DOCSLIB.ORG

FREEDOM of EXPRESSION in WARTIME " Thomas I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FREEDOM of EXPRESSION in WARTIME FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN WARTIME " THomAs I. EMERSON t War and preparation for war create serious strains on a system of freedom of expression. Emotions run high, lowering the degree of rationality which is required to make such a system viable. It becomes more difficult to hold the rough give-and-take of controlled controversy within constructive bounds. Immediate events assume greater importance; long-range considerations are pushed to the back- ground. The need for consensus appears more urgent in the context of dealing with hostile outsiders. Cleavage seems to be more dan- gerous, and dissent more difficult to distinguish from actual aid to the enemy. In this volatile area the constitutional guarantee of free and open discussion is put to its most severe test. It is not surprising, therefore, that throughout our history periods of war tension have been marked by serious infringements on freedom of expression. The most violent attacks upon the right to free speech occurred in the years of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the approach to the Civil War, the Civil War itself, and World War I-all times of war or near-war.1 Yet it was not until the end of World War I that judicial application of the first amendment played any significant role in these events. Up to this point there had been no major decision by the Supreme Court applying the guarantees of the first amendment. Then, in 1919, the Court issued the first of a series of decisions dealing with federal and state legislation that had been enacted to restrict free expression during the war, and thus began the long development of first amendment doctrine. During World War II, in contrast to prior wartime periods, freedom of speech to oppose the war or criticize its conduct was not seriously infringed. This unusual turn of events may have been due, in part, to the increasing judicial protection afforded free expression through the first amendment, particularly by the liberal decisions which began in 1930 under the Hughes Court, and the ensuing education of public opinion that those decisions engendered. Some of these gains * This article is a chapter in a forthcoming book on freedom of expression. t Lines Professor of Law, Yale University. A.B. 1928, LL.B. 1931, Yale Uni- versity. 1 For a collection of materials dealing with these periods, see 1 T. EMERsoN, D. HABER & N. DORSEN, POLITICAL AND CiviL RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES 35-38 (3d ed. 1967) [hereinafter cited as POLITIcAL AND CiviL RIGHTS]. (975) HeinOnline -- 116 U. Pa. L. Rev. 975 1967-1968 976 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol.l16:975 were lost during the McCarthy era in the early 1950's, which coincided with the hostilities in Korea. On the whole, however, the free speech issues of that period did not relate directly to the war itself, but rather to a more general fear of Communism within the United States. At the present time, during the Vietnam hostilities, the contro- versy over freedom of speech in wartime has moved to another level. The general right to oppose the war by speech is fully recognized, but there are, as always, serious problems of realizing in practice the acknowledged rights guaranteed in theory. More important, however, new modes of opposition have developed which raise different issues concerning the border area between expression and action. The purpose of this article is to explore some of these questions, employing first amendment doctrines I have proposed elsewhere.2 In briefest summary, the thesis of these doctrines is that maintenance of a system of freedom of expression requires recognition of the distinc- tion between those forms of conduct which should be classified as "expression" and those which should be classified as "action"; and that conduct classifiable as "expression!' is entitled to complete protection against governmental infringement, while "action" is subject to reason- able and non-discriminatory regulation designed to achieve a legitimate social objective. Under this theory, "expression" is functionally de- fined. The definition is based upon the individual and social purposes served by freedom of expression in a democratic society; upon the administrative requirements for maintaining an effective system of free expression in actual operation; and upon the proposition that, normally, harm inheres not in such conduct itself, but resides only in the ensuing "action." This theory requires the court to determine in every case whether the conduct involved is "expression," and, if so, whether such expression has been infringed by the exercise of govern- mental authority. Where the court so finds, the regulation must be declared invalid under the first amendment. The test is not one of clear and present danger, of incitement or balancing of interests. The balance of