Ukraine the bad guy?
- Thread starter Gideon300
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Assange was messing with the mob's operation/business model. This simply could not stand. So they set the dogs (justus system and security muscle) on him. Same goes for Trump (to a certain extent....he was messing with their business model). But more accurately, Trump is a rival mob boss vying for the same territory.
Just to let you know.....I do not trust Trump any more than the rest.
Just to let you know.....I do not trust Trump any more than the rest.
-
1
- Show all
I agree,,,
It occurs to me after following this thread that the vast majority see this from an "Twitter point of view" rather than an historical approach. There is an mans image(Daniel 2),,,it divided into two legs(eastern and western Roman empire) ... In about the late 1800's the White movement emerged https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_movement then the Red army in opposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army then the black hundreds movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hundreds and the Mr. Green(anyone who spoke Russian,Polish or Ukrainian would see that Zelensky translates to green.).. And again that from the late 1800's-1921(the last Tzar) until now in the eastern Roman empire seems to represent (Bolshevik revolution to the Ukrainian war) https://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/6.htm
It occurs to me after following this thread that the vast majority see this from an "Twitter point of view" rather than an historical approach. There is an mans image(Daniel 2),,,it divided into two legs(eastern and western Roman empire) ... In about the late 1800's the White movement emerged https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_movement then the Red army in opposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army then the black hundreds movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hundreds and the Mr. Green(anyone who spoke Russian,Polish or Ukrainian would see that Zelensky translates to green.).. And again that from the late 1800's-1921(the last Tzar) until now in the eastern Roman empire seems to represent (Bolshevik revolution to the Ukrainian war) https://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/6.htm
They are barcoding diesel too? IMO you are drowning in Kool aide or shilling buddy. Nobody is that dumb.
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/trading-with-the-enemy
Seymour Hersh:
What also is unknown (to clueless Americans!) is that Zelensky has been buying the fuel from Russia, the country with which it, and Washington, are at war, and the Ukrainian president and many in his entourage have been skimming untold millions from the American dollars earmarked for diesel fuel payments.
One estimate by analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency put the embezzled funds at $400 million last year, at least; another expert compared the level of corruption in Kiev as approaching that of the Afghan war, “although there will be no professional audit reports emerging from the Ukraine.”
“Zelensky’s been buying discount diesel from the Russians,” one knowledgeable American intelligence official told me. “And who’s paying for the gas and oil? We are. Putin and his oligarchs are making millions” on it.
Many government ministries in Kiev have been literally “competing,” I was told, to set up front companies for export contracts for weapons and ammunition with private arms dealers around the world, all of which provide kickbacks. Many of those companies are in Poland and Czechia, but others are thought to exist in the Persian Gulf and Israel. “I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that there are others in places like the Cayman Islands and Panama, and there are lots of Americans involved,” an American expert on international trade told me.
The issue of corruption was directly raised with Zelensky in a meeting last January in Kiev with CIA Director William Burns. His message to the Ukrainian president, I was told by an intelligence official with direct knowledge of the meeting, was out of a 1950s mob movie. The senior generals and government officials in Kiev were angry at what they saw as Zelensky’s greed, so Burns told the Ukrainian president, because “he was taking a larger share of the skim money than was going to the generals.”
Burns also presented Zelensky with a list of thirty-five generals and senior officials whose corruption was known to the CIA and others in the American government. Zelensky responded to the American pressure ten days later by publicly dismissing ten of the most ostentatious officials on the list and doing little else. “The ten he got rid of were brazenly bragging about the money they had—driving around Kiev in their new Mercedes,” the intelligence official told me.
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/trading-with-the-enemy
Seymour Hersh:
What also is unknown (to clueless Americans!) is that Zelensky has been buying the fuel from Russia, the country with which it, and Washington, are at war, and the Ukrainian president and many in his entourage have been skimming untold millions from the American dollars earmarked for diesel fuel payments.
One estimate by analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency put the embezzled funds at $400 million last year, at least; another expert compared the level of corruption in Kiev as approaching that of the Afghan war, “although there will be no professional audit reports emerging from the Ukraine.”
