Home > George W.’s Achilles’ Heel: The First Amendment

George W.’s Achilles’ Heel: The First Amendment

by Open-Publishing - Monday 4 October 2004
8 comments

== Redressing the Emperor: What did Mr. Bush REALLY know (and when did he know it)? How many Iraqnam-focused Deep Throats will it take for us to learn the answers? ==

Q: What’s worse than an incompetent president?

A: An incompetent president prone to deceive the public.

That’s the crux of a RICO-Act lawsuit recently filed in Philadelphia to compel Pres. Bush to account for his administration’s alleged foreknowledge of certain key events occurring before/during/after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack (for details — and a related petition — see the website of http://www.911forthetruth.com ).

It’s also the crux of my own First Amendment lawsuit against the U. S. Department of the Army — for which I’ve retained the services of a Silver Spring, Md., law firm holding a commendable track record in defending freedom of speech. The speech in this case consists of the following classified ad I submitted, back on June 7, 2003, to the printer of the weekly, military newspaper "The Pentagram" (commercially published for Pentagon-based personnel by the public affairs office at nearby Fort Myer, Va.):

"BLOW THE WHISTLE ON BUSH’S ’GULF OF PERSIA’ RESOLUTION!

"History shows that presidential lying constitutes an impeachable offense. If Bush has lied to the world about his No. 1 reason for waging war against Iraq, then he should be impeached. If enough whistleblowers on this issue decide to come forward, their evidence may be enough to guarantee that impeachment. And if you happen to be (or know someone who is) one of those Deep Throats, please make yourself known to L. W. Bryant at: [. . .]. Armed with your evidence ("leaked" or otherwise), we can begin establishing a whistleblower reward fund toward achieving Pres. Bush’s full accountability as to what he knew (and when he knew it) about the veracity of his statements and acts. (And: since our defense officials affirm the efficacy of polygraph testing for their employees, let’s demand that Bush undergo a lie-detector test on this issue!)"

Trouble is, the paper’s Maryland-based printer has notified me of his inability to run this ad about such a vital public issue as presidential veracity, because of an objection raised by Myer commander Col. Christopher G. Essig. Speciously invoking his staff’s editorial function of rejecting "letters to the editor," Essig has fallen upon his sword of censorship — in contravention of the Army’s own, clearly stated regulatory policy/procedures for handling such ad submissions, and in violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition against governmental prior-restraint censorship.

The Army secretary has had ample time (and lawyerly nudging) to mull over the consequences of this constitutional tort (for which I’m now seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia). His failure to overrule Essig’s decision now has escalated this matter into a "federal case."

In the meantime, you might wish to write your congresspersons with the request that they help determine the REAL reason for the Army’s pursuing its unacceptable action at (ultimately) the taxpayers’ expense — money that, alas, otherwise could help fund the "war on terrorism."
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Information is PROPERTY, and public information is PUBLIC property.

Forum posts

  • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

    CONTACT: Larry W. Bryant

    == Writer Sues to End Army Newspaper’s Censorship of His
    Bush-critique Ad ==

    Back in June 2003, Alexandria, Va., resident Larry W. Bryant had only a
    small doubt that his classified advertisement "Blow the Whistle on Bush’s
    ’Gulf of Persia’ Resolution" would be accepted for publication in the
    weekly "Pentagram" newspaper, published at Fort Myer, Va., for Army
    personnel stationed in and near the Pentagon.

    "After all," he reasoned, "in times past, hadn’t the Pentagram’s
    commercial printer accepted any number of my (prepaid) occasional
    public-issue ads?" But, somehow, this particular ad (soliciting
    whistleblowers to help hold the president accountable for what he knew,
    and when he knew it, about the veracity of his main reasons for creating
    Iraqnam) touched such a deep nerve in Myer’s public affairs office as to
    prompt the post commander to reject the ad.

    "Now, that censorship might’ve passed constitutional muster in, say,
    Saddam’s former regime, but it shouldn’t pass — and won’t — here in the
    good ol’ United States of Advertising," Bryant said with a wink. "Can we
    get more ironic than that? — our young men and women sent out there
    into a vast political jungle putting their lives at risk for the very ’first
    principles’ that I see now being violated here in the ’homeland’ by some
    of our own officials."

