Yes, you should post reviews. I’ve been reviewing films here every now and then for the past year or so.

I’d be interested in reading any reviews you decide to put up in the future.

Fair enough. My suggestion would be that anyone who wants can bookmark this review, and read it after they see the movie.

Thanks, Bev.

And thank you to everyone who participated and asked good questions.

As we wrap up, I want to thank you for being here this evening to chat with everyone. You did a public service when you and others in the NYT legal team defended the right the newspaper had to publish the Pentagon Papers. Indeed, it is a “case for the ages,” as you write in the book.

I have one final question – if you happen to have the time to answer.

What are your thoughts about how the government is trying to cast WikiLeaks? Any final words on what it would mean if the government is able to get the judge to make some finding in Manning’s case that it does exist to try and steal government documents? In other words, to conspire to commit espionage and not merely operate as a media organization or publisher?

The final chapters highlight the assault on reporter’s privilege. How alarming is it that the Obama Justice Department appealed the decision and continued the effort to go after NYT reporter James Risen’s sources?

Is this a clear signal to you that we should be skeptical of any overtures the administration makes with regards to the media shield law – which in its currently introduced form has a broad national security exception?

I happen to be one of the plaintiffs in a legal effort to get contemporaneous access to military court martial records in Manning’s case. We—the press—do not get copies of judge’s rulings or court orders on the day they are issued in court. We do not get to read government motions and, now, we aren’t seeing defense motions. They’re no longer going up on the defense’s website.

What do you think about this? We lost in a military appeals court. So, all press are expected to go through FOIA to get these documents. And they won’t give it to you if you submit a FOIA request.

You submitted a FOIA request for information for your book and were denied?

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) passed in 1966. Did you ever have to argue any cases to pry information out of the hands of the government when you were counsel for the Times?

Any thoughts on it today? It would seem to enhance press freedom but the administration is always having the Justice Department fight the press (especially over information related to national security programs or policies).

Important to add in the case of the video of the Apache helicopter attack video that Reuters tried to get this through a FOIA request that CENTCOM did not think they had to fulfill. The video – now known as “Collateral Murder” – showed their own employees being wounded and killed. How could the government not have an obligation to turn this video over to Reuters?

I don’t think you need to be dropping in on comments threads here and spewing such vitriol at TBogg. Though I have not heard from him and may like to see him respond, I certainly do not approve of other people trying to steer discussion in a toxic direction.

I appreciated how you highlighted the “mosaic theory” in your book—the prevalent idea in government that “each bit of intelligence, although insignificant by itself, becomes significant when the whole mosaic is put together.”

For those who have not been able to read a copy of your book yet (and I encourage all to read a copy after this chat), you write, based off your experience as a member of elite intelligence unit in the Army Reserve, “I didn’t think giving the name “mosaic” to this theory made it any more convincing. My bottom line was those who controlled intelligence were hopelessly paranoid.”

What do you think about intelligence or national security agencies today? Still as paranoid as they were back then or worse?

20 years is the maximum sentence Manning would face right now if the military (government) decided not to take his case trial because he confessed to committing some offenses.

I witnessed court proceedings where this exchange happened:

JUDGE: If we substituted New York Times for WikiLeaks, would you still charge Bradley Manning in the way that you have?

MILITARY PROSECUTOR: [without hesitation] Yes.

I am sure you must have heard or read about this in the news. What was your reaction?

With regards to arguing the Times had the right to publish in court—

How new do you think the legal arguments were to judges who were hearing them? There wasn’t any precedent for this case, right?

While many Americans know of the Pentagon Papers case, few are probably aware of the Caldwell case you highlight in your book. You write that it was a “dramatic stage-setter for the Pentagon Papers case.”

As soon as Nixon was inaugurated, his Justice Department started subpoeaning the press for its sources and other unpublished information. This was unprecedented. The reverberations from this fight can be felt to this very day.

Just how significant was it that Nixon was targeting one of the few black reporters at the Times, Earl Caldwell?

Now, I would think it’d be reasonable to argue that the popular consensus is news organizations should not publish classified information but, back when the Times obtained the Pentagon Papers, it appears the press and the legal community did not know if it was legal or illegal.

Do you think news organizations are more or less willing to publish classified information if they determine the public has a right to know this information?

To get us started (and after you get to dakine01′s question)—

What gave you the confidence to take on the Pentagon Papers case and be such a defender of the New York Times‘ right to publish? You write in your book about not being sure that other lawyers had an appreciation for the First Amendment.

How did you develop an appreciation for the First Amendment when other lawyers in your profession had not?

Hello, James

First, let me thank you for the opportunity to host this chat with you.

And, Bev, thank you for scheduling this important Book Salon that in the past week became topical.

I hope we will have an engaging and enlightening discussion.

I think you misunderstand the concept of a Shield Law. It would not be to protect people who act as mouthpieces for the government.

Correct.

I went on Fox News Radio in St. Louis this morning. The segment ran for 10 min maybe.

After being on the program, I can confidently say that conservatives do not find the AP scandal as fun to talk about as Benghazi or IRS targeting. They could easily use it to opportunistically bash the Obama administration, as they have done over Benghazi and IRS targeting, but won’t. It tests their worldview of national security too much because it ultimately leads them to have to confront how America is fighting the “war on terrorism.” And they don’t want to reflect on how American policies have transformed the world into a battlefield.

Also, the producer told the host, Randy Tobler, that I was the author of Truth & Consequences: The US vs. Bradley Manning. That was enough for him to decide his interest in what I had to say would be lukewarm. He asked me a couple questions all so he could finally ask, “So you don’t think it was okay for someone like Manning to dump classified documents, do you?”

I realized there was only 2-3 min left in the segment and I wasn’t going to engage him on this. I said, well, that’s an entirely different discussion and then made another point I wanted to make on the AP scandal.

Thanks. I made corrections.