“Zelensky’s been buying discount diesel from the Russians,” one knowledgeable American intelligence official told me. “And who’s paying for the gas and oil? We are. Putin and his oligarchs are making millions” on it.
Many government ministries in Kiev have been literally “competing,” I was told, to set up front companies for export contracts for weapons and ammunition with private arms dealers around the world, all of which provide kickbacks. Many of those companies are in Poland and Czechia, but others are thought to exist in the Persian Gulf and Israel. “I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that there are others in places like the Cayman Islands and Panama, and there are lots of Americans involved,” an American expert on international trade told me.
The issue of corruption was directly raised with Zelensky in a meeting last January in Kiev with CIA Director William Burns. His message to the Ukrainian president, I was told by an intelligence official with direct knowledge of the meeting, was out of a 1950s mob movie. The senior generals and government officials in Kiev were angry at what they saw as Zelensky’s greed, so Burns told the Ukrainian president, because “he was taking a larger share of the skim money than was going to the generals.”
Burns also presented Zelensky with a list of thirty-five generals and senior officials whose corruption was known to the CIA and others in the American government. Zelensky responded to the American pressure ten days later by publicly dismissing ten of the most ostentatious officials on the list and doing little else. “The ten he got rid of were brazenly bragging about the money they had—driving around Kiev in their new Mercedes,” the intelligence official told me.
The USA is honoring its treaties.
Whine and cry all you want. But I'd dare say that we are better off honoring them than not. And I think that the world is better off due to the Non-proliferation treaty than it otherwise would be. Because otherwise we likely would be in a nuclear war instead of a conventional one.
Whine and cry all you want. But I'd dare say that we are better off honoring them than not. And I think that the world is better off due to the Non-proliferation treaty than it otherwise would be. Because otherwise we likely would be in a nuclear war instead of a conventional one.
-
1
- Show all
Thankyou
1Jn 2:1-13 -- They are trying to lead you astray
1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
I think that there are many Christians who have been duped. But even if that is true, when we realize we have been duped we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus made His sacrifice for our sins, simply confess and repent. I am constantly reminded of a time when I was fully duped. We were at Boy Scout camp during the summer. Someone went into the tent of the Scoutmaster and dumped his bed off the side of a small bluff. The scoutmaster was sure it was a member of my patrol so I was involved as an advocate for him. He fully convinced me he was innocent and so I was very strong to defend him. Finally, the scoutmaster promised amnesty, no penalty, just wanted to know the truth. Instantly this kid confessed it was him, I had been duped, and I felt like an idiot.
3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.
So then how do we discern a liar? In the case of a Christian you can claim to know Jesus, but it isn’t based on what you say, but what you do. We have seen all kinds of people claim to be “prophets of God” and “great evangelists”, etc. But when we see they don’t keep the commandments of the Lord we know they are a liar. The same is true of any liar, the thing to focus on is what they do, not what they claim. How many times have politicians promised to do something in a campaign but then did nothing when they were elected. The Lord said you would know them by their fruits, by what they do, what they produce. Not by what they promise to produce.
7 Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard. 8 Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and in you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining. 9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. 10 Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. 11 But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them.
That is the key point. If you are filled with hate you are in darkness. On Nov 5th, we were still sorting out the Presidential election held on Nov. 3, I got this text from a person who will remain anonymous “(Don’t let the door hit your fat a** on the way out, you repulsive orange turd of a human slab of garbage.) Oh and take your ugly family of F**tards with u, vile filth” [I have modified some of the language with the * so that this post is not flagged]. We may not know who, or what or how we got deceived, but if you are filled with hate like this, know that you are in darkness.
12 I am writing to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.
I have seen that it is particularly young people who spend a lot of time on Twitter, Tik Tok, and Facebook who are the most extreme in their expression of hate. So know this, your sins have been forgiven, plead the Lord’s blood, confess and repent and you will receive this forgiveness.
13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.
