that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  What's at issue here are the words "abridging freedom of speech, or of the press."  But it should be obvious that the wording of the Amendment concerns laws "made" by Congress and the Plame controversy has nothing to do with any law that Congress has made.  There is no act of Congress requiring the Press to cover something or not to cover something and no act of Congress, in any event, has anything to do with Novak, Plame or any of the other players in this drama, notably Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine.  The First Amendment, obviously, is rightly understood as not being strictly concerned with laws "made" by Congress, but rather with governmental interference with the operation of a free press. 

I think it's important to look at the genesis of our historic concern with governmental interference with the operation of a free press.  What were the Founders concerned about when they agreed that a condition for the acceptance of the Constitution was the later adoption of the Bill of Rights?  Were they concerned about protecting a press that was complicit in governmental corruption or were they concerned about protecting a press that would expose governmental corruption?  The answer is clear.  They were concerned about protecting a press that would expose governmental corruption.  Asked another way, does the First Amendment protect freedom of the press or does it protect freedom of the government to manipulate the press to mislead the citizenry and stifle dissent?

For the Miller/Cooper camp to claim some noble motive in refusing to disclose the identities of cowardly governmental officials who would assassinate the careers and jeopardize the lives of their betters and then try to hide behind the First Amendment is more than merely disingenuous, it misses the mark by a country mile.  For Cooper to indulge himself with the simpering sentimentality of invoking his last goodbyes to his son, whom he reportedly told "it might be a long time before I see him again," is worse than mawkish, it's sickening.  What self-respecting son would want to see a father who carries water for a corrupt governmental administration intent on the wholesale destruction of its own nation and the personal destruction of anyone who takes issue with the deceptions underlying virtually every action of that administration? 

Our hearts must bleed for Judith Miller, who is more famous as a stenographer for Ahmed Chalabi than as a legitimate reporter.  Now she's off to jail, poor girl.  Remember, it was Miller who, in concert with her masters at the Times, qualifies hands-down as the enabler of the millennium, at least so far.  She was spoon-fed lies by the disaffected Iraqi criminal and dutifully reported those lies as fact, supporting the false claims of Bush & Co. that there really were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Saddam wanted nothing more than to use them against America.  What a load of hooey.  Why a fiction writer was permitted to transcribe far-fetched stories and publish them on the front page of the "newspaper of record" is a mystery that may never be resolved. 

Still, the newspaper's executive editor had the gall to stand outside the courthouse when Miller was sent to jail today, and to continue to mouth his pious platitudes about the First Amendment and the duty of the press to protect its sources.  He might be properly reminded that the first duty of the press is to report the news, not fiction, and that factual accuracy is the essence of the news.  It is clear that if it weren't for Miller and Novak and those of their ilk, there might have been more truth told about the Bush administration's fraudulent reasons for planning the invasion of an unarmed country, and hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved.

Still, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of Miller's paper, struck a noble pose, claiming that Miller "believes, as do we, that the free flow of information is critical to an informed citizenry."  What he forgot to mention is that an informed citizenry depends on the free flow of accurate information, not false propaganda advanced for the sole purpose of inciting and justifying an unjustifiable war.  Typically carrying Sulzberger's water, the paper's executive editor "Bill" Keller characterized Miller's decision not to reveal her corrupt source -- she might need him again -- as a "brave and principled choice."  Welcome to Bizarro world.

All may not be lost for Miller.  There is certainly a self-promoting book in the offing.  And there still remains the possibility that someone, perhaps Ahmed Chalabi, will send Miller a cake with a file baked inside.  (Maybe even a yellow cake.)  And she'll always have a job waiting for her at the "newspaper of record."

So the point of this exercise not be missed, let it be said that Miller belongs in jail.  So does Novak and so, indeed, do Bush and his henchmen.  They are all part of the same corrupt enterprise. 

The First Amendment is designed not to protect the powerful, it's designed to protect challengers to the powerful.  This case has nothing to do with the First Amendment.  This is a story about the corruption of a complaisant and self-satisfied press by a corrupt and arrogant government.

William Betz

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION

[BuzzFlash Note: Congress did pass a law, United States Code Title 50, Chapter 15, Subchapter IV, Section 421, forbidding those with access to classified information from disclosing the identity of covert operatives: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/.]