Transcript for July 2

MR. HARWOOD: Secondly, there is a very large gap between the ideological outlook and philosophy of The New York Times editorial page and The Wall Street Journal editorial page. There is not a large ideological gap between the news staffs of those two places, and why would there be? Some of the top people of The New York Times were hired from The Wall Street Journal. What I found shocking about the editorial was the assertion that The New York Times did not act in good faith in making that judgment. I don’t know anybody on the news staff of The Wall Street Journal that believes that. I certainly don’t.

MS. MITCHELL: Let’s turn to Guantanamo and the Supreme Court. What is the political fallout, John, from the Guantanamo decision? Is this something that can actually work in the administration’s favor, because it pits the Court—according to the talk show hosts the last couple of days—on the side of al-Qaeda?

MR. HARWOOD: It’s embarrassing, internationally. It isolates the United States. It’s a setback for the administration’s philosophy. Politically, I think they could come out ahead on this in part because, as we just heard Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer say, the U.S. Congress is going to take up, very soon, legislation giving the president this authority. That’s a good subject for Republicans to be on.

MS. MITCHELL: Dana, what is it costing us diplomatically? Guantanamo.

MS. PRIEST: Huge, which is, which is the point on—not just on Guantanamo but all of these programs. You know, we are covering the war on terror. It’s a classified war. How—what—why are we covering it? Because we want to figure out whether the government is going to achieve its strategic goals, which is to defeat terrorism and to compete in the realm of ideology. It’s not just the tactical questions. And on Guantanamo, this has cost us a lot internationally as a defender—a primary defender—of human rights. And you have to take those things into consideration when you’re trying to win a war.

MS. MITCHELL: Bill Safire, should the administration take this as a cue to just shut Guantanamo, or accept the John McCain approach now, towards...(unintelligible).

MR. SAFIRE: No, I think the administration should follow what the—the guideline that the Supreme Court has suggested, which is go to Congress and, and get some kind of solid guidelines on what should happen.

Wonderful thing here—really a wonderful thing the last week. Here’s a Supreme Court, which put George W. Bush in the presidency only six years ago, now pulling him up short and saying, “Hey!  You got to get some oversight, you got to get some congressional backing before you can do this kind of thing.” And as you just saw in the beginning of this program, these two senators who disagree about so much pretty much signaled, “You bet we’ll”—first, we’ll hear from the president, and he’ll backtrack and he’ll say this is what kind of a military commission we need, and they’ll keep Guantanamo, they’ll keep the most dangerous terrorists there, and we’ll have these military commissions, and this’ll set a good pattern for the next president and, hopefully, not the next war.

MR. BENNETT: (Unintelligible)

MR. HARWOOD: Andrea, the other thing this does politically is underscore the arguments of conservatives of why it’s important to change the Court. You had Scalia, Thomas, Alito, siding with the administration, and the administration was saying we need some more conservatives.

MS. MITCHELL: The last word to you, Bennett. We only have about 15, 30 seconds.

MR. BENNETT: Yeah, I agree with Bill Safire. It’s in Congress’ court now, and they need to act on it. But I don’t agree with Bill Safire that the press has a right not to give testimony in a criminal trial. They are not above the law. And when you show your Pentagon Papers case, please read Black—Justice Blackman’s decision. He said, “No prior restraint. But if people get hurt, if people get killed as a result of this, the press is responsible.”

MS. MITCHELL: So the issue is whether people are hurt by something that had arguably been previously disclosed.

MR. BENNETT: That’s correct.

MR. SAFIRE: I disagree completely.

MR. BENNETT: You’re not above the law.

MR. SAFIRE: I will respect...(unintelligible).

MS. MITCHELL: OK. Well, we are going to have to leave it there. Happy Independence Day on these themes of July 4^th and our founders. Thank you all.

And coming next, our MEET THE PRESS minute. Reflecting that landmark Supreme Court decision 35 years ago balancing national security and freedom of the press.

TEXT:

Supreme Court, 6-3, upholds newspapers

on publication of the Pentagon report;

Times resumes its series, halted 15 days

(Announcements)

MS. MITCHELL: And we are back. On Sunday morning, June 13, 1971, the front page of The New York Times featured a photo of a smiling President Nixon escorting his daughter Tricia on her wedding day. But the middle of the front page contained a story that, through a strange chain of events, would lead to a landmark Supreme Court case on press freedoms and eventually to the Watergate scandal and Nixon’s own resignation.

TEXT:

Supreme Court, 6-3, upholds newspapers

on publication of the Pentagon report;

Times resumes its series, halted 15 days

MS. MITCHELL: The headline read, “Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces 3 Decades of Growing U.S. Involvement.” The person who leaked the classified Pentagon Papers to The New York Times was defense analyst Daniel Ellsberg. He appeared on MEET THE PRESS several years later, and on that occasion he spoke about the case that changed history.

(Videotape, May 20, 1973):

MR. SANFORD J. UNGAR: Mr. Ellsberg, whatever else you may have accomplished or not accomplished by disclosing the Pentagon Papers, many people, I believe, including you, felt that your trial would help establish some ground rules or answer some questions about the security classification system, government secrecy, freedom of the press. Do, do you think its done so, or did the way it end just leave all those questions just hanging in the air as much as they were before?

DR. ELLSBERG: I don’t think they’ll ever again try to convince an American jury that historical documents of the kind in the Pentagon Papers, even if they are stamped “Top secret,” could damage the national interest, and thus come under the espionage laws.

MR. DAVID KRASLOW: Mr. Ellsberg, wise men made the point centuries ago that liberty without order is anarchy. If every person with official access to classified information took it upon himself to decide what should be made public, how could orderly government be maintained?

DR. ELLSBERG: That’s a constant problem; it can never be an easy one. They’ll never be able to reveal such things without risking their jobs if their superiors don’t want it revealed.

MR. LAWRENCE E. SPIVAK: Because of our involvement in Vietnam and because of what has happened at the Pentagon Papers and, and the Watergate case, a great many of our youth have lost faith in our institutions. Have you?

DR. ELLSBERG: I never did, and I’m glad to say right now I have never had more hope. Not based on faith, but on evidence of what I see these days that our government is functioning. Our government is not the president. The government is not the executive branch. Those other branches of government are functioning to protect us from abuses by the executive branch, and they have never functioned better in our history.

(End videotape)

MS. MITCHELL: And we’ll be right back.

(Announcements)

MS. MITCHELL: That’s all for today. Tim Russert will be back next week at a special earlier time, 8 a.m. Eastern, right before the Wimbledon finals. Check out our Web site during the week for air times in your area, mtp.msnbc.com. Have a wonderful July 4th, a safe weekend and if it’s Sunday, it’s MEET THE PRESS.

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Sunday's Meet the Press guest list Nov. 22: Senate roundtable, Brinker, Snyderman Nov. 15: Clinton, Duncan, Gingrich, Sharpton Nov. 8: Casey, Barbour, Rendell, roundtable, Brokaw Nov. 1: Tim Geithner, David Plouffe, roundtable Oct. 25: Cornyn, Schumer, Burnett, Sorkin, roundtable Oct. 18: Jarrett, Dodd, Kyl, Shriver, Podesta Oct. 11: Levin, Graham, McCaffrey, Myers, roundtable Oct. 4: Ambassador Susan Rice, roundtable Sept. 27: Bill Clinton, Paterson, Kyl, Webb Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: