Download issue (PDF) - Nieman Foundation - Harvard University

Words & Reflections
secrecy had expired.
To be sure, a tricky balancing act
exists between adherence to the laws
and customs of a civil society requiring
openness and full representation for
the accused and what the administration
is calling the “new reality” that
requires setting aside many of these
important democratic conventions as
a means of increasing homeland security
and preventing future attacks.
American values of liberty and equality
have prevailed in times of crisis
when presidents attempt to seize dictatorial
power that many believe betray
these fundamental democratic principles.
Robin Toner’s piece in The New
York Times in the fall of 2001 noted
that President Bush was “only the latest
of many presidents to restrict civil
liberties in wartime.” The story recalled
that Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson,
and Franklin D. Roosevelt had
placed national security above aspects
of personal liberty or constitutional
rights, “almost always with the support
of both the public and the courts.”
Occasionally, these restrictions lead to
serious violations of civil liberties, such
as the internment of Japanese during
World War II, depriving them of their
constitutional protections. Years later,
in hindsight, internment became a
matter of considerable national embarrassment,
for which our government
agreed to pay a price.
In fact, during the 20th century, the
most restrictive suppression of citizens’
First Amendment rights of free speech
and association came not during wartime,
but after the victory celebrations
ending World Wars I and II, when fear
of Communism prevailed. The Palmer
Raids of 1918-1921, named for President
Wilson’s attorney general, Mitchell
Palmer, focused on “Communists, Bolsheviks
and ‘reds’ who were believed
to be eating their way into the homes of
the American workman.” In the
McCarthy era of the late 1940’s and
early 1950’s, Senator Joseph McCarthy
raised alarms about internal subversion
and, by naming names and publicizing
lists during speeches and Senate
Each of us in the news media has an important
role to play in pressing for openness and access
and for breaking down the barriers of secrecy
that have been imposed in the name of
national security.
hearings, damaged the reputations of
hundred of government employees,
intellectuals and university professors.
Our deep-rooted values of free expression
ultimately prevailed in these
dark times, largely on the strength of
public opinion more than on the actions
of the courts. In the weeks and
months immediately following September
11, the traditional checks and balances
of our democratic system were
quickly set aside in the interest of national
unity.
The voices of dissent in Congress
fell silent. The House and Senate failed
in their fundamental duty to provide a
forum for debate and inquiry about
administration policies and actions.
The Watchdog Role of the
Press
A public stunned by attacks and nervous
about what future threats we might
face became pliant, accepting the
administration’s version of events,
its secrecy impulses, and the constriction
of some of our liberties. In this
environment of growing uncertainty
and pronounced patriotism, it is left to
the press to be the vigilant watchdog of
those in power, to make sure that the
“right” to know does not become just
the “need” to know.
In many respects, the press has performed
admirably. The nation’s major
newspapers have set a standard for
enterprising, authoritative coverage.
The journalists who parachuted into
Afghanistan and moved across that forbidding
terrain with the Northern Alliance,
beyond the reach of the Pentagon
press pools and often in peril,
created a 21st century version of the
courageous and independent war correspondent.
Still, there were some shameful
moments for the press. When the administration
advised the television networks
to not broadcast interviews of
Osama bin Laden that were being made
available by the Arab news channel, Al
Jazeera, the networks meekly complied.
There were times when some in the
press seemed to be intimidated by the
public’s perception of the patriotic journalist
as someone who wore an American
flag button and didn’t press government
officials with hard questions.
In such times, the most patriotic
role the press can play is to fulfill its
constitutionally protected duty to aggressively
probe and question those
who have the power to make the decisions
that can affect our security and
our liberty and that can put our service
men and women in harm’s way. The
most reassuring recent development
in support of openness and transparency
in our society came last month in
a decision by the federal appeals court
in Cincinnati, which ruled that the Bush
administration acted unlawfully in
holding hundreds of deportation hearings
in secret based only on the
government’s assertion that the people
involved might have links to terrorism.
The legal challenge was raised by
four Michigan newspapers whose reporters
had been shut out of a deportation
hearing on a Muslim cleric who
had overstayed his tourist visa (see
story on this case on page 7). The case
is important on its merits, of course,
and likely will get review in the U.S.
Supreme Court. More significant, however,
was the language of the opinion,
written by Judge Damon Keith of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
District.
Judge Keith crafted a ruling that
spoke powerfully to the value of open-
98 Nieman Reports / Winter 2002