I have noticed that the older people, even those with very strong political beliefs one way or the other are much more cautious about this kind of hate speech. Perhaps it is our experience of being duped in the past that has made us more prudent. Again, referring to this example of an election I know that neither candidate is without sin and I also know that tomorrow I could learn something totally horrifying about either one. I have come to learn there is only one Savior, Jesus Christ, and His ways are not my ways. When you purify gold or silver you melt it with extreme heat, and then the impurities which are light and less dense float to the top, where they can be skimmed off. The end of the age is an extreme case of this process where God has to sort out the faithful believers from the seeds that the evil one planted.
I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one.
At this time there is clearly a warfare going on. We all hopefully want the results to be valid. We don’t want China or Russia to come in and steal the election so that some person who has been compromised by them is running our country. A person like that might hand Afghanistan over to our enemies, might even equip them with our weapons and hand out kill lists of Americans. A person compromised by a foreign country might renegotiate treaties with Iran so that they could build nuclear weapons, or they might cripple the US oil industry so that Russia could sell more oil. We want the truth, we want to walk in the light, we want to have love for our fellow brothers and sisters. Light overcomes darkness, love overcomes hate, truth overcomes lies. Overcome depression with the word of hope. This is the time for young men of faith to stand strong.
1Jn 2:1-13 -- They are trying to lead you astray
1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
I think that there are many Christians who have been duped. But even if that is true, when we realize we have been duped we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus made His sacrifice for our sins, simply confess and repent. I am constantly reminded of a time when I was fully duped. We were at Boy Scout camp during the summer. Someone went into the tent of the Scoutmaster and dumped his bed off the side of a small bluff. The scoutmaster was sure it was a member of my patrol so I was involved as an advocate for him. He fully convinced me he was innocent and so I was very strong to defend him. Finally, the scoutmaster promised amnesty, no penalty, just wanted to know the truth. Instantly this kid confessed it was him, I had been duped, and I felt like an idiot.
3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.
So then how do we discern a liar? In the case of a Christian you can claim to know Jesus, but it isn’t based on what you say, but what you do. We have seen all kinds of people claim to be “prophets of God” and “great evangelists”, etc. But when we see they don’t keep the commandments of the Lord we know they are a liar. The same is true of any liar, the thing to focus on is what they do, not what they claim. How many times have politicians promised to do something in a campaign but then did nothing when they were elected. The Lord said you would know them by their fruits, by what they do, what they produce. Not by what they promise to produce.
7 Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard. 8 Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and in you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining. 9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. 10 Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. 11 But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them.
That is the key point. If you are filled with hate you are in darkness. On Nov 5th, we were still sorting out the Presidential election held on Nov. 3, I got this text from a person who will remain anonymous “(Don’t let the door hit your fat a** on the way out, you repulsive orange turd of a human slab of garbage.) Oh and take your ugly family of F**tards with u, vile filth” [I have modified some of the language with the * so that this post is not flagged]. We may not know who, or what or how we got deceived, but if you are filled with hate like this, know that you are in darkness.
12 I am writing to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.
I have seen that it is particularly young people who spend a lot of time on Twitter, Tik Tok, and Facebook who are the most extreme in their expression of hate. So know this, your sins have been forgiven, plead the Lord’s blood, confess and repent and you will receive this forgiveness.
13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.
I have noticed that the older people, even those with very strong political beliefs one way or the other are much more cautious about this kind of hate speech. Perhaps it is our experience of being duped in the past that has made us more prudent. Again, referring to this example of an election I know that neither candidate is without sin and I also know that tomorrow I could learn something totally horrifying about either one. I have come to learn there is only one Savior, Jesus Christ, and His ways are not my ways. When you purify gold or silver you melt it with extreme heat, and then the impurities which are light and less dense float to the top, where they can be skimmed off. The end of the age is an extreme case of this process where God has to sort out the faithful believers from the seeds that the evil one planted.
I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one.
