The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Times News Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out
  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Customer Service
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Sports
    • NFL
    • NBA/WNBA
    • MLB
    • NHL
    • Tennis
    • Golf
    • Motorsports
    • Soccer
    • NCAA
    • Olympics
    • Outdoors
    • Other
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Themes
  • Communities
  • Shopping
    • Stores
    • Coupons
    • Daily Double
    • Promotion
    • How It Works
  • Videos
    • Two Guys
    • Birnbaum on Washington
    • Liz Glover
    • Amanda Carpenter
    • Morning Briefing
    • Documentaries
    • Joe Giganti
    • Video Game Minute
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Audio and Radio
    • America's Morning News
  • Politics

    Massive bill steals show in health care debate

  • Commentary

    Al Qaeda's prospects

  • Sports

    Slow start dooms Capitals

  • National

    Winfrey: Prayer influenced 2011 exit

  • Politics

    Report: ACORN mismanaged grant money

  • Politics

    Obama's approval rating falls below 50%

  • Local

    Report: D.C. schools chief Rhee mishandled sexual misconduct scandal

Home » Opinion

Thursday, February 12, 2009

BLANKLEY: Yes, we need censorship

Rate this story

Average 0.00
after 0 votes
Login or register to rate this story

Like colonels, censors helped us win WW II

  • Font Size -+
  • Print
  • Email
  • Comment
  • Tweet this!
  • Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Click-2-Listen
  • Videos
Please stand by, images loading!
  • ASSOCIATED PRESS
The U.S. flag is raised during a ceremony marking the official opening of the new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone on Monday.

More Opinion Stories

  • FRIST: Saving children's lives
  • LETTER TO EDITOR: Maryland's future is green
  • TELLA: Politics and the Fed
  • EDITORIAL: Congressional Motors

By Tony Blankley

This is the third of three excerpts from Tony Blankley's new book "American Grit: What It Will Take to Survive and Win the 21st Century" (Regnery, 2009)

During wartime, there is a natural tension between civil liberties and national security. Security must take precedence. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration rolled back very few civil liberties. Aside from establishing a regime for handling captured foreign terrorists, the curtailments largely consisted of common-sense enhancements in the power of intelligence agencies to monitor terrorism suspects and access their personal records. And the administration did so, in a limited way, because it rightly deemed these restrictions in America's national security interests. Bush's steps were modest, yet liberal journalists reacted as if he were the reincarnation of Stalin, or, more to their taste, Hitler.

Some observers reject outright the necessity of enhanced government powers. Denying that we are currently in a time of national peril, some argue that Islamist fascism does not present an existential threat to America. In a December 2008 draft report, a bipartisan, congressionally mandated commission found there was a better-than-even chance that terrorists would attack a major international city with weapons of mass destruction in the next few years. The threat of some kind of nuclear device being detonated in America is greater now than it was during the Cold War, when the doctrine of mutually assured destruction ensured that no nuclear weapons were used in what we used to call the balance of terror.

Faced with this imminent threat, to insist on the continuation of all the civil liberties we enjoyed during the 1990s is to handcuff the government in its war fighting efforts, making another terror attack more likely. My argument is simply this: a temporary reduction of personal and media freedoms is an acceptable price to pay in order to lessen the chance that Islamic fanatics will commit further atrocities against the American people.

During World War II, a federal Office of Censorship was created to review and if necessary censor any criticism of the morale of U.S. forces, or any communication that might bring aid or comfort to the enemy. Censorship applied not only to news and commentary, but also popular entertainment. Anti-war films were all but unheard of, since the government simply would not allow them.

At the beginning of World War II, around twenty-six news stories were censored in the American press every day; by the end of 1942, the Post Office had completely outlawed seventy newspapers. Compare that restrictive environment to the laxity that prevails today, when the , absolutely unhindered by the government, prints op-ed submissions by the likes of Mahmoud al-Zahar, a founder and top official of Hamas, which is a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. Mousa Abu Marzook, a Hamas terrorist who is listed as a specially designated terrorist by the U.S. Treasury Department. Similarly, a website run by the and saw fit to run a piece on the meaning of jihad written by Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a spiritual leader of Hezbollah, another U.S.-designated terrorist organization.