    Top amongst those "officials" happens to be Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, whose office oversees the entire military-newspaper program. That’s why Rumsfeld now has the dubious honor of being the key defendant in the First Amendment lawsuit of Larry W. Bryant v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, et al. (Civil Action No. 1:04-cv-1125), as filed on June 30, 2004, in U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

    Bryant’s formal complaint (prepared by the Silver Spring, Md., law firm of Marks & Katz, LLC — http://www.markskatz.com ) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from the Army’s egregious act of prior-restraint censorship — an act that, in Bryant’s words, "both violates my free-speech rights and embarrassingly calls our government’s judgment into question at a time in history when we least can afford such negative attention."

    NOTE: For an online copy of the complaint, as posted in "pdf" format, please visit the following Internet link:

    http://www.markskatz.com/MilitaryCases.htm
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    "When the plaintiff prevails in a First Amendment lawsuit, (s)he becomes a force multiplier for justice — because the resultant case law strengthens EVERYBODY’S rights." — LWB (6/30/04)

    • == Belvoir’s Ugly View of the First Amendment ==

      TO: Public Affairs Officer — Fort Belvoir, VA 22060

      FROM: Larry W. Bryant

      DATE: October 31, 2004

      Referring to your recent review/rejection of my series of whistleblower-solicitation advertisements * proposed for publication in the Fort Belvoir "Eagle" newspaper, I hereby request, under terms of the U. S. Freedom of Information Act, that you send me a copy of all Fort Belvoir-generated and all Fort Belvoir-received records pertaining to those ad submissions — said records to include the following material:

      (1) All correspondence (including snail-mail, e-mail, faxed letters/memos/reports, teletype messages, document-transmittal slips, FONECON memoranda, and memoranda for record, along with their enclosures) exchanged between any and all offices of your command and between any and all external government offices, as well as between any and all officials/employees of the "Eagle’s" contract printer.

      (2) Agenda for, and all participants’ notes deriving from, all relevant staff meetings, briefings, and planning sessions.

      (3) The current publishing contract executed between your command and the "Eagle" newspaper’s printing firm.

      Since I make this request as an independent writer focusing on matters of national-security interest, information-access policy/practice, whistleblower culture, and First Amendment jurisprudence, I ask that you waive all records-search fees incident to your fulfillment of this request.

      By snail-mail, I’m sending to you a signed printout of this e-formatted letter.

      * LIST OF SUBMITTED CLASSIFIED ADVERTISEMENTS:

      Blow the Whistle on the Battle-of-Baghdad Cover-up!

      Blow the Whistle on ALL Atrocities at Abu Ghraib!

      Blow the Whistle on the Army-CIA McCarthy Saga!

      Join the Revolt against the "Feres Doctrine"!

      Blow the Whistle on the Military’s Psychiatric Retaliation against Whistleblowers!

      LARRY W. BRYANT

      Copies furnished to:

      Mark S. Zaid, Esq. (Washington, D.C.)

      Chairman, U. S. Senate Committee on Intelligence

      Chairman, U. S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary

    • PRESS RELEASE:

      == Rumsfeld Redux (aka "Bryant’s ’Bleak House’") ==

      When English novelist Charles Dickens penned his masterwork "Bleak House" (centering on a generations-long lawsuit — "Jarndyce and Jarndyce"), little did he (or could he) suspect that, some 150 years hence, an American non-novelist might become embroiled in similar, real-life legal circumstances.

      The current litigation in question — "Larry W. Bryant v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, et al." — began its first phase with his filing of a First Amendment complaint on June 30, 2004, against Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and the secretary of the Army, challenging the Army’s rejection of Bryant’s classified advertisement "Blow the Whistle on Bush’s ’Gulf of Persia’ Resolution!", which he’d submitted on June 7, 2003, for publication in the Fort Myer, Va., weekly newspaper (the "Pentagram"). For a copy of that complaint, see the web site of Bryant’s attorney, Jonathan L. Katz, of the Silver Spring, Md., law firm Marks & Katz, LLC ( http://www.markskatz.com/MilitaryCases.htm ). (Note: Upon winning this lawsuit, Marks & Katz doubtlessly will become the premier First Amendment litigator on the East Coast.)

      During the succeeding months, as the case wended its way toward trial through the vast procedural arena known as the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Bryant focused his energy on submitting his several other whistleblower-solicitation ads (aka "issue ads") to various military-owned "commercial enterprise newspapers" across the country. Invariably, these additional prepublication-review submissions met with no response (despite his repeated follow-up) or with flat-out rejection at the hands of the post/base public affairs offices assigned to process them.