At this time there is clearly a warfare going on. We all hopefully want the results to be valid. We don’t want China or Russia to come in and steal the election so that some person who has been compromised by them is running our country. A person like that might hand Afghanistan over to our enemies, might even equip them with our weapons and hand out kill lists of Americans. A person compromised by a foreign country might renegotiate treaties with Iran so that they could build nuclear weapons, or they might cripple the US oil industry so that Russia could sell more oil. We want the truth, we want to walk in the light, we want to have love for our fellow brothers and sisters. Light overcomes darkness, love overcomes hate, truth overcomes lies. Overcome depression with the word of hope. This is the time for young men of faith to stand strong.
And nothing to say in response to this post?
I mean, you would have to think that SH has sources far more credible than you or I could ever dream of.
https://christianchat.com/threads/ukraine-the-bad-guy.209784/post-5057794
An honest, patriotic red-blooded American would be on the bat-phone calling their Congressman pronto.
You know.....to keep America from being further sacked into insolvency and Ukrainians and Russians from being turned into compost.
I mean, you would have to think that SH has sources far more credible than you or I could ever dream of.
https://christianchat.com/threads/ukraine-the-bad-guy.209784/post-5057794
An honest, patriotic red-blooded American would be on the bat-phone calling their Congressman pronto.
You know.....to keep America from being further sacked into insolvency and Ukrainians and Russians from being turned into compost.
But US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin lied to Congress about every salient fact pertaining to the Ukraine conflict. How "honorable" is that? That is exactly what the leaked documents prove.
Does this systematic intentional deception ring any bells?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
The Pentagon Papers, officially titled Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Released by Daniel Ellsberg, who had worked on the study, they were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971.[1][2] A 1996 article in The New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers had demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had "systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress."
Later, Ellsberg said the documents "demonstrated unconstitutional behavior by a succession of presidents, the violation of their oath and the violation of the oath of every one of their subordinates." He added that he leaked the Papers to end what he perceived to be "a wrongful war".
Does this systematic intentional deception ring any bells?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
The Pentagon Papers, officially titled Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Released by Daniel Ellsberg, who had worked on the study, they were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971.[1][2] A 1996 article in The New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers had demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had "systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress."
Later, Ellsberg said the documents "demonstrated unconstitutional behavior by a succession of presidents, the violation of their oath and the violation of the oath of every one of their subordinates." He added that he leaked the Papers to end what he perceived to be "a wrongful war".
First off....I just moved to another state. I ain't got a clue as to who my congressman is.
Secondly,
I DONT CARE WHO MY CONGRESSMAN IS BECAUSE I DON'T CARE ABOUT POLITICS, THEIR PARTIES, OR THEIR POSITIONS.
Thirdly,
Where there possibly could be some sort of corruption going on (there always is in any government) the broader larger picture is such that a weaker country has been invaded several times and now is being completely taken over by a predatory nation.
Fourth,
We signed a contract/treaty with Ukraine to help them if they got attacked when they gave up nuclear weapons. If we default on this contract what other nation is going to sign one with us ever again?
Secondly,
I DONT CARE WHO MY CONGRESSMAN IS BECAUSE I DON'T CARE ABOUT POLITICS, THEIR PARTIES, OR THEIR POSITIONS.
Thirdly,
Where there possibly could be some sort of corruption going on (there always is in any government) the broader larger picture is such that a weaker country has been invaded several times and now is being completely taken over by a predatory nation.
Fourth,
We signed a contract/treaty with Ukraine to help them if they got attacked when they gave up nuclear weapons. If we default on this contract what other nation is going to sign one with us ever again?
-
1
- Show all
To this we can agree.....
And for some reason you are up in arms about a group of people known for their dishonesty and moral turpitude because of reasons unclear to me as yet.
People that ARE indeed known to us that have unquestionable morals have given you their personal testimony concerning this war but instead you rely upon dubious sources on Twitter for facts?
This latest salient point to me suggests that you are either a Wagner Group employee or Russian ideologue or a political lapdog engaged in oppositional politics (which will ultimately destroy the USA) I'll let you pick which one.
-
1
- Show all
This was a different time in America. A time where the justice system and check and balances WORKED.
