五角大楼文件案

Dracula · 发表于 2014-6-3 04:42:53

五角大楼文件案

这篇文章我本来想起名New York Times Co. v United States，是那篇关于Sullivan案件的续篇。但是觉得这个英文题目，不像五角大楼文件那样吸引人，提高点击率，就换了这么个题目。这个贴改发在史笔新阁里，因为这篇历史内容多点，同时我刚发现，一样的帖子，发在研究生院里得分就会多。

五角大楼文件（Pentagon Papers），是美国国防部部长Robert McNamara 1967年6月下令编纂的。共47卷，7000多页，内容是1945年到1967年美国在越南问题上外交决策的历史，目的是为未来的历史学家留下第一手的研究资料，从中吸取教训。文件中其实也没有什么特别机密的内容，但是对美国在越南的外交政策作了很坦诚地叙述，尤其是很多不那么光明磊落的一面。比如二战结束之前，胡志明向美国政府需求帮助，遭到杜鲁门的拒绝。1954年日内瓦和谈还在紧张进行地时候，美国政府就在西贡计划组织针对北越的军事行动。1963年，美国政府在南越策划政变，将吴廷琰推翻。尤其有爆炸性的是，文件详细描述了肯尼迪和约翰逊政府如何瞒着美国人民包括国会，偷偷地在越南增加美军的数量一系列行为。包括约翰逊政府如何利用北部湾事件误导国会，通过北部湾决议，全面扩大美军在越南的规模。文件里还提到美军在北越的轰炸对北越的军事力量只有很小的触动，却造成了几十万北越平民的伤亡，而这些信息，美军完全隐藏，公众都一无所知。

五角大楼文件案的主角Daniel Ellsberg 1931年出生，哈佛大学经济系博士，他的博士论文提出了Ellsberg Paradox，今天高级微观经济学的教材几乎都包括这部分内容。尤其在80年代之后，对经济学的发展有不小的影响。1962年毕业后，来到兰德公司（Rand Corporation），负责设计对付苏联核打击的战略。1964年转到国防部，属于国防部部长McNamara的幕僚，1965至1967年，他在越南待了两年。Ellsberg本来属于鹰派，主张对北越严厉打击，但是在越南的两年改变了他对越南形势的看法，尤其是美国政府隐瞒信息，误导公众的做法让他觉得愤怒。据他回忆，1966年10月他随McNamara从越南返回美国，在飞机上，McNamara对他沮丧地说，“过去一年美军增兵10万，战局却越来越差。”，但是到华盛顿一下飞机，McNamara就意气风发地向在场的记者宣布“我刚从越南赶回，我很高兴向你们宣布，在每个方面我们都取得了很大的进展。”

从越南回来后，Ellsberg回到了兰德，但是仍然担任政府高级官员的顾问，参与了五角大楼文件的编纂。通过对这些文件的阅读，Ellsberg逐渐坚信美国应该立刻从越南撤离。他觉得他应该尽其所能促成其实现，即使为此进监狱也在所不惜。1969年秋天，Ellsberg开始秘密复制五角大楼文件。1971年3月，他决定达成目的的最好方法就是将五角大楼文件通过媒体泄露出去。他在越南认识一个记者Neil Sheehan，这时刚转到纽约时报，Ellsberg就把这些“绝密”文件转给了他。文件的一小部分，Ellsberg认为同national security 有关，自己留了下来。

纽约时报得到这批文件后，派了4个人，花了3个月，窝在旅馆里，仔细阅读研究，最终编辑部决定，文件很有价值，而且不涉及作战计划等危及国家安全的方面，从6月13日开始，连载发表。尼克松政府得到五角大楼文件发表的消息后，开始还不太在乎，因为这些文件主要涉及的是肯尼迪，约翰逊两个民主党总统的任期，同尼克松无关，是给民主党脸上抹黑，反而有利于尼克松1972年总统大选，尼克松一开始甚至还决定自己再秘密泄露一批文件，这样一来彻底解决掉民主党。但是尼克松的National Security Advisor 基辛格却提出了反对意见。此时基辛格正在同中国政府秘密接触，准备尼克松访华。他觉得要是中国方面知道美国连这么点秘密都保守不住地话，可能会对美国失去信心。而且过去两年，尼克松政府一直在秘密轰炸柬埔寨老挝的胡志明小道，造成大量平民伤亡，在公开场合却一直否认，基辛格担心要是对五角大楼文件泄露听之任之的话，对尼克松政府不利的消息很快也就会被泄露出去。