      But, lo! — with these latest submissions, a new development surfaced: some of the public affairs officers decided to view these ads’ content as "political in nature"; and, via the anti-political-ads provision of DoD Instruction 5120.4, they felt empowered to ban the ads’ publication summarily.

      Here are the titles of the banned ads (whose entire text may be viewed at the Marks & Katz web site via the "pdf" version of the newly filed complaint: http://www.markskatz.com/complaintlwb2005.pdf ):

      * Blow the Whistle on Iraqnam’s Battle-of-Baghdad Cover-up!

      * Blow the Whistle on ALL Atrocities at Abu Ghraib!

      * Blow the Whistle on the Army-CIA McCarthy Saga!

      * Join the Revolt Against the "Feres Doctrine"!

      * Blow the Whistle on the Military’s Psychiatric Retaliation Against Whistleblowers!

      * Resist the Government’s Drafty Spin!

      As of Jan. 7, 2005, this expanded banned-at-the-bases mind-set has engendered a brand-new lawsuit, which the court probably will consolidate with the one filed in 2004. And this Phase 2 of "Bryant v. Rumsfeld, et al." has a few more co-defendants: the secretaries of Army/Navy/Air Force, as well as the commandant of the U. S. Marine Corps.

      As Bryant’s discovery process moves forward in Phase 1, attorney Katz expects shortly to file a motion in Phase 2 for a preliminary injunction against the defendants — seeking, inter alia, to have the anti-political-ads provision of DDI 5120.4 declared invalid on its face.

      Meantime, Bryant has this to say about recent developments:

      "This entire litigation (including two related cases dating back to the mid-eighties and nineties) abounds in irony amidst a codified society reminiscent of the Chancery life in Dickens’s London. You have to go way back to the late 1950’s to savor my cases’ ’Bleak House’ flavor. That’s when I submitted my very first issue ad to a military newspaper — the ’Flyer,’ published for personnel at Langley Air Force Base, Va. Of course, the base PA chief, a Capt. Oldenburgh, chose to reject the ad, by which I’d invited interested LAFB personnel to participate in a UFO-research group newly formed in Newport News.

      "And now ask me if the current Powers-that-Be at the ’Flyer’ have chosen to reject any of my latest ad submissions!"

    • == Do ALL Crawfordians Read the "Iconoclast"? ==

      TO: Editor; The Lone Star Iconoclast; P. O. Box 420 - Crawford, TX 76638

      FROM: Larry W. Bryant

      DATE: May 10, 2005

      Your recent series exposing the inherent hazards of depleted-uranium weaponry — the ultimate double-edged sword — prompts me to inform your readers that the U. S. military establishment is marching, ostrichlike, toward denial-based self-destruction.

      As evidence of that denial, I cite my recent experience with having the following classified advertisement rejected by one or more military-published "civilian enterprise" newspapers (such as the weekly "Lackland AFB, Texas, "Talespinner"):

      Blow the Whistle on Depleted-Uranium Contamination in Iraqnam!

      One of the underreported/diverted news stories emerging from the U. S. "war on terror" has made the latest annual list of such stories being collected by Project Censored at Sonoma (Calif.) State University. The story exposes the extent of radioactive contamination from residue of spent U.S.-made ammunition containing depleted uranium — weaponry that, by some accounts, (1) constitutes more of a threat to Mid-East-based U. S. personnel than does any conventional arsenal of current/potential enemies; (2) has been determined to be a contributing factor in the Gulf War syndrome by numerous medical researchers; and (3) has been declared illegal by UN human-rights officials. Now, you, too, can help blow the whistle on any official wrongdoing associated with the fielding/firing of D-U ammunition and with its staggering, protracted aftermath. Contact: Larry W. Bryant at . . .. Meantime, here’s a key research link for you to pursue: http://www.mindfully.org/nucs/2004/du-trojan-horse1jul04.htm .

      And who did the rejecting of that ad? Well, it certainly wasn’t the paper’s contract printer (who has sole authority for accepting/rejecting ad submissions). The censor happens to be the base public affairs officer, who in her role as the paper’s publisher invoked the anti-"political"-ads provision of DoD Instruction 5120.4, which sets standards and operating guidelines for all such base/post newspapers.

      Trouble is, this government-imposed standard barring CE papers’ publication of "political" ads can’t withstand the strict-scrutiny test mandated by First Amendment case law. But, rather than simply holding her nose and allowing publication of my ad, the public affairs chief has fallen upon her Sword of Censorship — and, in the process, has helped escalate the matter to a "federal case."

      For details on the case in question — Bryant v. Rumsfeld, et al. — see the web site page of http://www.markskatz.com/complaintlwb2005.pdf .

      Meantime, dear editor, I have a challenge for you: submit an ad to Lackland’s "Talespinner" by which you invite USAF personnel to peruse/discuss/debate the findings and conclusions of your D-U expose series.

      LARRY W. BRYANT

    • == Like Their Counterparts at Wright-Patterson, Langley, and Lackland Air Force Bases, Officials at Andrews AFB Have No Right to Bomb the First Amendment! ==

      By Larry W. Bryant

      Once in a while, a "smoking gun" document does jump into the public domain via the embattled U. S. Freedom of Information Act.

      This time, that rare event happens to occur at the hand of one USAF Lt. Col. Randy K. Robertson, commander of the 89th Communications Squadron at Andrews AFB, Md. His snail-mail letter to me of May 10, 2005, declares:

      "We are responding to your 2 Nov 2004 Freedom of Information Act request for all Andrews AFB-generated and all Andrews AFB-received records pertaining to the multi-ad submission with reference to whistleblowers and a copy of the current publishing contract for ’Capital Flyer.’ The requested information is releasable and attached. Direct any questions to our FOIA office at (301) 981-4088/5308."

      Robertson’s 1-page printout of several short e-messages exchanged between certain public affairs personnel at Andrews and at higher headquarters reveals the command’s bold (but no less shameful) entry into the First Amendment’s pond of quicksand called "viewpoint discrimination."

      The first of these incriminating missives comes from Brad A. Swezey, deputy chief of Andrews’s 89th Airlift Wing Public Affairs — addressed, on Oct. 12, 2004, to Master Sergeant Paul A. Fazzini, AMC [Air Materiel Command] newspaper consultant at Scott AFB, Ill.: "Paul, have any other papers run into this [ad submission]? Our inclination is not to run it. Your thoughts?"

      And, at 11:19 A.M. on Oct. 12, 2004, Paul replies to Brad: "Subject: Re: Ad Review — Sir, as I read the headline [of LWB’s submitted ad] I’m moved to see right off the bat the ad is anti military. I also did some Google searching to see some other info about Ghost Troop and the information these folks are projecting. The group’s message clearly goes against the establishment (DoD). I’d recommend you not run the ad."

      So, what’s REALLY provoked such a self-defeating and indefensible response from officialdom (aka "the establishment") — fear of whistleblowers’ exposure of official wrongdoing? Inherent weakness of certain military leaders in granting to, and preserving for, their rank-and-file members the same constitutional protections afforded to civilian society? Their sense that to allow the ad’s publication would open the floodgates to other such expression of public-issue speech? Or . . . all the above?

      Here’s the text of the initial ad that dares offend the sensibilities of the thin-skinned airmen manning the VIP bunker at Andrews (as submitted on Sept. 28, 2004, for publication in the Andrews base newspaper, the "Capital Flyer"):

      Blow the Whistle on Iraqnam’s Battle-of-Baghdad Cover-up!

      A group of current/former U. S. servicemembers — known as the Ghost Troop
      (http://geocities.com/onlythecaptain/ ) — has found the
      "bloody knife" exposing the OFFICIALLY UNRELEASED number of
      Americans who died during the fierce battle at Iraq’s capital in the
      spring of 2003. That number, of course, dwarfs the officially
      released count. To help determine the discrepancy’s
      cause/perpetuators/accountability, the group is seeking all related
      documentary evidence and sworn testimony from all BOBCUP
      whistleblowers brave enough to come forward. Armed with your
      accounts, the group can help persuade Congress to exercise its
      oversight authority in this matter. Contact: Larry W. Bryant at: . . ..

      At this point, were I the U. S. attorney assigned to represent the defendant in Bryant v. Rumsfeld, et al., I’d submit my resignation forthwith — rather than countenance any form of viewpoint discrimination.

      What’s worse for Amerika: being "anti-military," or being anti-First Amendment?

    • == The Military: A Microcosm of the United States of Advertising? ==

      UFO researcher Kevin Randle’s protestation of May 16, 2005 (Re: Officials at Andrews AFB Bomb the First Amendment) serves to remind me why I’ve chosen not to register as a formal member of the UFO Updates listserve — i.e., having to waste time and effort in trying to justify my existence to those who’d prefer that I disappear.