Leak
Daniel Ellsberg knew the leaders of the task force well. He had worked as an aide to McNaughton from 1964 to 1965, had worked on the study for several months in 1967, and Gelb and Halperin approved his access to the work at RAND in 1969.[11] Now opposing the war, Ellsberg and his friend Anthony Russo[25] photocopied the study in October 1969 intending to disclose it. Ellsberg approached Nixon's National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, Senators William Fulbright and George McGovern, and others, but none were interested.[11]
In February 1971, Ellsberg discussed the study with The New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, and gave 43 of the volumes to him in March. Before publication, The New York Times sought legal advice. The paper's regular outside counsel, Lord Day & Lord, advised against publication,[11] but in-house counsel James Goodale prevailed with his argument that the press had a First Amendment right to publish information significant to the people's understanding of their government's policy.
The New York Times began publishing excerpts on June 13, 1971; the first article in the series was titled "Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces Three Decades of Growing US Involvement". The study was dubbed The Pentagon Papers during the resulting media publicity.[11][26] Street protests, political controversy, and lawsuits followed.
To ensure the possibility of public debate about the papers' content, on June 29, US Senator Mike Gravel, an Alaska Democrat, entered 4,100 pages of the papers into the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds. These portions of the papers, which were edited for Gravel by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, were subsequently published by Beacon Press, the publishing arm of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.[27] A federal grand jury was subsequently empaneled to investigate possible violations of federal law in the release of the report. Leonard Rodberg, a Gravel aide, was subpoenaed to testify about his role in obtaining and arranging for publication of the Pentagon Papers. Gravel asked the court (in Gravel v. United States) to quash the subpoena on the basis of the Speech or Debate Clause in Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution.
That clause provides that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [a Senator or Representative] shall not be questioned in any other Place", meaning that Gravel could not be prosecuted for anything said on the Senate floor, and, by extension, for anything entered to the Congressional Record, allowing the papers to be publicly read without threat of a treason trial and conviction. When Gravel's request was reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court denied the request to extend this protection to Gravel or Rodberg because the grand jury subpoena served on them related to a third party rather than any act they themselves committed for the preparation of materials later entered into the Congressional Record. Nevertheless, the grand jury investigation was halted, and the publication of the papers was never prosecuted.
Later, Ellsberg said the documents "demonstrated unconstitutional behavior by a succession of presidents, the violation of their oath and the violation of the oath of every one of their subordinates."[28] He added that he leaked the Papers to end what he perceived to be "a wrongful war".[28]
Leak
Daniel Ellsberg knew the leaders of the task force well. He had worked as an aide to McNaughton from 1964 to 1965, had worked on the study for several months in 1967, and Gelb and Halperin approved his access to the work at RAND in 1969.[11] Now opposing the war, Ellsberg and his friend Anthony Russo[25] photocopied the study in October 1969 intending to disclose it. Ellsberg approached Nixon's National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, Senators William Fulbright and George McGovern, and others, but none were interested.[11]
In February 1971, Ellsberg discussed the study with The New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, and gave 43 of the volumes to him in March. Before publication, The New York Times sought legal advice. The paper's regular outside counsel, Lord Day & Lord, advised against publication,[11] but in-house counsel James Goodale prevailed with his argument that the press had a First Amendment right to publish information significant to the people's understanding of their government's policy.
The New York Times began publishing excerpts on June 13, 1971; the first article in the series was titled "Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces Three Decades of Growing US Involvement". The study was dubbed The Pentagon Papers during the resulting media publicity.[11][26] Street protests, political controversy, and lawsuits followed.
To ensure the possibility of public debate about the papers' content, on June 29, US Senator Mike Gravel, an Alaska Democrat, entered 4,100 pages of the papers into the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds. These portions of the papers, which were edited for Gravel by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, were subsequently published by Beacon Press, the publishing arm of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.[27] A federal grand jury was subsequently empaneled to investigate possible violations of federal law in the release of the report. Leonard Rodberg, a Gravel aide, was subpoenaed to testify about his role in obtaining and arranging for publication of the Pentagon Papers. Gravel asked the court (in Gravel v. United States) to quash the subpoena on the basis of the Speech or Debate Clause in Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution.