最终，尼克松被基辛格说服。6月14日，司法部部长John Mitchell（他后来因为水门事件进了监狱），给纽约时报的老板Arthur Sulzberger发电报，通知他过去两天的纽约时报的内容包括机密文件，违反了1917年的Espionage Act，要求时报立刻停止发表，并且将文件原件交还给国防部。2个小时后，纽约时报给出了答复，拒绝了他的要求，因为美国国民的利益就在于能够获知文件的信息。6月15日，纽约时报不仅继续发表文件内容，而且报纸的头版标题就是“Mitchell Seeks to Halt Series On Vietnam But Times Refuses”。这样美国政府同纽约时报的战争全面展开。

也就在这一天，美国政府向曼哈顿联邦法院申请禁止令（injunction），禁止纽约时报继续发表机密文件，依据是1917年的Espionage Act。1917年美国加入一战。国民的参战热情不是太强，威尔逊政府就通过了Espionage Act，里面规定泄露同国防有关的机密信息是犯罪行为。审这个案子的法官是Murray Gurfein，刚刚上任，这时他接手的第一个案子，听取了双方的陈述后，发出了临时的禁止令，禁止纽约时报继续发表文件。6月18日双方递交完整的legal briefs后，他再作最终决定。这时美国建国200年以来，联邦法官第一次禁止报纸发表特定信息。

就法律上来说，政府对报纸言论自由的干涉有两种方法。一种是prior restraint，就是通过法院的禁令让信息根本就在报纸上发不出来。一种是信息在报纸上发表之后，再对其起诉，追究其民事或刑事责任。英国common law从中世纪以来的传统认为prior restraint对言论自由的侵害尤其严重。我以前提到过，在美国，政府必须有非常强的理由才能限制言论自由，而这个标准对于prior restraint来说是尤其得高。

就在美国政府和纽约时报在法庭上激烈交锋的时候，Daniel Ellsberg发现纽约时报遵守法官Gurfein的禁令，停止了文件的发表，感到极其愤怒，觉得是纽约时报对他的背叛。好在他还有个备用方案。这时就联系华盛顿邮报的助理编辑Ben Bagkidian。邮报这几天一直就对纽约时报搞到这么好的头条新闻感到嫉妒。现在有了这么一个好机会，当然不会放过。6月16日Ellsberg 将另一份五角大楼文件转给了邮报。很快，FBI调查出泄露的机密文件来自他。Ellsberg开始四处躲藏。2个星期后在把所有的复制文件全部发放出去以后，主动向FBI自首。在这两个星期中，他还接受了好几个记者的采访，最有名的是CBS新闻主持人Walter Cronkite。Cronkite 问他五角大楼揭发的文件中，最重要的是什么？Ellsberg 回答说，

I think the lesson is that the people of this country can’t afford to let the President run the country by himself, … without the help of Congress, without the help of the public. … What these studies tell me is we must remember this is a self-governing country. We are the government. … We cannot let the officials of the Executive Branch determine for us what it is that the public needs to know about how well and how they are discharging their functions.

同时，华盛顿邮报编辑部的人正在疯狂工作，纽约时报研究这些文件研究了3个月，而邮报要想赶头条，却只有一天的时间。邮报的律师建议他们应该谨慎行动，但是邮报的老板Katharine Graham最终被编辑部说服，6月18日，在纽约时报仍然在injunction的禁止下时，华盛顿邮报在头版位置开始发表五角大楼文件。没有几个小时，邮报的总编Ben Bradlee就接到了司法部副部长，William Rehnquist（未来的最高法院首席大法官）的电话，内容和几天前纽约时报接到的几乎完全相同，让他停止文件的发表。但遭到Bradlee当场拒绝。很快司法部就在华盛顿的联邦法院将邮报也告上法庭。接管邮报案件的法官是Gerhard Gesell。Gesell以前当过记者，听了政府的陈述以后，很快就拒绝了禁止令的申请。他的看法是政府是在滥用Espionage Act，那一法律的本意是为了防止间谍活动，而不是给政府理由来审查媒体。第二天，纽约的Gurfein同样撤销了他的临时禁止令。司法部马上对这两个判决进行上诉。6月25日，两个案子合一，来到了最高法院。

