The Pentagon Papers, officially titled "Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam All files in the "Title" column are in PDF format. Forty years after the New York Times published a leaked version of the secret government study of the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers, the. The Pentagon Papers, officially titled Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam .. which 11 words were at issue. The Archives released each volume of the Pentagon Papers as a separate PDF file, available on their website .
|Language:||English, Spanish, Portuguese|
|Country:||United Arab Emirates|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration Required]|
The Pentagon Papers: An Introduction THE RECENTLY PUBLISHED PENTAGON PAPERS reveal a striking absence of osakeya.info osakeya.info Full searchable text of the Pentagon Papers, which were declassified and released online 40 years after the leak by Daniel Ellsberg. Pentagon Papers are being made available simultaneously online. various versions we are displaying—not only the pdf panels but also.
An introduction to the Index makes clear how it is organized and can be used. This posting of nearly 20, pages has been an enormous undertaking and required the cooperation of many Archive personnel. Information technology and Latin America specialist Carlos Osorio conceptualized and coordinated the data processing for the multi version publication. Analyst Wendy Valdes organized and verified the inputs. Webmaster Michael Evans also a Latin Americanist accomplished the final work of getting the page matrix display up on our website.
In reviewing these documents for declassification, one authority sought to suppress eleven words on one page. That is, in effect an agency sought to make secret a passage of the Pentagon Papers that had already been reviewed and declassified by the United States Government in Calmer heads finally prevailed and the government relented and released the documents with no deletions.
The National Security Archive posted its own set of eleven candidates.
Here we would like to extend an invitation to interested readers to send us your own guesses. There will be prizes for the best candidate passage and for runners-up. Readers can examine the side-by-side page display of all the Pentagon Papers content posted here to find items to nominate.
All entries must be received by Midnight of Friday, November 16, Entries will be judged by National Security Archive panelists. The Grand Prize winner and Runners-Up will be announced by posting in the blog Unredacted on the National Security Archive website during the week that starts on December 17th.
Prizes: The National Security Archive will award the best Pentagon Papers candidate for deletion a Grand Prize consisting of a set of the available Archive Readers—books on major international issues which include compilations of documents obtained by the Archive along with analysis by Archive experts.
Entries: Enter early and often! However, entries must follow the format prescribed below. Only one candidate passage may be nominated in any single entry.
Multiple entries must be submitted separately. All entries must be in writing, in an email to the Archive at nsarchiv gwu. Please do not use Twitter, as a proper entry cannot be fitted within the Twitter message format. The National Security Archive will be solely responsible for the selection of entries that we publish and when they may appear. Entries that are published become finalists in the prize competition but there will be no monetary or other compensation.
Those which do not rise to that level will not be circulated. Entries that do not follow the prescribed format will automatically be rejected. When entries do appear in Unredacted or on Facebook , readers should feel free to comment on them just as they do regarding any of our other articles.
Format: All contest submissions must contain the true name and address of the entrant for purposes of the Prize awards. Each entry must contain the following information: Quotation: The entrant must pick a specific phrase of the Pentagon Papers, precisely 11 words long, and the phrase nominated must be quoted verbatim in the text, enclosed in quotation marks. The entrant is free to nominate an 11 word passage embedded in a longer sentence—but in that case the full sentence must appear as the quotation and the 11 word phrase must be highlighted in bold.
Candidate phrases longer than 11 words are not acceptable. Reference: The entry must provide the exact Pentagon Papers page citation for the 11 Words nominee.
Page numbers taken from the Gravel or other editions of the Pentagon Papers are not acceptable. Eligibility of Phrases: What made the 11 Words controversial was that this exercise was an attempt to make secret anew a text that had been declassified and lay in the public domain since Readers will easily be able to establish whether any given text was published in the HASC edition simply by referring to the side-by-side pages we have displayed in this posting.
The eleven phrases already nominated by the Archive in EBB are not eligible for selection.
Any entries that do nominate them will simply be regarded as thoughtful comments on work already done. Argumentation: The entry must explain precisely why the reader believes the nominated phrase could be the 11 Words the government wished to suppress.
It should also comment on what agency or agencies could expect to profit from such a deletion. Government reveals which were the real 11 Words. For a sample of the kind of argumentation an entry should contain see the candidate phrases nominated by the Archive in EBB Judging: All entries will be reviewed by a panel of National Security Archive experts.
The Archive has no preconceived notion as to the true identity of the 11 Words. Entries will be judged solely on the basis of the case they make. Inaccurate quotation or source referencing, frivolous argumentation, and failure to incorporate required elements of the format will be grounds for rejection.
All decisions of the judges will be final. Notes 1. Neil Sheehan, Hedrick Smith, E. New York: Bantam Books, Boston: Beacon Press, Leslie H.
Gelb, et. Washington: Government Printing Office, Many as w i t h i n t h e Republicans, a "South- p o l i t i c a l a n a l y s t s wondered why the western" power center had emerged. John- about t h e Nixon Administration. More broadly, why did e r n e r s might be s p l i t and the Times t h e Federal government as a whole-- i s o l a t e d because such people as Bundy P r e s i d e n t , Congress, t h e Courts-- and McNamara might even be g r a t e f u l react i n t h e way i t d i d?
I f h e a v i l y on i t s i d e o l o g i c a l r i g h t l e g secret Kennedy-Johnson papers of from t h e way i t would have t o a cent- such magnitude could be leaked w i t h r i s t , Establishment Administration. What secret l e f t w a r d space f o r F e d e r a l employees, d e a l s were t h a t moment being made members of Congress, and o t h e r more with t h e Thieu government?
The Senate Committee on Foreign Rela- t i o n s , which had been given a s e t by E l l s b e r g long b e f o r e he gave them t o t h e T i m e s , and which would have had the h i g h e s t conceivable Consti- space.
Much of S t a t e monopoly over S t a t e secrets. That--ironically--is None of t h e seven condemned t h e lower t h e n a t u r e of a growing insurgency.
So t h e second major l e s s o n of of t h e government tend t o converge. Thus t h e i n t h e workplace.