      Nevertheless, I now consider it my civic duty to respond to Kevin’s ill-founded concerns:

      (1) The freedom-of-speech clause of the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution exists not so much to protect non-inflammatory (read: orthodox) speech as to protect the "inflammatory" kind (read: unorthodox). Apparently, Kevin happens to be not the only (otherwise educated) citizen unfamiliar with that simple doctrine.

      (2) I of course claim no expertise as to what did or didn’t happen (and why) during/after the Battle of Baghdad. I leave details of that matter to those interested in researching/debating it. The ad in question happens to be part of my whole series of whistleblower-solicitation ads aimed at the audience of military newspapers. That audience has a First Amendment right to receive those ads’ content without any interference from the post/base commander. What’s done (illegally) unto one such ad in the series is done unto them all — in terms of any official prior-restraint policy directed at them by the commander. All this First Amendment doctrine appears for anyone to see and digest within the complaints filed in the two cases of Bryant v. Rumsfeld, et al.

      (3) Even as I speak, four USAF base commanders are stonewalling the recent prepublication-review submission of my ad "Blow the Whistle on the Neo-UFO Whistleblowers!" If they persist in this interference, they risk being cited for contempt of court — since their doing so violates terms of the consent judgment I won back in the late eighties during the course of my First Amendment lawsuit Bryant v. Weinberger, et al. The court’s order requires all DoD officials to refrain from interfering with my submitted "UFO cover-up" whistleblower-solicitation ads.

      (4) As with any other form of speech critical of government policy/practice, "ANTI-military" speech (the opposite of PRO-military speech) deserves full protection of the First Amendment — especially when that speech occurs in a "designated public form" like the ad pages of military newspapers (an argument central to my case against Rumsfeld’s public affairs community).

      (5) If Kevin now continues to fail to see the relevance of my Rumsfeld case to the politics of UFOlogy, then he has some more 9th-grade civics homework awaiting him.
      _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

      "Standing up to your government can mean standing up for your country." — Bill Moyers

    • == Rolling Thunder from the Vox Populi ==

      TO: Commander
      ATTN: Public Affairs Officer
      56th Fighter Wing
      Luke Air Force Base, AZ 85309

      FROM: Larry W. Bryant

      DATE: June 4, 2005

      Please have the text of the following classified ad undergo
      your standard prepublication review/clearance prior to my
      submitting it direct to the printer of your base newspaper,
      the "Thunderbolt":

      The Smoking "Downing Street Memo": Blow the Whistle,
      and Collect Some Reward Money!

      If you (or someone you know) have any smoking-gun evidence corroborating the UK revelation in the July 2002 "Downing Street Memo" that the Bush administration, eight months before Iraqnam’s official start, was manipulating certain intelligence data about alleged Iraqi WMD possession, you now have additional incentive to come forward with that evidence. With $1,000 of my own money, I’m launching the Downing Street Whistleblower Reward Fund — payable to the first U. S. whistleblower providing enough such evidence to lead to Bush’s impeachment. Contact: Larry W. Bryant; . . . .

      LARRY W. BRYANT

    • == The Wrong Kind of Elitism at West Point ==

      TO: Superintendent
      ATTN: Lt. Col. Kent Cassella — Public Affairs
      Officer
      U. S. Military Academy
      West Point, NY 10996

      FROM: Larry W. Bryant

      DATE: June 7, 2005

      Please have the text of the following classified ad undergo
      your standard prepublication review/clearance prior to my
      submitting it direct to the printer of your institution’s
      weekly newspaper, the "Pointer View":

      Blowing the Whistle on Rumsfeld’s "Colpo"-bility at
      West Point

      USMA alumni, current/former staffers, and future graduates
      have every right to (and should) express their opposition to
      the recent selection of one Col. Mike Colpo (out of Carlisle
      Barracks, Pa.) to serve as the Academy’s next chief of
      staff. Here we have an appointee with no record of military
      combat service, no overseas assignments, and little or no
      experience in commanding troops in the field. Admirers of
      the late Col. David Hackworth have to be gritting their
      teeth over this appointment. And in the process, they
      should be asking their members of Congress to demand Donald
      H. Rumsfeld’s accountability for such poor judgment! For
      more details on this expose, visit the web site of
      http://www.militarycorruption.com .

      Thank you for coordinating this review, and for reporting
      its results to me as soon as possible.

      LARRY W. BRYANT