Surprised in this otherwise excellent obit of legendary journalist Neil Sheehan, the @nytimes didn't mention that the Nixon admin tried to charge Sheehan and his wife Susan under the Espionage Act *after* the Pentagon Papers Supreme Court case.

The Pentagon Papers Supreme Court ruling is, of course, a landmark First Amendment opinion. But it's bizarre to me that the Nixon admin actually tried to *criminally charge* Sheehan for his reporting, and the case is almost lost to history.
One of the only descriptions of the Espionage Act grand jury investigation into Neil Sheehan, besides in the @nytimes archives, is this 2011 @DailyBeast piece by former NYT general counsel James Goodale. It is an absolutely remarkable story. https://t.co/lHs7svzhJr
After Nixon lost the Pentagon Papers Supreme Court case, he was enraged and still wanted the NYT prosecuted. While @DanielEllsberg's grand jury was happening in LA, federal prosecutors opened up an investigation into Sheehan in Boston for "conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act"
The grand jury investigating both Sheehan and his wife Susan, who was a writer at the @NewYorker, subpoenaed several famous journalists and academics, including David Halberstam, Noam Chomsky, and Howard Zinn. https://t.co/lHs7svzhJr
The @nytimes was so sure Sheehan was going to get charged, it drafted a statement condemning the indictment that never came. The only reason it didn't? The journalists and academics subpoenaed almost universally refused to comply. https://t.co/SHnRVFlmXb
This is yet another reason why it's vital for reporters to oppose the US government's case against Julian Assange. He's charged with the same crime Nixon tried to go after Sheehan with. Given the opportunity, future presidents will try try the same thing. https://t.co/lHs7svzhJr
Basically the only other place online you can read details. about the grand jury investigating reporter Neil Sheehan for "conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act" is in the @nytimes archives from the early 1970s. https://t.co/pARSV1ULIa https://t.co/VUNLkcXSHM
You can also read about this forgotten, yet incredibly important, aspect of the Pentagon Papers case in Sanford Ungar's excellent book "The Papers and the Papers." Unfortunately it's out of print, so it's hard to come by. https://t.co/hT3lmqtXzW

More from Politics

How the CIA gets the media to lie to you

https://t.co/vsTrS43Fft


https://t.co/rUTYg42PYH


https://t.co/1r0MbPv8wG


War on democracy - installing US-puppet dictators in Latin America in order to control their economies
#Guatemala #Arbenz #RedScare

Propaganda, "harmless bombing" and a CIA terror campaign


CIA war on Nicaragua

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?