6月30日，最高法院以6比3作出判决，认为政府寻求的对时报和邮报的prior restraint违反了第一宪法修正案。法官对这一案件的分歧也很大，没法达成完全一致的意见，每个人都写了自己的判决意见。最高法院法官Hugo Black在言论自由问题上是个绝对主义者。对他来说，既然第一宪法修正案说政府不能制订任何法律限制言论自由，那么政府就无权对言论自由作任何限制。即使是国家安全也不成其为理由。第一宪法修正案保护媒体发表任何政府的机密，不管其多么重要。最高法院法官William O. Douglas历来对言论自由也是极其支持。他的判决意见承认公布这些文件可能会给国家安全造成严重影响，但是认为这不足以作为prior restraint的理由。最高法院法官William J. Brennan Jr. 比较中庸，在这个问题上没有Hugo Black 那么激进。他同意在特殊情况下，比如如果这些文件包括美军未来的作战方案，直接威胁士兵的安全的话，政府可以申请prior restraint。但是这个情况必须非常特殊，政府申请的理由必须非常强。而在这个案子里，尼克松政府只是泛泛地说发表这些文件会威胁国家安全，对Brennan来说，这个理由太空洞，包含太广，如果承认这个理由的话，口子开得太大，会对第一宪法修正案带来很大威胁。因此他同样认为政府的要求违宪。我读到的，后来的最高法院和法律界的人士一般都倾向于Brennan这个比较中庸的意见。其余6个法官的意见我就不一一叙述了。但是即使是认为政府有权要求禁止发表文件的3个法官也对尼克松司法部的理由不是完全赞同。

五角大楼文件的发表在美国国内引发了强烈的反应。美国人突然意识到他们以前信赖的政府用各种方法对他们隐瞒甚至是提供虚假信息。这以及接下来的水门事件让美国人对政府的信任跌到了低点，即使是40年后的今天也没有恢复过来。

New York Times Co. v. United States 这个案子直接涉及的问题是政府是否有权申请禁止令禁止报道发表。最高法院的判决是它没有这个权力。从理论上讲，在文件发表后，司法部还是可以根据Espionage Act对报社起诉，但是尼克松政府判断这个官司很可能会输，就不再追究纽约时报和华盛顿邮报的责任。这样这个案子就创立了一个先例。今天尽管泄露政府机密的公务员（比如Edward Snowden ， Bradley Manning）仍然是有罪，但是美国法律界包括司法部现在都接受政府无权禁止媒体发表这些机密文件，而且媒体发表的话不承担任何法律责任。就去年的Snowden事件，美国政府可以逮捕起诉他，但是发表文件的华盛顿邮报没有任何责任，最近还因此获得了普利策奖。

尽管对付不了媒体，尼克松还是放不过Ellsberg。司法部对他以12项罪起诉，加起来最多可以判125年。对他起诉的理由是这些文件是美国政府的财产。Ellsberg非法复制，分发这些文件犯了盗窃罪。从法律上说Ellsberg的行为可以这么来类比。第一宪法修正案保护自由拍摄电影的权利。但是假设一个人偷了一台摄影机来拍电影，很明显他犯了盗窃罪。偷摄影机同拍电影没有必然的联系，对他的起诉同言论自由无关。因此Ellsberg为自己辩护的理由必须是他盗取政府的文件同后来发表这些文件的言论是紧密联系在一起的。因此他盗取文件的行为同样受第一宪法修正案保护。这个理由是否能说得通，不是很清楚，我的感觉是有些勉强。

后来事件的发展，让我们没能得到这个问题的答案。1971年9月3日晚上，尼克松手下的5个plumber（其中3个来自CIA ），撬开了Ellsberg心理医生Lewis Fielding办公室的门，想找到Ellsberg的病历，然后泄露里面的信息，在媒体抹黑他的形象。不过象后来的水门事件一样，这些plumber挺没用，忙活半天也没能找到Ellsberg的文件。后来随着水门事件的调查，这一事件在1973年4月26日被公布。5月9日，又传出了FBI非法监听Ellsberg电话的新闻。Ellsberg一案的法官，Matthew Byrne对尼克松政府的行为极其气愤，认为政府这种前所未有的行为offends the sense of justice and incurably infected the prosecution of this case，宣布Ellsberg被无罪释放。我查到的资料，释放之后Ellsberg在斯坦福大学，UC Irvine等学校担任过讲师，他还出了好几本书，包括他的自传。在政治上他仍然很积极，包括公开反对2003年的伊拉克战争。去年Snowden事件之后，他还在卫报上发文，支持Snowden的行动。