That clause provides that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [a Senator or Representative] shall not be questioned in any other Place", meaning that Gravel could not be prosecuted for anything said on the Senate floor, and, by extension, for anything entered to the Congressional Record, allowing the papers to be publicly read without threat of a treason trial and conviction. When Gravel's request was reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court denied the request to extend this protection to Gravel or Rodberg because the grand jury subpoena served on them related to a third party rather than any act they themselves committed for the preparation of materials later entered into the Congressional Record. Nevertheless, the grand jury investigation was halted, and the publication of the papers was never prosecuted.
Later, Ellsberg said the documents "demonstrated unconstitutional behavior by a succession of presidents, the violation of their oath and the violation of the oath of every one of their subordinates."[28] He added that he leaked the Papers to end what he perceived to be "a wrongful war".[28]
-
1
- Show all
The Nixon administration's restraint of the media
President Nixon at first planned to do nothing about publication of the study, since it embarrassed the Johnson and Kennedy administrations rather than his; however, Henry Kissinger convinced the president that not opposing the publication set a negative precedent for future secrets.[11] The administration argued Ellsberg and Russo were guilty of a felony under the Espionage Act of 1917, because they had no authority to publish classified documents.[29] After failing to persuade The New York Times to voluntarily cease publication on June 14,[11] Attorney General John N. Mitchell and Nixon obtained a federal court injunction forcing The New York Times to cease publication after three articles.[11] The New York Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger said:
On June 18, 1971, The Washington Post began publishing its own series of articles based upon the Pentagon Papers;[11] Ellsberg had given portions to The Washington Post reporter Ben Bagdikian. Bagdikian brought the information to editor Ben Bradlee. That day, Assistant U.S. Attorney General William Rehnquist asked The Washington Post to cease publication. After the paper refused, Rehnquist sought an injunction in U.S. district court. Judge Murray Gurfein declined to issue such an injunction, writing that "[t]he security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone. Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know."[32] The government appealed that decision, and on June 26 the Supreme Court agreed to hear it jointly with The New York Times case.[31] Fifteen other newspapers received copies of the study and began publishing it.[11]
President Nixon at first planned to do nothing about publication of the study, since it embarrassed the Johnson and Kennedy administrations rather than his; however, Henry Kissinger convinced the president that not opposing the publication set a negative precedent for future secrets.[11] The administration argued Ellsberg and Russo were guilty of a felony under the Espionage Act of 1917, because they had no authority to publish classified documents.[29] After failing to persuade The New York Times to voluntarily cease publication on June 14,[11] Attorney General John N. Mitchell and Nixon obtained a federal court injunction forcing The New York Times to cease publication after three articles.[11] The New York Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger said:
These papers, as our editorial said this morning, were really a part of history that should have been made available considerably longer ago. I just didn't feel there was any breach of national security, in the sense that we were giving secrets to the enemy.[30]
The newspaper appealed the injunction, and the case New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713) quickly rose through the U.S. legal system to the Supreme Court.[31]On June 18, 1971, The Washington Post began publishing its own series of articles based upon the Pentagon Papers;[11] Ellsberg had given portions to The Washington Post reporter Ben Bagdikian. Bagdikian brought the information to editor Ben Bradlee. That day, Assistant U.S. Attorney General William Rehnquist asked The Washington Post to cease publication. After the paper refused, Rehnquist sought an injunction in U.S. district court. Judge Murray Gurfein declined to issue such an injunction, writing that "[t]he security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone. Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know."[32] The government appealed that decision, and on June 26 the Supreme Court agreed to hear it jointly with The New York Times case.[31] Fifteen other newspapers received copies of the study and began publishing it.[11]
The Supreme Court allows further publication
Main article: New York Times Co. v. United States
On June 30, 1971, the Supreme Court decided, 6–3, that the government failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint injunction. The nine justices wrote nine opinions disagreeing on significant, substantive matters.
