This deadly challenge imposes
upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to
the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but
which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I
refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to
the need for far greater official secrecy.
The very word
"secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a
people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths
and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive
and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which
are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the
threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today,
there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions
do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need
for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its
meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do
not intend to permit to the extent that it’s in my control. And no official of
my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military,
should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to
stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the
public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher,
every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards,
and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the
government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on
self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In times of
"clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the
privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for
national security.
Today no war has been declared
and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the
traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves
our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in
danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by
marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a
declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions,
then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If
you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can
only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never
been more imminent.
It requires a change in
outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the
people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we
are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that
relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on
infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on
intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies
by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources
into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines
military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political
operations.
Its preparations are
concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its
dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is
printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a
war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy
recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question
remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to
oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter
are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our
newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through
theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations
to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper
reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the
nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use,
have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree
sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the
publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were
followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed
these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been
engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items.
But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of
journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is
whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
That question is for you alone
to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan
should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my
duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear
and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not
commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I
have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that
appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out
to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to
the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the
newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of
establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am
not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications.
I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to
impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession
and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to
consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty
of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks
itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is
that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national
security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen
and public officials at every level will ask the same question of their
endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
And should the press of
America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps
or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with
those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no
recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and
open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of
this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without
precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in
history.
It is the unprecedented nature
of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation
which I share and that is our obligation to inform and alert the American
people to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and
understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program
and the choices that we face.
No President should fear
public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and
from that understanding comes support or opposition and both are necessary. I
am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking
your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people.
For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens
whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle
controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be
candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not
become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full
responsibility for our errors and we expect you to point them out when we miss
them.
Without debate, without
criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed and no republic can
survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any
citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by
the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by
the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the
trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it
wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our
opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate
and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage
and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign
but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved
understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means,
finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you
with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national
security--and we intend to do it.
It was early in the
Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions
already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press.
Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all
citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and
threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution
of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible
consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing
press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the
courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that
with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent." John F. Kennedy, on April 27th 1961.
Presidents have always ended up being puppets to the system, but sometimes puppets break from their strings and say things that weigh heavy on their hearts. Maybe JFK broke free from his strings? We all know what happened on November 22, 1963.
I believe its safe to say the official story is always full of holes and must be questioned. If we are wrong it means nothing, if we are correct it means whole lot. “He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”.
Peace
No comments:
Post a Comment