It is hard to imagine the population on the home front during World War II waking up one morning, opening the paper, and finding a direct appeal to the American people from a top official from Nazi Germany's Propaganda Ministry, or an entreaty from an Imperial Japanese pilot suspected of participating in the attack on Pearl Harbor.

There is no reason why newspapers should remain free to publish direct appeals to the American public from members of designated terrorist organizations. Most important, the media should not enjoy the unfettered right to publish national security, intelligence, and military secrets. These revelations can be so damaging to national security that sanctions should be enforced not just against government officials who leak secrets, but also against the journalists and media outlets that disclose them.

Congress must clarify the law so that publishing government secrets that endanger our national security and our wartime efforts will be severely punished. American newspapers should foster a free debate on government policies, not act as agents of enemy sabotage.

Tony Blankley is the author of "American Grit: What It Will Take To Survive and Win in the 21st Century" and vice president of the Edelman public-relations firm in Washington.

[Get Copyright Permissions] Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

Post a comment

There are comments on this article, submit your opinion!

Please login or register to post a comment

Ask a Question

You Report

Do you have another point of view, photos, audio, video or more information about a story?

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. Health bill could get 34-hour reading in Senate
  2. Work site arrests of illegals fall dramatically
  3. Senate health care bill creates new marriage penalty
  4. Massive bill steals show in health care debate
  5. KELLNER: New Apple mouse really is 'Magic'
More Top Stories »
  1. 19 gang members face racketeering charges
  2. Report: D.C. schools chief Rhee mishandled sexual misconduct scandal
  3. EXCLUSIVE: Taliban chief hides in Pakistan
  4. EXCLUSIVE: Hoffman considering recount claim
  5. PRUDEN: Obama bows, the nation cringes

Most Shared

  1. Religious leaders vow civil disobedience on anti-life issues
  2. Report: D.C. schools chief Rhee mishandled sexual misconduct scandal
  3. PRUDEN: Obama bows, the nation cringes
  4. Faint Shroud of Turin text proves artifact real, book says
  5. Senate health care bill creates new marriage penalty
More Top Stories »
  1. EDITORIAL: Chicago, Afghan-style
  2. Massive bill steals show in health care debate
  3. Socialist or vast expansion?
  4. PRUDEN: The Third World and Obama
  5. BOOKS: 'The Secret Wife of Louis XIV'

Most Commented

  1. PRUDEN: The Third World and Obama
  2. Religious leaders vow civil disobedience on anti-life issues
  3. Army lacks guidelines to deal with jihadists in ranks
  4. Senate health care bill creates new marriage penalty
  5. EDITORIAL: Get ready to bomb Iran
More Top Stories »
  1. Dems up pressure on health bill's holdouts
  2. EXCLUSIVE: Taliban chief hides in Pakistan
  3. Obama's approval rating falls below 50%
  4. Unforeseen climate 'crisis'
  5. Work site arrests of illegals fall dramatically

Listen to Washington Times Radio

  • America's Morning News

    with John McCaslin and Melanie Morgan

Question of the day

White House officials and Senate Democrats met in private three times last week to craft health care legislation. Do you think these discussions should be more public?

Blogs & Columns

  • Hot Button Blog

    RNC: Breast cancer recommendations may lead to 'rationing'

  • Belief Blog

    Evangelicals OK civil disobedience

  • Out of Context

    Foods that might kill libido

  • On the Fly

    United lifts some 'award' blocking

  • Technology

    Facebook wins round against phishing spammer

  • Redskins 360

    Rookie Williams hurts ankle

  • SNOBlog

    Beyond 'Woody'

Videos

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.