Ellsberg surrendered to authorities in Boston, and admitted that he had given the papers to the press: "I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision".[30] He was indicted by a grand jury in Los Angeles on charges of stealing and holding secret documents.[30] Federal District Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr. declared a mistrial and dismissed all charges against Ellsberg and Russo on May 11, 1973, after it was revealed that agents acting on the orders of the Nixon administration illegally broke into the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist and attempted to steal files; representatives of the Nixon administration approached the Ellsberg trial judge with an offer of the job of FBI directorship; several irregularities appeared in the government's case including its claim that it had lost records of illegal wiretapping against Ellsberg conducted by the White House Plumbers in the contemporaneous Watergate scandal. Byrne ruled: "The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case." Ellsberg and Russo were freed due to the mistrial; they were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act.[11]
In March 1972, political scientist Samuel L. Popkin, then assistant professor of Government at Harvard University, was jailed for a week for his refusal to answer questions before a grand jury investigating the Pentagon Papers case, during a hearing before the Boston Federal District Court. The Faculty Council later passed a resolution condemning the government's interrogation of scholars on the grounds that "an unlimited right of grand juries to ask any question and to expose a witness to citations for contempt could easily threaten scholarly research".[35]
Gelb estimated that The New York Times only published about five percent of the study's 7,000 pages. The Beacon Press edition was also incomplete. Halperin, who had originally classified the study as secret, obtained most of the unpublished portions under the Freedom of Information Act and the University of Texas published them in 1983. The National Security Archive published the remaining portions in 2002. The study itself remained formally classified until 2011.[11]
Main article: New York Times Co. v. United States
On June 30, 1971, the Supreme Court decided, 6–3, that the government failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint injunction. The nine justices wrote nine opinions disagreeing on significant, substantive matters.
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.
— Justice Black[33]
Thomas Tedford and Dale Herbeck summarized the reaction of editors and journalists at the time:— Justice Black[33]
As the press rooms of the Times and the Post began to hum to the lifting of the censorship order, the journalists of America pondered with grave concern the fact that for fifteen days the 'free press' of the nation had been prevented from publishing an important document and for their troubles had been given an inconclusive and uninspiring 'burden-of-proof' decision by a sharply divided Supreme Court. There was relief, but no great rejoicing, in the editorial offices of America's publishers and broadcasters.
— Tedford and Herbeck, pp. 225–226.[34]
Legal charges against Ellsberg— Tedford and Herbeck, pp. 225–226.[34]
Ellsberg surrendered to authorities in Boston, and admitted that he had given the papers to the press: "I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision".[30] He was indicted by a grand jury in Los Angeles on charges of stealing and holding secret documents.[30] Federal District Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr. declared a mistrial and dismissed all charges against Ellsberg and Russo on May 11, 1973, after it was revealed that agents acting on the orders of the Nixon administration illegally broke into the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist and attempted to steal files; representatives of the Nixon administration approached the Ellsberg trial judge with an offer of the job of FBI directorship; several irregularities appeared in the government's case including its claim that it had lost records of illegal wiretapping against Ellsberg conducted by the White House Plumbers in the contemporaneous Watergate scandal. Byrne ruled: "The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case." Ellsberg and Russo were freed due to the mistrial; they were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act.[11]
In March 1972, political scientist Samuel L. Popkin, then assistant professor of Government at Harvard University, was jailed for a week for his refusal to answer questions before a grand jury investigating the Pentagon Papers case, during a hearing before the Boston Federal District Court. The Faculty Council later passed a resolution condemning the government's interrogation of scholars on the grounds that "an unlimited right of grand juries to ask any question and to expose a witness to citations for contempt could easily threaten scholarly research".[35]
Gelb estimated that The New York Times only published about five percent of the study's 7,000 pages. The Beacon Press edition was also incomplete. Halperin, who had originally classified the study as secret, obtained most of the unpublished portions under the Freedom of Information Act and the University of Texas published them in 1983. The National Security Archive published the remaining portions in 2002. The study itself remained formally classified until 2011.[11]
