Young Noam Chomsky on Daniel Ellsberg (1971)

well thank you mr. rusher now mr. Miller it's time for your rebuttal well I'm delighted to see you both embarrassed by and having to defend President Johnson in fact in fact the president whatever the classification rules are can no more release documents that injure the United States than anyone else can and that's what we're talking about because that's what must be shown for the prosecution of Daniel Ellsberg to proceed injury to the United States and really the whole thing is beyond belief because what we've been told is the only injury that existed is injury we can't tell you about because it in fact the secret if that is the basis on which Daniel Ellsberg is being prosecuted then these charges should have been dropped long ago so talk to us not only about what Daniel Ellsberg did but perhaps what he had a duty to do I've asked to join us tonight professor Noam Chomsky [Applause] the country was glad to see here Noam Chomsky is professor of linguistics at MIT and has been active in the peace movement professor Chomsky why did Daniel Ellsberg do what he did Dan Ellsberg released to the American people information historical information about how a series of presidents and meshed them in a vicious and costly war of aggression he had every reason to believe that this war was continuing and would continue at the present incredible level of violence and he hoped I hope correctly that if this historical information were brought to the American people they would do something about it and stop that war today in fact the may he in fact have had a duty to disclose the information I think he definitely had a duty perhaps not a legal duty but certainly a moral duty to bring to the public evidence about criminal acts and that's in effect what the Pentagon went but what the Pentagon Papers reveal they are a history of a criminal conspiracy operating in secret to enmesh us in this world aggression we're told that one of the harms of releasing the papers that we aren't told exactly what is harm to ongoing negotiations could that possibly be true well I don't recourse I haven't seen the full documents but I don't recall a single instance in the documents that deals with ongoing negotiations there is material for very interesting material about negotiations for example the documents reveal in 1964 that there was a concerted effort by the executive branch of the government to avoid negotiations negotiations which they called premature because they knew that if negotiate negotiations took place at that time and if there were a peaceful settlement then the client government that they had instituted and were maintaining by force in South Vietnam could not maintain itself so therefore they violated their legal obligation to avoid the threat and use of force and to pursue negotiations and other legal means and they said no we have to AH pact in such a ways to put off every negotiation effort and we have to first for example William Bundy on August 11th 1964 said we first have to make sure they're hurting we first have to apply the use of force and then maybe after we've hurt them badly enough then we can go to negotiations we've heard that Van Ellsberg's disclosure of these dock you may have an inhibiting effect on similar confidential planning in the future is that something we should be afraid of I think that's I hope that it does have have such an impact if there is planning going on about engaging the United States in criminal acts of aggression I think that that information should be brought to the American public or the right people to know about it and the right people to stop it thank you professor Chomsky all right mr. Chomsky just put your own views in the picture a little bit and your book American power and the new mandarins you say that Americans should struggle to and I'm quoting directly to remove the heavy Yankee boot from the necks of oppressed people throughout the world that's your opinion absolutely this is your notion of what the United States is doing putting the heavy Yankee boot on the necks of oppressed peoples around the many many such case certainly and make it understandable why you feel the way you do would you favor prosecuting a person who avoided the draft in protest against the Vietnam War and certainly not I've always supported draft resistance and know what about if that person who deserted no I think that deserters should be supported but in fact anyone who is resisting these officially what about should we destroy military file or ROTC property as a protest against the war well when you get to destruction that becomes more ambiguous but in many instances I would any instances you would what I won't do it don't support a rail a troop track if oh that's even more difficult because of that we're getting more difficult that's right and there are these are there is no I should say that there is you're not going to find any general principle that applies to this case it has to deal with each particular instance no you have to deal with each particular instance on its merits and went this way all right no I wouldn't do that because the injury to the individuals nobody we're injured if nobody if you could be certain in advance that no one would be injured then I think also first I would I would derail a train that was carrying live ammunition to be dropped on the people of you know what about Ellsberg if he had distributed the four volumes he withheld would you have prosecuted him for doing that I have no idea what's in those four volume I see yeah well the implication for mr. Miller was that this was the really hot they packed security stuff and we have no no that's not the implication but he has no idea wasn't it the noodle you're quite right yes should Ellsberg have revealed this material assuming it was security matters having to do with ongoing operations affecting the Vietnam War that depends entirely on what the social consequences would be of revealing that infinity would determine that well in the case of very serious criminal act such as the act of say killing maiming and driving up in their homes half the population of Vietnam I think any American citizen has the right to make it itself absolutely yes because we're dealing with very significant and ongoing criminal action what if an opponent of mr. Nixon's new initiatives toward Red China somebody who opposed it that's their right manner and the government leaked classified documents that that went back and forth we may assume preparing it and that this getting into the hands of a hostile press had derailed those negotiations would you consider that such a person should be prosecuted I don't think it should be prosecuted but I would certainly oppose what he had done why would you not prosecute him sir because I'm I'd be very cautious and careful about prosecuting people for bringing information to the public supposing though that they harmed or effectively ruined that policy at that delicate moment I think that would be very unfortunate and if it and I can conceive of circumstances under which prosecution would be legitimate but not a photo but not in any case in this one what if Roo TEPCO had leaked his classified documents to the press rather than to the Congress I think a rather important distinction well not entirely because don't forget that Ellsberg did bring the material to the Congress a year for a year and a half before that's stopped Ellsberg did it because because then the daughter of the press that would have again been extremely unfortunate but I agree with the other witnesses they should not prosecute is there Bergman had stolen the documents and sold into newspapers simply for the cash involved well then I think you might argue that there was an element of robbery or something of that sort no no I'm not talking about robbery that robbery is a is is a specific crime and you can commit it whatever your intention in the particular code no well I want to know I want to know if he had had merely cash on his mind should he be prosecuted I would I think at that point he could probably be pressed the words the tax just a minute for the trivial and a very different act of robbery a test like we had time for test then is motive two-part question motive and consequence and Senator McCarthy's motives were they pure enough so Senator McCarthy us were quite evil and all the question of illegal absolutely no one else Berg determined well I think that's it that's something for every American citizen to determine for himself I think the government it by looking at the content of these papers and our laws for Chomsky thank you [Applause]

Channel: Manufacturing Intellect

Views: 95,288

Rating: 4.9674797 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: WE50tCvldTY

Length: 8min 2sec (482 seconds)

Published: Sun Aug 27 2017

Reddit Comments

[u/[deleted]]

Is there a good repo of old Chomsky footage somewhere? I feel like I've heard every lecture of his from the past 25 years at least once, but where's that 80's, 70's shit?

[u/guillotine-hum]

I wish that second guy would’ve let Chomsky finish a thought.

[u/scottscheule]

Young Chomsky makes me wish I was gay.

[u/automatetheuniverse]

If anyone ever makes a Chomsky biopic, I nominate David Duchovny for the role of "Young Noam".