注：这篇文章我依靠的材料主要来自Geoffrey Stone的Perilous Times。

Dracula · 发表于 2014-6-3 12:38:59

下面是Hugo Black在New York Times Co. v. United States 的判决意见的节选。Hugo Black来于Alabama，担任过参议员。和Deep South的几乎所有其他官员一样，在20年代的时候曾经是3K党的成员。1937年罗斯福提名他担任最高法院法官后，他的3K党身份还引起过很大风波。或许正是因为这一段，Black担任最高法院法官后，反而对民权运动特别支持。今天他在法律界影响尤其是在于他对第一宪法修正案几乎是绝对主义的解读。我看过很多评论认为Black属于美国历史上最伟大的10个最高法院法官之一。

I adhere to the view that the Government's case against the Washington Post should have been dismissed, and that the injunction against the New York Times should have been vacated without oral argument when the cases were first presented to this Court .... Every moment's continuance of the injunctions against these newspapers amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment ... It is unfortunate that some of my Brethren are apparently willing to hold that the publication of news may sometimes be enjoined. Such a holding would make a shambles of the First Amendment.

Our Government was launched in 1789 with the adoption of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, followed in 1791. Now, for the first time in the 182 years since the founding of the Republic, the federal courts are asked to hold that the First Amendment does not mean what it says, but rather means that the Government can halt the publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country.

In seeking injunctions against these newspapers, and in its presentation to the Court, the Executive Branch seems to have forgotten the essential purpose and history of the First Amendment. When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights to safeguard certain basic freedoms. They especially feared that the new powers granted to a central government might be interpreted to permit the government to curtail freedom of religion, press, assembly, and speech. In response to an overwhelming public clamor, James Madison offered a series of amendments to satisfy citizens that these great liberties would remain safe and beyond the power of government to abridge. Madison proposed what later became the First Amendment in three parts, two of which are set out below, and one of which proclaimed:

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments, and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

The amendments were offered to curtail and restrict the general powers granted to the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches two years before in the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights changed the original Constitution into a new charter under which no branch of government could abridge the people's freedoms of press, speech, religion, and assembly.

Yet the Solicitor General argues and some members of the Court appear to agree that the general powers of the Government adopted in the original Constitution should be interpreted to limit and restrict the specific and emphatic guarantees of the Bill of Rights adopted later. I can imagine no greater perversion of history. Madison and the other Framers of the First Amendment, able men that they were, wrote in language they earnestly believed could never be misunderstood: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press ...." Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints.

In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.

The Government's case here is based on premises entirely different from those that guided the Framers of the First Amendment. The Solicitor General has carefully and emphatically stated:

Now, Mr. Justice [BLACK], your construction of ... [the First Amendment] is well known, and I certainly respect it. You say that no law means no law, and that should be obvious. I can only say, Mr. Justice, that to me it is equally obvious that "no law" does not mean "no law," and I would seek to persuade the Court that that is true .... [T]here are other parts of the Constitution that grant powers and responsibilities to the Executive, and ... the First Amendment was not intended to make it impossible for the Executive to function or to protect the security of the United States.

And the Government argues in its brief that, in spite of the First Amendment,

[t]he authority of the Executive Department to protect the nation against publication of information whose disclosure would endanger the national security stems from two interrelated sources: the constitutional power of the President over the conduct of foreign affairs and his authority as Commander-in-Chief.

We are asked to hold that, despite the First Amendment's emphatic command, the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Judiciary can make laws enjoining publication of current news and abridging freedom of the press in the name of "national security."

The Government does not even attempt to rely on any act of Congress. Instead, it makes the bold and dangerously far-reaching contention that the courts should take it upon themselves to "make" a law abridging freedom of the press in the name of equity, presidential power and national security, even when the representatives of the people in Congress have adhered to the command of the First Amendment and refused to make such a law. To find that the President has "inherent power" to halt the publication of news by resort to the courts would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make "secure." No one can read the history of the adoption of the First Amendment without being convinced beyond any doubt that it was injunctions like those sought here that Madison and his collaborators intended to outlaw in this Nation for all time.

The word "security" is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged. This thought was eloquently expressed in 1937 by Mr. Chief Justice Hughes—great man and great Chief Justice that he was—when the Court held a man could not be punished for attending a meeting run by Communists.

