'Barely visible encroachments' threaten free press in U.S.

San Francisco – One of the founders and executive editor of Salon.com , Gary Kamiya , writes today from an interesting perspective on civil liberty in the U.S., titled Resisting Arrest. "Americans assume that their civil rights are sacrosanct … They're wrong. Civil rights are only as strong as the nation's commitment to defending them. And the grim truth is that during wartime, that commitment often fails…” Kamiya quickly asserts.

As his storyline shifts from an extended biography of a San Franciscan of Japanese descent, Fred Korematsu, who challenged the government's right to incarcerate him during World War II solely on the basis of his national origin, to a comparison of the histories of two more recent wars, Kamiya demolishes any lingering arguments that resist the conclusion that America did not learn much from failure in Vietnam, “America is in the midst of a controversial, undeclared war in a distant land against a cunning and resourceful enemy. The nation is bitterly divided … High-ranking government officials say that those who criticize the war are giving aid and comfort to the enemy … the tough-talking Republican president vows to stay the course.

“[Am I describing] 2003, George W. Bush, and the War on Iraq ,” he asks rhetorically?

“No,” he answers, “[It is] 1971, Richard M. Nixon, and the war in Vietnam ,” with simple clarity that is often muddled in attempts by others to compare the wars in Vietnam and Iraq .

For one who spent most of the Vietnam War years on a sleepy university campus in Western Pennsylvania, Kamiya's directness evokes powerful memories of a conflict that seemed to last forever; of a succession of American Presidents who clung to impossible goals while their credibility - and America's – withered and vanished; and, most of all, of the toll it took on the cherished comfort I enjoyed in unquestioning Patriotism I was taught by parents from World War II generations.

These are memories that I do not welcome for obvious reasons but Kamiya's storytelling coaxes them to surface by weaving a story that stitches together experiences from opposite ends of my lifetime, ranging over a half-century, with a richly, fresh perspective I would have resisted if he had not lured me with a story title that is both honest and honestly-deceptive and a quickly evolving storyline that may at first seem unfocused.

In fact, there is so much about Kamiya's story I strongly recommend, especially to fellow Boomers, that I am slightly embarrassed to point out one of his conclusion I do not share.

“But if the similarities between the two periods are striking,” Kamiya writes, “ what happened next has no parallel today. At least not yet.” Respectfully, I disagree.

As Kamiya describes the case involving ‘the Pentagon Papers' which was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, he asserts, “[It is] a landmark ruling for press freedom and a historic rebuke of government's attempt to suppress it … Americans like to think that freedom of speech [is] written in stone. Nothing could be further from the truth,” he concludes, with troubling persuasiveness.

Quoting Justice Brennan from a different case, Kamiya notes, “ ‘It is characteristic of the freedoms of expression in general that they are vulnerable to gravely damaging, yet barely visible, encroachments.' “ He goes on, “A close look at the court's ruling [concerning the Pentagon Papers case] … and American history both before and after 9/11, show that the right of the press to publish freely can never be taken for granted.”

Kamiya shifts gears, “The list of America's shameful wartime retreats from civil liberties is long and starts even before the founding of the republic: during the Revolutionary War,” as he continues to spin a fascinating tale citing several interesting, less well-known cases before concluding with assessment of the Supreme Court decision in the case of the Pentagon Papers.

Even re-reading Kamiya's story, I am impressed with the ease by which he brings the reader to accept his powerful conclusions, “The United States has long been the world leader in free speech. Even now, during the endless ‘war on terrorism' -- especially during that war -- it must continue to practice what it preaches …

[The High Court], though divided, provided [in its decision] a signpost and a beacon for all Americans, who, in an age of fear, need to be reminded that presidents come and go, wars come and go, but the right of the Press to publish, and the People to know, must not be allowed to perish.”

Suddenly, I am moved to jump to my feet, to shout, “Yes, well said, bravo!” until I recall the glaring omission that exposes the unrelenting stealth and potential for disaster that Kamiya himself cited in the quote from Justice Brennan as, “ barely visible encroachments . “

Barely visible they are indeed, if this articulate, knowledgeable student of history has so-easily overlooked the implications of a rash of recent subpoenas served on journalists by federal prosecutors who are increasingly bold in challenging protections afforded journalists in Shield Laws enacted in a commanding majority of States. Among them are well-publicized cases against:

• Judith Miller of the NY Times who served time for refusing to give up a source who told her the identity of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame, potentially a criminal act. Miller was released after 85 days when her source, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, reaffirmed a release of confidentiality that he had given her a year earlier.
• Independent journalist and video blogger, Josh Wolf, who recently surpassed the old record of 168 days of time served by a journalist for asserting his right to protect sources for a video he shot at a local protest rally in July 2005. The judge in the case recently rebuffed another attempt by Wolf's lawyers to secure his release making it likely that Wolf will remain in a federal holding facility in Dublin CA , until the Grand Jury is dissolved in July
• Technical writer, radio producer and independent journalist Saran Olson who barely avoided coercive confinement when Army prosecutors dropped a claim that they needed to subpoena her to testify as a prosecution witness to substantiate a charge in a court martial based on Olson's interview with First Lieutenant Ehren Watada who refused to redeploy to Iraq
• San Francisco Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada who are facing the likely prospect of 18 months of confinement for refusing to comply with a subpoena to tell a grand jury who leaked secret testimony of Barry Bonds and other athletes in the government's steroid probe.

I would argue that all of these cases are very ‘similar to the Pentagon Papers case' with respect to how the each represents an infringement by the executive branch on the exercise of rights by members of a free press as guaranteed in the First Amendment, that San Francisco Chronicle editors describe as an ‘ indispensable tool for keeping ourselves safe.' The only significant difference I willingly acknowledge is that the abuse is compounded during this war by a complicit judiciary

Confident that the oversight makes Kamiya's warning all the more compelling to an informed reader, I strongly recommend the full story for its depth, fresh perspective, and provocative use of history to ask all Americans to reflect on two implied questions:

“Why have we allowed our leaders to drag the Nation to war based on flawed reasoning and deceptive assertions again?"

"How much more will we allow this administration to erode our fundamental liberties even as it continues to make the case for imposing those values on the rest of the World at the point of a gun and at an incalculable cost to the lives, liberties, and fortune of future generations of Americans?

No doubt we should have asked ourselves these questions a long, long time ago.