interests was struck when the first amendment was put into the Constitution. The function of a court in applying the first amend- ment is to define the key terms of that provision: "speech" (or ex- pression), "abridge," and "law." The definitions of "abridge" and "law," like the definition of "expression," must be functional in char- acter, derived from the basic considerations underlying a system of freedom of expression. Where the court finds that "expression" is 2 T. EmERsoN, TowiiuD A GENERAL THEORY OF THE FiRST AMENDMENT (1966). The material was first published in an article of the same title in 72 YALE L.J. 877 (1963). HeinOnline -- 116 U. Pa. L. Rev. 976 1967-1968 1968] FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN WARTIME "abridged" by "law," the doctrine of full protection for expression must be applied. This article deals with the main problem areas concerning freedom of expression as it relates to war and defense.3 These areas include (1) the law of treason; (2) general criticism of the war effort; (3) more specific forms of expression which may lead to insubordina- tion in the armed forces, obstruction of recruitment, or resistance to conscription; (4) other forms of protest; and (5) practical problems of protecting wartime dissent against illegitimate harassment. Issues relating to marches and demonstrations, issues which do not differ greatly from those involved in the right of assembly generally, are not covered here. I. THE LAW OF TREASON Historically, one of the major legal weapons employed by govern- ments to protect themselves against external and internal dangers has been the crime of treason. In England before the nineteenth century, and to a lesser extent in the American colonies, treason was given a very broad definition. It was used to eliminate almost any form of political opposition, violent or peaceful, by action or by utterance. When the American revolutionaries came to draw up the Constitution they took particular care to give the crime of treason a limited meaning and 8 One factor requires brief notice here. When dealing with freedom of expression connected with war or defense, there must be some delineation of the boundaries be- tween the civilian and military sectors of our society. Generally speaking, the military sector embraces the conduct of military operations and the internal governance of the military establishment. The latter includes the military law governing the armed forces, martial law, and military government of occupied territory. This military system is outside the civilian system of freedom of expression and is subject to different rules. See generally, Bishop, Civilian Judges and Military Justice: Collateral Review of Court-Martial Convictions, 61 CoLum. L. REv. 40 (1961); Warren, The Bill of Rights and the Military, 37 N.Y.U.L. Ray. 181 (1962) ; Note, Constitutional Rights of Servicemen Before Courts-Martial,64 COLUm. L. REv. 127 (1964) ; Note, The Court of Military Appeals and the Bill of Rights: A New Look, 36 GEo. WASH. L. REv. 435 (1967) ; Note, Servicemen in Civilian Courts, 76 YALE L.J. 380 (1966). The problem, then, is to determine when civilian expression enters the domain of the military, and when members of the military are under the protection of the civilian system. Some of the points of contact are clear. Certainly, general discussion of the organization, procedures or operations of the military by civilians is well within the system of free expression, indeed is essential to maintaining the principle of civilian control. Similarly, expression dealing with all facets of the civilian economy which supplies the armed forces is part of the civilian sector. On the other hand, communi- cations dealing with military movements in wartime are plainly subject to military censorship. Likewise, dissemination of information classified as a military secret is subject to controls based on the requirements of the military system, although the issue of what constitutes a military secret may be subject to civilian judicial review. Access to military installations for purposes of exercising the right of free speech is also subject to different rules than is access to non-military public places. More difficult questions involve the extent to which civilian communication can be addressed across the border to members of the military, as in the insubordination cases, and the rights of a member of the military to enjoy the benefits of the free expression system when temporarily acting in a civilian capacity. HeinOnline -- 116 U. Pa. L. Rev. 977 1967-1968 978 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol.l16:975 to surround it with procedural safeguards. The provision they in- cluded in the Constitution, one of the few protections for individual rights embodied in the original document, reads as follows: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.4 Thus, the crime of treason is given an express constitutional definition which cannot be extended by any act of the legislature or judiciary.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Page 1 of 5 Benjamin Spock Conspiracy 7/25/2009