The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government.

In introducing the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, Madison said:

[B]ut I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed [the Constitution] disliked it because it did not contain effectual provisions against the encroachments on particular rights ....

Congressman Goodhue added:

[I]t is the wish of many of our constituents that something should be added to the Constitution to secure in a stronger manner their liberties from the inroads of power.

The other parts were:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.& d7 S+ o8 N( V, V& @
( ^' g. {9 w5 V0 W7 P/ w
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good, nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.

Compare the views of the Solicitor General with those of James Madison, the author of the First Amendment. When speaking of the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, Madison said:

If they [the first ten amendments] are incorporated into the Constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the Legislative or Executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights.

Dracula · 发表于 2014-6-3 12:41:18

烟波钓徒发表于 2014-6-3 12:33 2 n$ r9 }& K& g: W" {7 u
补充几件有意识的后续：( M5 w/ E7 U8 g% c
1，闯进Ellsberg的心理医生的几个“white house plumber”后来都因为水门事件被捕 ...

多谢补充，这些我还都不知道。尤其是最后一点，真让人佩服。

Dracula · 发表于 2014-6-4 00:07:32

海天发表于 2014-6-3 22:03
. v) H# L/ {$ @晕一个,
+ o- t$ J6 a$ h( Z8 Z
' U: m5 b2 y4 f) [; M& H前两天看到你写苏利文案, 当时心想五角大楼文件案也挺典型，还和水门能扯上点关系......刚 ...

多谢介绍。我看Discipline and Punish的介绍，内容似乎比较有趣，准备找来看一下。说不定还能写篇读书笔记。

我以前只知道福柯是同性恋，你提到他死于艾滋病之后，我到Wikipedia查了一下，原来他还有BDSM的口味。

Dracula · 发表于 2014-7-26 02:20:33

本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2014-7-26 02:23 编辑

Daniel Ellsberg: Snowden Kept His Oath Better Than Anyone in the NSA

That sort of civic courage should inspire other Americans to follow suit, he said.
CONOR FRIEDERSDORFJUL 25 2014, 6:00 AM ET
http://www.theatlantic.com/polit ... -in-the-nsa/375031/

Daniel Ellsberg, the celebrated leaker of the Pentagon Papers, said in a conversation last weekend with National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden that every human sometimes bites their tongue when they witness something that they know to be wrong—and blood often flows as a result. Due in part to lies during the Vietnam War, he said, millions of people were needlessly killed. At home, tobacco executives successfully hid the cancerous nature of their products. More recently, as GM customers died in their cars, the company kept mum about a defect.

The standard he'd like to see set instead? "Snowden was the one person in the fucking NSA who did what he absolutely should have done," he said. "How many people should've done what you did! We all took the same oath to protect and defend the Constitution. There are people who violate it all the time. There are people who are against it, like Cheney and some others. But when it comes to upholding that oath, no one in the U.S. military services, including the commander in chief, has fulfilled her oath to defend and support the Constitution like Chelsea Manning. And no one in the executive branch, or in any branch, has fulfilled the oath to uphold and protect the Constitution as well as you, so thank you."

Snowden and Manning should inspire other Americans to speak out upon seeing what they know to be wrong, Ellsberg argued, even when doing so entails personal sacrifice. The remarks came at the end of a monologue during Hope X, a hacker conference in New York City. The whole part on "civic courage" is worth a read.

I was struck by something you said in Vanity Fair, which was that every one of us has seen things that are wrong, that should be known, that should be exposed, and we have turned our eyes away because we were intimidated. I believe that's true of every human on earth. There are times when they bite their tongues or keep their mouths shut because to reveal it would lose a relationship, or a job, or a career. Then you said, but there comes a time when the level of wrongness or inhumanity is so great that you have to cross over that line.
: L% H$ S( q" L* W$ i- E! a  g7 u5 k0 B" o2 x
I thought, that's Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning who did that. How many others? Most people never do reach that line. They never do reach a point where they decide to risk their own status, their relationships, their job. And many of them have been tested on things like the continuation of a wrongful war; hundreds of thousands of lives, 500,000 lives lost each year in the case of tobacco. And only two people spoke out. Look at GM. It's a only a handful, but it's striking how they covered it up. How many people at GM knew that lives were being lost? Who spoke out? Nobody, I don't think so.
1 i8 t/ x" U& V: [) h  }
' E# f+ e* o( P! ^, H+ t" H  @' E! \What I hope, Ed, is that you will inspire more people to take even significant risks ... there will always be risks. And the willingness to take that risk, for civilians, is very rare.
8 A5 l/ c5 k4 L" z% U1 w1 ^
+ _% j) P' ]# Y! q; Z7 q* q/ zAs you may know, it was Bismarck of all people who said courage on the battlefield is very common in our country, Prussia at that point. But civil courage is another matter, it's very rare. Before Manning and Snowden I'd almost given up on it.- x0 [3 ]7 h. j6 h9 c

