Pentagon Papers

The Pentagon Papers is the popular term for a 7,000-page top-secret United States government report on the history of the internal planning and policy-making process within the government itself concerning the Vietnam War. The documents gained fame when they were leaked to and published in The New York Times during early 1971 by former State Department official Daniel Ellsberg.

Background

The report that would later become famous as the "Pentagon Papers" was titled United States-Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, a 47-volume, 7,000-page, top-secret Department of Defense history of the United States' political and military involvement in the Vietnam War from 1945 to 1967. The study was commissioned in 1967 by then Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara. McNamara appointed Leslie Gelb, director of Policy Planning and Arms Control for International Security Affairs at the Pentagon, to oversee the project. Gelb hired 36 military officers, civilian policy experts, and historians to write the monographs that constituted the content of the project. The 'Papers' included 4,000 pages of actual documents from the 1945–67 period.

The Leak

Most of the Pentagon Papers were leaked to reporter Neil Sheehan of The New York Times in early 1971 by Daniel Ellsberg, with his friend Anthony Russo assisting in copying them. The Times began publishing excerpts as a series of articles on June 13.^[1] Controversy and lawsuits followed. On June 29, U.S. Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska entered 4,100 pages of the Papers into the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds. These portions of the Papers were subsequently published by Beacon Press, the publishing arm of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.^[2] The importance of the entry of the Papers into the Congressional Record was that, Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution provides that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [a Senator or Representative] shall not be questioned in any other Place" and thus the Senator could not be prosecuted for anything said on the Senate floor, or, by extension, anything entered into the Congressional Record. This allowed the Papers to be "read" publicly without the threat of a treason trial and conviction. Ellsberg later said that 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", and that he had leaked the papers in the hopes of getting the nation out of "a wrongful war."[1]

Impact of the 'Papers'

Among other things, the Papers revealed that the United States government deliberately expanded its role in the war with airstrikes against Laos, raids off the coast of North Vietnam, and U.S. Marine Corps attacks before the American public was told of them, while President Lyndon B. Johnson was promising not to expand the war. The document widened the credibility gap between the U.S. government and the American people, hurting the Richard Nixon administration's war effort. Ironically, it showed how the Democrats got the U.S. into Vietnam. Nixon, the Republican, was more worried that people would not trust the government. According to Anthony Lewis's contribution in the coursepack from James Goodale's (former inhouse counsel to the Times) law school course on Old Media, New Media the Times received advice from inhouse counsel not to publish. Goodale counseled otherwise, reasoning that the press had a First Amendment right to print material of such significance to the people's understanding of government policy. The Nixon administration, however, argued that Ellsberg and Russo had no legal authority to release classified documents and were therefore guilty of a felony (treason) under the Espionage Act of 1917 in providing them to the Times. One of the "credibility gaps" that the Times wrote of was that a consensus to bomb North Vietnam had developed in the Johnson administration on September 7, 1964, before the U.S. presidential elections.^[3] However, according to the same Papers, none of the actions recommended by the consensus on September 7 involved bombing North Vietnam.^[4] On June 14 1971 the Times declared that the Johnson administration began the last rounds of planning for a bombing campaign in November. Another controversial issue was the implication by the Times that Johnson had made up his mind to send U.S. combat troops to Vietnam by July 17, 1965 and this became the basis for an allegation that he only pretended to consult his advisors from July 21–27. This was due to the presence of a cable which stated that "[Deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus] Vance informs McNamara that President has approved 34 Battalion Plan and will try to push through reserve call-up."^[5] When the cable was declassified in 1988, it was revealed that it read "there was a continuing uncertainty as to [Johnson's] final decision, which would have to await Secretary McNamara's recommendation and the views of Congressional leaders, particularly the views of Senator [Richard] Russell."^[6]

U.S. government's reaction

When the Times began publishing its series, President Nixon became incensed. His words to National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger that day included "people have gotta be put to the torch for this sort of thing…" and "let's get the son-of-a-bitch in jail."^[7] After failing to get the Times to voluntarily stop publishing, Attorney General John Mitchell and President Nixon requested and obtained a federal court injunction that the Times cease the publication of excerpts. The Times appealed the injunction that was issued, and the case began (quickly) working its way through the court system. On June 18, 1971 the Washington Post began publishing its own series of articles. Ben Bagdikian, a Post editor, had obtained portions of the Papers from Ellsberg. That day the Post received a call from the Assistant Attorney General William Rehnquist, asking them to stop publishing the documents. When the Post refused, the Justice Department sought another injunction. The U.S. district court judge refused, and the government appealed. On June 26 the Supreme Court agreed to take both cases, merging them into the case New York Times Co. v. United States (403 US 713).^[8] On June 30, the Court held in a 6–3 decision that the injunctions were unconstitutional prior restraints and that the government had not met the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint. The justices wrote nine separate opinions, disagreeing on significant substantive issues. While it was generally seen as a victory for those who claim the First Amendment to the Constitution enshrines an absolute right to free speech, many felt it was a lukewarm victory at best, offering little protection for future publishers when claims of national security are at stake. Thomas Tedford and Dale Herbeck summed up the reaction of editors and publishers at the time:

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. 225–6^[9]

Bibliography

• _____ (1971). The Pentagon Papers. New York: Bantam Books. As published in The New York Times. ISBN 0-552-64917-1.
• _____ (1971–1972). The Pentagon Papers: The Defense Department History of United States Decisionmaking on Vietnam. Boston: Beacon Press. 5 vols. "Senator Gravel Edition"; includes documents not included in government version. ISBN 0-8070-0526-6 & ISBN 0-8070-0522-3.
• Daniel Ellsberg (2002). Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers. New York: Viking. ISBN 0-670-03030-9
• George C. Herring, ed. (1993). The Pentagon Papers: Abridged Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-028380-X.
• George C. Herring, ed. (1983). Secret Diplomacy of the Vietnam War: The Negotiating Volumes of the Pentagon Papers.

References

External links

• Complete text of the Gravel Edition of the Pentagon Papers with supporting documents, maps, and photos
• "Top Secret: Battle for the Pentagon Papers" a resource site that supports a currently-playing docu-drama about the Pentagon Papers. The site provides historical context, time lines, bibliographical resources, information on discussions with current journalists, and helpful links.
• Official website for "Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers" by Daniel Ellsberg
• Democracy Now! Special: "How the Pentagon Papers Came to Be Published by the Beacon Press": Mike Gravel and Daniel Ellsberg (audio/video and transcript)
• Nixon Tapes & Supreme Court Oral Arguments
• Podcast of a live panel discussion moderated by Jill Abramson, New York Times managing editor and former Washington bureau chief, marking the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling.
• VIDEO Mike Gravel tells the story of how he released the secret Pentagon Papers into the public record
• Article at Ed Moise's Vietnam Bibliography
• 1971 - The Pentagon Papers A report from Steve Holt of WCBS Newsradio 880 (WCBS-AM New York) Part of WCBS 880's celebration of 40 years of newsradio.
• Beacon Press & The Pentagon Papers