    Benjamin Spock Conspiracy Page 1 of 5 excerpt from It Did Happen Here by Bud and Ruth Schultz (University of California Press, 1989) The Conspiracy to Oppose the Vietnam War, Oral History of Benjamin Spock The Selective Service Act of 1948 made it a criminal offense for a person to knowingly counsel, aid, or abet someone in refusing or evading registration in the armed forces. In 1968, Dr. Benjamin Spock and four others were indicted for conspiring to violate this act. Evidence of the conspiracy was to be found in the public expressions of the defendants: hours of selectively edited newsreel footage of press conferences, demonstrations, and public addresses they made in opposition to government policy in Vietnam. What could better symbolize the damage such prosecutions made on the free marketplace of ideas? Why were they charged with conspiracy to counsel, aid, and abet rather than with the commission of those acts themselves? Conspiracy, Judge Learned Hand said, is "the darling of the modern prosecutor's nursery."' It relaxes ordinary rules of evidence, frequently results in higher penalties than the substantive crime, may extend the statue of limitations, and holds all conspirators responsible for the acts of each. The conspirators may have acted entirely in the open, they may never have met; they may have agreed only implicitly; they may never have acted illegally. It's enough that they were of a like mind to do so. When applied to political activity, writing, and speech, a conspiracy charge has virtually no limits. Government attorneys could have included as co-conspirators the publishers of Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Benjamin Spock: a Two-Century Man
    Syracuse University SURFACE The Courier Libraries 1996 Benjamin Spock: A Two-Century Man Bettye Caldwell Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/libassoc Part of the Medicine and Health Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Caldwell, Bettye "Benjamin Spock: A Two-Century Man," The Courier 1996:5-21 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Courier by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. S YRAC U SE UN IVE RS I TY LIB RA RY ASS 0 CI ATE S COURIER VOLUME XXXI . 1996 SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY ASSOCIATES COURIER VOLUME XXXI Benjamin Spock: A Two-Century Man By Bettye Caldwell, Professor ofPediatrics, 5 Child Development, and Education, University ofArkansas for Medical Sciences While reviewing Benjamin Spock's pediatric career, his social activism, and his personal life, Caldwell assesses the impact ofthis "giant ofthe twentieth century" who has helped us to "prepare for the twenty-first." The Magic Toy Shop ByJean Daugherty, Public Affairs Programmer, 23 WTVH, Syracuse The creator ofThe Magic Thy Shop, a long-running, local television show for children, tells how the show came about. Ernest Hemingway By ShirleyJackson 33 Introduction: ShirleyJackson on Ernest Hemingway: A Recovered Term Paper ByJohn W Crowley, Professor ofEnglish, Syracuse University For a 1940 English class at Syracuse University, ShirleyJackson wrote a paper on Ernest Hemingway. Crowley's description ofher world
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 1, No. 2 February 1968 Dr. Bejnarn1n Spock, Reverend William Sloane Coffin Jr., Marcus Raskin, Mitchell Goodman, and Michae
    Vol. 1, No. 2 6324 Primrose Avenue February 1968 Los Angeles, Calif., 90028 Dr. Bejnarn1n Spock, Reverend William Sloane Coffin Jr., Marcus Raskin, Mitchell Goodman, and Michael Ferber were indicted on Friday, January 5, 1968, by the Rederal government on char~s of encouraging draft evasion. '!he following is a national staterrent that has been released in support of the five rren: "We stand beside the men who have been indicted for support of draft resistance. If they are sentenced, we too must be sentenced. If they are imprisoned, we will take their places and will continue to use what rreans we can to bring this war to an end. We will not stand by silently as our government conducts a criminal war. We will con­ tinue to offer support, as we have been doing, to those who refuse to serve in Viet Nam, to these indicted rren, and to all others who refuse to be passive accOl1'plices in war crimes. 'Ihe war is illegi­ timate and our actions are legitimate." Reverend Robert McAfee Brown Demise Leverton Noam Chcmsky IMight Macdonald Mary Clarke Herbert Magidson Reverend John Colburn Eason Monroe Reverend Stephen Fritchman Reverend William Moreman Paul Goodman Reverend Roy Ockert Florence Howe Ava Helen Pauling Professor Donald Kalish Professor Linus Pauling Louis Kampf Sidney Peck Reverend Martin Luther Ling, Jr. Hilary Putnam Lavid Krech Father Louis Vitale, O.F.M. Frederick Krews Arthur Waskow Reverend Tom Lasswell Reverend Harlan 1. Weitzel Paul Lauter Howard Zinn Reverend Speed Leas (Partial list of signers) I join in the above statement.