/ J2 Y" `1 @7 h% R; LYou're an example of it.
8 c. M4 _. W4 K
% v, F4 g5 d& ^- yAnd Manning. He got a lot of attention, but he didn't get the effect in this country, except for getting our troops home from Iraq, that you did. Why? Because I think Manning was showing what we were doing to other people in the Third World. Others. Not us. And in my case, was the effect because of the millions of Vietnamese who were being killed wrongly? Every one of them was wrong. When I read the Pentagon Papers and realized for the first time that from the very beginning we were supporting a French colonial reconquest of a country, which I thought of us un-American, whether it was illegal internationally or not, I saw every death in Vietnam as being unjustified homicide. To me that was murder, mass murder, and I couldn't be part of that anymore. Well, the American people didn't respond, I'm sorry to say, on the whole, to the mass murder, but there were 58,000 Americans in the process of dying then, see. And in your case, Ed, it wasn't so much directly dying, but you exposed what was being done to us. And people are objecting to that.4 }! H8 C+ U* {) i( {1 a
' a4 Q- E+ {8 P; y, q
I think we have to have a different standard, and you show the possibility of it. Your colleagues in NSA, as you said, agreed with you, many of them, that this is wrong. But I have a mortgage, I have a marriage, I have children to send to college. And that was enough. Even though we're talking about this massive intrusion. It's a new world, basically, that people need to know about. So it shouldn't be only you. And I would hope that some of your colleagues, who I would suspect—from my experience, if you were in a room with your former colleagues now, I would expect them to leave that room. If you can tell me that a former colleague from NSA has in any way communicated with you to say you've done the right thing, in any way, I would guess there are zero like that, which was my experience at the Rand Corporation. You lose every friend you have who has a clearance. And that's all your friends.
  ~4 v2 i/ l: K5 ^3 }0 e" G& i+ x
But you're not made of sugar, as you've shown. I saw you say yesterday, "If I were in chains at Guantanamo, I could live with that." Well, that doesn't surprise me, Ed. That's the person I find you to be. It's a pretty unusual statement, isn't it? Well, let's make it a little less unusual. You went in the special forces and had your legs broken, didn't go over. I used my Marine training in Vietnam as a civilian. I'd been a Marine company commander in peacetime. And so I used that training in Vietnam. I saw combat. I walked with troops in combat. There you see courage, physical courage, every minute, every day. People doing the job, going to save their comrades. That kind of courage is marvelous. As a marine once said at Iwo Jima, uncommon courage was a common virtue. Okay, right. When you're doing it for the commander in chief, for the boss, with the applause of your country–usually you don't get the applause, most of it is anonymous, but you know they would approve you if they knew of it, and would hold you accountable if you didn't do it.
, l8 @8 @- Z2 J% B( u
' |' n, V  L5 DWe should have a different standard for our civilian officials, as well as, I don't know if you regarded yourself as an official, but also for the middle level person.9 I5 X. O3 N7 E. L: P7 _9 }
  o! O& `2 ~3 W  }$ P: X
It shouldn't be that you are the extraordinary hero that we thank. It should be that we should ask the question of those other people, "What made you think that you could keep this secret for so long? Keep it totally secret, keep your mouth shut?"
1 n! r6 H) `4 ?/ n; {. ^8 ?. z0 K( k: }
A lot of blood has flowed because people bit their tongue and swallowed their whistles, and didn't speak out. And it's time I think that we not prosecute them, but tell them, "That is not the way to preserve a democracy."3 ^6 {1 o; S- f! r3 T% @$ T( G/ e) P

