Sunday, July 02, 2006
My letter to the public editor
Mr. Calame,
I was very disappointed in your column today defending the paper on the Swift story.
Most glaring was your total omission of the precedent established by the Pentagon Papers Case, in which Justice White, writing for the majority, upheld the constitutionality of secrecy laws, and stated he would have no problem prosecuting the paper under them.
Your column totally ignored the rule of law in this country, as if the secrecy laws didn't exist.
The rest of your argument was specious throughout.
Your paper cries crocodile tears over the 'inadequate' congressional oversight (but show me where secrecy laws provide an exception to programs where only congressional leadership is briefed). At the same time, though, your paper acted in flagrant disregard of laws passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the president, and passed by the Supreme Court.
So your argument fails. You cannot on one hand hold yourself out as a defender of congressional oversight as the mechanism by which our rights are assured, while simultaneously flaunting the clear intent of Congress in passing laws prohibiting the publication of classified information.
I examine your reasoning in more detail here: http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2006/07/calames-defense-fails.html
Regards,
Jason Van Steenwyk
Fort Lauderdale, FL
I was very disappointed in your column today defending the paper on the Swift story.
Most glaring was your total omission of the precedent established by the Pentagon Papers Case, in which Justice White, writing for the majority, upheld the constitutionality of secrecy laws, and stated he would have no problem prosecuting the paper under them.
Your column totally ignored the rule of law in this country, as if the secrecy laws didn't exist.
The rest of your argument was specious throughout.
Your paper cries crocodile tears over the 'inadequate' congressional oversight (but show me where secrecy laws provide an exception to programs where only congressional leadership is briefed). At the same time, though, your paper acted in flagrant disregard of laws passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the president, and passed by the Supreme Court.
So your argument fails. You cannot on one hand hold yourself out as a defender of congressional oversight as the mechanism by which our rights are assured, while simultaneously flaunting the clear intent of Congress in passing laws prohibiting the publication of classified information.
I examine your reasoning in more detail here: http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2006/07/calames-defense-fails.html
Regards,
Jason Van Steenwyk
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Comments:
Post a Comment