    [Show full text]
  • On October 16, 1967, a Loosely-Knit Coalition Known As the Resistance Launched a Day National Day of Action Intended to Bring Th
    ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: A DISSIDENT BLUE BLOOD: REVEREND WILLIAM SLOANE COFFIN AND THE VIETNAM ANTIWAR MOVEMENT Benjamin Charles Krueger, Doctor of Philosophy, 2014 Dissertation Directed By: Professor Robert N. Gaines Department of Communication A long and bloody conflict, United States military action in Vietnam tore the fabric of American political and social life during the 1960s and 1970s. A wide coalition of activists opposed the war on political and religious grounds, arguing the American military campaign and the conscription of soldiers to be immoral. The Reverend William Sloane Coffin Jr., an ordained Presbyterian minister and chaplain at Yale University, emerged as a leader of religious antiwar activists. This project explores the evolution of Coffin’s antiwar rhetoric between the years 1962 and 1973. I argue that Coffin relied on three modes of rhetoric to justify his opposition to the war. In the prophetic mode, which dominated Coffin’s discourse in 1966, Coffin relied on the tradition of Hebraic prophecy to warn that the United States was straying from its values and that undesirable consequences would occur as a result. After seeing little change to the direction of U.S. foreign policy, Coffin shifted to an existential mode of rhetoric in early 1967. The existential mode urged draft-age men to not cooperate with the Federal Selective Service System, and to accept any consequences that occurred as a result. Federal prosecutors indicted Coffin and four other antiwar activists in January 1968 for conspiracy aid and abet draft resister in violation of the Selective Service Act. Chastened by his prosecution and subsequent conviction, Coffin adopted a reconciling mode of discourse that sought to reintegrate antiwar protesters into American society by advocating for amnesty.
    [Show full text]
  • Just Security Policy
    JUNE 2007 VERSION 1.0_ t Se Studies for Policy of the Institute a project Focus, In Policy Foreign By us c J u r i t y AN ALTERNATIVE FOREIGN POLICY FRAMEWORK Principal Author: John Feffer, Foreign Policy In Focus, Institute for Policy Studies Contributors: Sarah Anderson: director of the Global Economy project, Institute for Policy Studies Phyllis Bennis: director of the New Internationalism project, Institute for Policy Studies Robin Broad: professor of international development, American University John Cavanagh: director, Institute for Policy Studies Steve Cobble: associate fellow, Institute for Policy Studies Anita Dancs: research director, National Priorities Project John Gershman: director of international programs, New York University’s Wagner School Erik Leaver: policy outreach director, Foreign Policy In Focus, Institute for Policy Studies Kevin Martin: executive director, Peace Action Nadia Martinez: co-director of Sustainable Energy and Economy Network, Institute for Policy Studies Miriam Pemberton: peace and security editor, Foreign Policy In Focus, Institute for Policy Studies Marcus Raskin: co-founder and distinguished fellow, Institute for Policy Studies Emira Woods: co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus, Institute for Policy Studies Daphne Wysham: co-director of Sustainable Energy and Economy Network, Institute for Policy Studies Foreign Policy In Focus [www.fpif.org] is a “Think Tank Without Walls” connecting the research and action of more than 600 scholars, advocates and activists seeking to make the United States a more responsible global partner. It is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies. Institute for Policy Studies [www.ips-dc.org] strengthens social movements with independent research, visionary thinking, and links to the grassroots, scholars and elected officials.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record
    March 5, 2018 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E253 transfer of ownership of a semiautomatic fire- HONORING THE LIFE OF MARCUS THE INVALUABLE HELP OF ANDY arm, silencers, armor piercing ammunition, or RASKIN IGREJAS IN STRENGTHENING large capacity ammunition magazines. THE LAUTENBERG TSCA RE- FORM ACT According to Newsweek, the ‘‘Gun Safety HON. BARBARA LEE Not Sorry Act’’ is the No. 1 legislative proposal that Congress can and should pass right now. OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. The majority must cut its close ties to the powerful gun lobby to facilitate useful gun con- Monday, March 5, 2018 OF NEW JERSEY trol legislation necessary immediately. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor The ‘‘Gun Safety Not Sorry Act will not the extraordinary life of a strong voice in the Monday, March 5, 2018 abridge the Second Amendment, it will not progressive movement, and a great mentor take away gun rights, and it does not impose and friend, Marcus Raskin. Marcus’ excep- Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recog- greater restrictions on gun ownership—it will tional work as a national security staffer, polit- nize the outstanding contributions Andy Igrejas not stop all mass shootings but it will certainly ical theorist, and progressive thought leader has made in improving the lives of the Amer- help. has deeply shaped our nation’s consciousness ican people through his tireless advocacy and In the wake of the horrific Valentine’s Day about war, economic inequality, and civil expertise in reducing public exposure to harm- mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, the rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 115 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 115 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 164 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 No. 148 House of Representatives The House met at 10 a.m. and was meeting; and, yes, I knew about the and started a real estate business be- called to order by the Speaker pro tem- payments to keep people quiet. cause his dad gave him the money. pore (Mr. VALADAO). Then there is Robert Mueller, the Director Mueller is a courtroom ex- former FBI Director, who really hasn’t f pert and veteran law enforcement lead- said a word this whole time, but his ef- er. Think about this: He was a private DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO ficient, productive, and successful in- litigator, a prosecutor in the U.S. At- TEMPORE vestigations keep rolling right along. I torney’s Office, and started serving at The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- guess he lets his indictments do his the Justice Department under Attor- fore the House the following commu- talking. ney General Dick Thornburgh, who was nication from the Speaker: So in this battle of he-said/he-said, Ronald Reagan’s and George H.W. who would the oddsmakers pick? If you Bush’s Attorney General. WASHINGTON, DC, were a betting man or woman, a Vegas September 6, 2018. To be sure, the President has a great I hereby appoint the Honorable DAVID G. oddsmaker, or just an armchair quar- deal of courtroom experience, too, but VALADAO to act as Speaker pro tempore on terback, who would you go with? that is mostly related to depositions, this day.