+ A9 W/ q& ^& f4 z"You're not fulfilling your oath."0 o' Z  S$ m( P2 N, x6 [  N& R
; ^4 p* i% \2 b6 T4 M
And I'll just end by saying, people ask, is he a patriot or a traitor? That drives me nuts, the very thought that people could regard you as a traitor. The ignorance of the media and the congresspeople and the other interviewers who raised that question offends me as an American, that they think that it can be traitorous to tell the truth to your fellow countrymen. Here's the standard I would like to see set: "Snowden was the one person in the fucking NSA who did what he absolutely should have done." How many people should've done what you did! I said this about Chelsea when that came out and I say it now. We all took the same oath to protect and defend the Constitution. There are people who violate it all the time. There are people who are against it, like Cheney and some others. But when it comes to upholding that oath, no one in the U.S. military services including the commander in chief has fulfilled her oath to defend and support the Constitution like Chelsea Manning.
, q% L2 T' u0 z& O$ `6 n! R: X
. P$ f8 w* E1 F6 T7 yAnd no one in the U.S. executive branch, or in any branch of government, has fulfilled the oath to uphold and protect the Constitution as well as you, so thank you.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGgo7MSJVVA

Dracula · 发表于 2014-8-9 14:11:24

本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2014-8-9 14:50 编辑

老兵帅客发表于 2014-8-9 03:50 0 \$ g3 M- T- s- W
"最高法院法官Hugo Black在言论自由问题上是个绝对主义者。对他来说，既然第一宪法修正案说政府不能制订任 ...

我没看懂你的贴。如果媒体发表不会明显损害美国国家利益的信息，那这些信息就不会对国家利益发生多么大的损害，这句话是tautology。既然没有大的损害，为什么要将其禁止呢？全面禁止媒体发表classified information的问题是，什么信息是classified，做出这一决定的并不是一个中立的，完全为了国家利益的机构（美国人并不相信这种机构可能存在），而就是行政部门自己。行政部门的倾向是overclassify，很多同国家安全无关的也都变成了机密信息，比如发表的五角大楼文件，或者在中国土壤的污染情况也是国家机密。尤其是很多时候这种overclassify 是为了掩盖行政部门的错误甚至是违法行为。象五角大楼文件，Edward Snowden泄露的PRISM项目，以及最近闹得沸沸扬扬的CIA用刑的问题。美国政治和文化的特点之一就是对政府的不信任，认为政府获得没有限制，没有制约的权力就会滥用，就会威胁国民的自由。因此最高法院平衡国家安全和公民自由两方面的利益，按照William Brennan的意见，政府要想禁止发表某一机密信息，必须要有非常好的理由，不能只是泛泛的说，这是机密信息。所以你要是认为左尔格德的情报和结论符合这个条件，政府还是可以通过法院来发出禁止令，但是你得首先要说服法官，不能是行政部门单方面的决定。我觉得这个平衡是合适的。而且在这个判决之后的40多年里，美国也没出现媒体大规模泄露机密信息，威胁国家安全的情况，包括去年Edward Snowden泄露的PRISM的信息。连行政部门的司法部都认为这种安排是正确的，类似的案子都没有再次到达最高法院。

Dracula · 发表于 2014-8-9 21:38:31

老兵帅客发表于 2014-8-9 20:40
0 P2 w" R& @9 C2 i, Q9 O# H z/ W我的意思很简单，谁来定义什么叫做大的损害，是媒体发行人呢，还是国家的管理者。我相信专业的力量，而不 ...

最高法院法官不像你想得那么不切实际，只知道法律条文。我觉得就智力上他们比绝大多数政客要强得多。而且美国common law的特点就是判决注重实际，而不是出自什么抽象的法律理论。实际上，一般对他们的批评是在国家处于战争时期，他们过多地尊重行政部门的要求，允许过分侵犯公民权利，比如我写的二战时期美国对日裔监禁（下）里对这一点的分析，再比如在秘密的FISA法院，法官几乎都批准FBI，NSA的秘密warrant的申请。五角大楼文件同国家安全没什么关系。我文中提到，尼克松本来还挺高兴，打算自己再多泄漏点，彻底把民主党解决掉。今天就是保守派的，我也没有读到什么评论认为纽约时报发表这些文件对国家安全带来什么负面影响。我读到的评论都是认为发表这些文件，从长远来看是有利于美国的国家利益。所以尼克松政府提不出什么有力的理由禁止发表，不是因为最高法院法官太笨、太不切实际，听不懂政府的论点，而是根本就没有什么理由。我说了最高法院这一判决成为美国法律已经是43年，比较长的一段时间了，并没有什么负面效果，今天即使Snowden之后，美国从政治界，到法律界没有什么人认为应该推翻它。我觉得你反而是从一些抽象的原则，而不是实际的效果来考虑这个问题。