    [Show full text]
  • Benjamin Spock, Michael Ferber, William Sloane Coffin, Marcus Raskin, Mitchell Goodman
    STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR: Benjamin Spock, Michael Ferber, William Sloane Coffin, Marcus Raskin, Mitchell Goodman We stand beside the men who have been indicted for support of draft resistance. If they are sentenced, we, too, must be sentenced. If they are imprisoned, we will take their places and will continue to use what means we can to bring this war to an end. We will not stand by silently as our government conducts a criminal war. We will con­ tinue to offer support as we have been doing to those who refuse to serve in Vietnam and to those indicted men and all others who refuse to be passive accomplices in war crimes. The war is illegitimate and our actions are legitimate. Rev. Robert McAfee Brown Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Thomas Parkinson Noam Chomsky David Krech Ava Helen Pauling Mary Clarke Paul Lauter Linus Pauling Frederic Crews Denise Levertov Sidney Peck Edward Gottlieb Robert Lowell Hillary Putnam Paul Goodman Dwight Macdonald Harry Rubin Florence Howe Herbert Magidson Franz Schurmann Jane Jacobs Norman Mailer Susan Sontag Donald Kalish Rev. Richard Mum m a Arthur Waskow Louis Kampf Conor Cruise O'Brien Rt. Rev. Harlan Weitzel Howard Zinn SIGNATURE NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS AND PHONE This statement was prepared by "RESIST" and'is being circulated by the War Resisters League and other concerned organizations. For additional copies, write us immediately. Return the Statements of Support as quickly as possible to: WRL, 5 Beekman Street, New York, N.Y. 10038. .
    [Show full text]
  • A. CARL LEVAN, Phd
    LeVan - Page 1 of 9 A. CARL LEVAN, PhD School of International Service January 2020 American University [email protected] 4400 Massachusetts Avenue NW http://carllevan.com Washington, D.C. 20016-8071 Twitter: @Dev4Security CURRENT POSITION Associate Professor, School of International Service, American University (2016 – present) Assistant Professor, School of international Service (2007-20016) Instructor, School of International Service, American University (2006-2007) Teaching responsibilities include courses on African politics, international and comparative politics, political theory, and political institutions for undergraduate, Master’s and PhD students. Other teaching experience includes courses at Ritsumeikan University in Japan, University of California—San Diego, George Washington University, and the University of Ibadan in Nigeria. EDUCATION • Ph.D., Political Science, University of California, San Diego. (2007) • M.A., Political Science, American University, Washington, D.C. (1998) • B.A., Political Science, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. (1992) PUBLICATIONS Books: • Contemporary Nigerian Politics: Competition in a Time of Transition and Terror (Cambridge University Press, 2019) • Oxford Handbook of Nigerian Politics, co-edited with Patrick Ukata (Oxford University Press, 2018) • Constituents before Assembly: Participation, Deliberation, and Representation in the Worldwide Crafting of New Constitutions, co-authored with Todd Eisenstadt and Tofigh Maboudi (Cambridge University Press, 2017). • Dictators and Democracy
    [Show full text]
  • TSPPPA Hosts Nonprofit and Government Food Policy Leaders at 2012 Policy Forum by Dana Hecht (MPP ‘13) Inside from the Director
    TRACHTENBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SPRING 2012 TSPPPA hosts nonprofit and government food policy leaders at 2012 Policy Forum By Dana Hecht (MPP ‘13) inside From the Director 2 TSPPPA Student Wins Roback Award 3 TSPPPA’s Professor James Edwin Kee Retired 4 Student Organization Update 4 Courses Provide Work Experience for Students Bergman Kyle by hoto P and Services for From left, Panelists Susan Prolman, Jim Weill, Margaret Krome, Ken Cook, Kathleen Merrigan, and Moderator Dan Glickman Local Community 6 GW Regulatory Studies The Trachtenberg School (TSPPPA) hosted on a multitude of sustainability issues,” committee co- Center and Center for March 1, 2012 its second annual Policy Forum, chair Green said “While no one expects to transform Risk Science and Public which focused this year on the upcoming renewal the food system into a sustainable enterprise Health Host Workshop 7 of the Farm Bill The evening featured a keynote overnight, we hoped to participate in this public TSPPPA’s Marcus Raskin address by Deputy Secretary of Agriculture debate by fostering dialogue on these issues in the Donates Papers 8 Kathleen Merrigan and a panel of leaders in Policy Forum ” food policy moderated by former Secretary of Trachtenberg Faculty and Agriculture Dan Glickman Founding Farmers, an The Policy Forum brought together government Staff Publish Books 9 upscale “green” restaurant based in DC, provided and nonprofit perspectives about the economic, New Faculty 10 sustainable snacks at a reception following the environmental, and social implications of the Farm forum A student-led committee co-chaired by Bill, an important and highly debated piece of Faculty Updates 11 Kabir Green (MPA ‘12) and Simon McNorton (MPP legislation In her keynote address, Deputy Secre- Alumni Spotlight 18 ‘13) organized the event in a partnership with the tary of Agriculture Kathleen Merrigan provided Trachtenberg Student Organization (TSO) and unique insight into the history of the Farm Bill TSPPPA Honors Frank P.
    [Show full text]
  • John E. Wall Legal Papers Pertaining to the Trial of Dr. Benjamin Spock and Others 1943-1972 (Bulk 1967-1968) MS.2008.010
    John E. Wall Legal Papers Pertaining to the Trial of Dr. Benjamin Spock and Others 1943-1972 (bulk 1967-1968) MS.2008.010 http://hdl.handle.net/2345/604 Archives and Manuscripts Department John J. Burns Library Boston College 140 Commonwealth Avenue Chestnut Hill 02467 library.bc.edu/burns/contact URL: http://www.bc.edu/burns Table of Contents Summary Information .................................................................................................................................... 3 Administrative Information ............................................................................................................................ 4 Related Materials ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Biographical Note: John E. Wall ................................................................................................................... 5 Biographical Note: Benjamin Spock ............................................................................................................. 5 Biographical Note: William Sloane Coffin, Jr. ............................................................................................. 6 Historical Note: "Boston Five" Case ............................................................................................................. 6 Scope and Contents ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Arrangement
    [Show full text]
  • A Think Tank on the Left: the Institute for Policy Studies and Cold War America, 1963-1989
    University of Wisconsin Milwaukee UWM Digital Commons Theses and Dissertations August 2015 A Think aT nk on the Left: The nsI titute for Policy Studies and Cold War America, 1963-1989 Brian Scott uelM ler University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.uwm.edu/etd Part of the International Relations Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Mueller, Brian Scott, "A Think aT nk on the Left: The nI stitute for Policy Studies and Cold War America, 1963-1989" (2015). Theses and Dissertations. 1014. https://dc.uwm.edu/etd/1014 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by UWM Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UWM Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A THINK TANK ON THE LEFT: THE INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES AND COLD WAR AMERICA, 1963-1989 by Brian S. Mueller A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History at The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee August 2015 ABSTRACT A THINK TANK ON THE LEFT: THE INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES AND COLD WAR AMERICA, 1963-1989 by Brian S. Mueller The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2015 Under the Supervision of Professor J. David Hoeveler For American intellectuals, the Cold War involved a battle far more important than the ones taking place in faraway lands. While the nearly half-decade conflict never degenerated into a nuclear war, the combat between intellectuals resembled a nuclear explosion at times.
    [Show full text]