你说如果是在美国的话，佐尔格可以用笔名加上几个特定位置的特殊单词来发情报，但是最高法院就是禁止媒体发表机密文件他也可以这么做，这不解决问题。关键是政府公务员的保密措施。我文中说了，最高法院的这个判决，并不阻碍政府对泄密者进行起诉，因此今天Snowden还躲在俄国，不敢回来。象佐尔格那样使用记者身份作为cover，为外国势力进行间谍活动也不受最高法院的这个判决保护。

另外你对政客的决策动机出于国家利益，而不是个人私利这一点，要比我对人性的看法乐观的多。这一点要讨论起来就太长了，我就不多说了。

Dracula · 发表于 2014-8-9 22:18:01

老兵帅客发表于 2014-8-9 22:01
/ p- I+ Q0 P. }# Q9 t }知识，我不认为高智商或者很高的法律学位就意味着他们具备足够的知识。而只要这点是缺乏的，他们的判断就 ...

照你的逻辑，美国总统，乃至各部部长对每个具体的问题也几乎都不是专家，那么是不是也应该完全成为橡皮图章，完全批准属下的建议呢？

你提到的假设，间谍在报纸上发表机密信息，这个机密信息表面对美国无害，而且一般对政府比较同情的法官，根据政府解释半天，还是认为对美国无害，但是实际上却对美国的国家利益极其有害，这是种什么信息呢，我怎么觉得有点象oxymoron呢？能举个具体例子吗？如果政府禁止发表机密文件没有任何危害，那么这种虚无缥缈的可能性也可以作为理由。但是这种危害是实际存在的，平衡起来，这种理论上的可能是远远不够的。

Dracula · 发表于 2014-8-10 02:33:01

老兵帅客发表于 2014-8-10 01:20 5 q0 c$ [3 N3 g h! A5 o
不对，政府内支持政客们工作的专家可是不少，而最高法院却没有，这就是我的意思，你没有专家支持你做出判 ...

司法部的legal brief以及oral argument可以作为最高法院的专家。比如我写的二战对日裔的监禁中提到司法部呈交给最高法院的证据包括美国军方一份618页的报告。美国政府专家对总统的支持，不也就是给总统写报告或者是口头汇报吗？总统如果不是那个领域的专家的话，不也是用common sense来判断吗？这没什么大的区别。而且在common law的体系下，法官的判决并不是出于对法律条文的语言逻辑分析，在绝大多数情况下也都是从实际情况出发。你如果对美国最高法院判决的新闻多关注一下的话，也会有类似的印象。我写的二战对日裔的监禁，Jehovah's Witnesses不对国旗敬礼，以及正在写的美国言论自由标准的演变等等，也都体现了这一点。

我还是没搞明白你提到的Sorge的例子。政府如果他没有从事间谍活动的证据，他的下属被捕又如何呢？而用你的传递信息的方法，即使政府不能直接对他起诉，他本人不是立刻就向FBI暴露身份了吗？顺藤摸瓜，下属很快也会被抓到，这种办法被捕的不是更快吗？我怎么觉得这种方法很愚蠢呢？而且就是最高法院禁止媒体发表机密文件，发表文章预测日本是否会进攻苏联也还是从来都是受第一宪法修正案保护的。还是解决不了你的这个假设提出的问题。要想达到这一点，美国必须像中国一样，政府完全控制所有媒体的发行。为了这种即使不是虚无缥缈，也是极其罕见的可能，就完全牺牲掉言论自由，这种反应也太过度了吧。

（这是我这几天最后一贴了。接下来几天不能及时回复，提前道歉一下。）

Dracula · 发表于 2014-9-24 02:36:12

刚刚读书看到的，Daniel Ellsberg的第二任妻子Patricia Marx 是玩具大亨Louis Marx的女儿。有人怀疑这层关系让FBI局长J. Edgar Hoover 对调查Ellsberg不热心。尼克松不能依靠FBI干这些脏活，只能组织自己的plumber来非法搞材料定Ellsberg的罪。不过他找的那个人G. Gordon Liddy挺没用，从撬Ellsberg心理医生的办公室到水门事件，就没成功过。

		自动登录	找回密码
密码			注册

五角大楼文件案

评分

相关帖子

评分