About
	Contact Us
	Articles
	Topic Index
	Reports
	Quotes
	On the Web
	Links
	TW Tracker
	Support

Times Watch for June 19, 2003

Reprieving the Rosenbergs

A Times editorial Thursday, “Remembering the Rosenbergs,” marks the 50th anniversary of the execution of Soviet spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg by first admitting that Julius Rosenberg was an atomic spy, but then claiming the couple were victims of “anti-Communist hysteria.”

The editors write: “It now seems clear the Rosenbergs were neither as innocent as they claimed nor as guilty as the government alleged. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were committed Communists and admirers of the Soviet Union at a time when the Soviets were still our allies. But when they were arrested in 1950, the McCarthy era had begun, and the nation was caught up in anti-Communist hysteria.” Thank goodness for Joseph McCarthy—otherwise, who could liberals blame things on?

“Their trial was flawed -- Ethel's brother later admitted he lied on the witness stand. In imposing the death sentence, Judge Irving Kaufman held the Rosenbergs responsible not only for stealing atomic secrets but also for more than 50,000 deaths in the Korean War. F.B.I. documents, made public in the 1970's, revealed that he had one-sided discussions with prosecutors about sentencing. Since then, Soviet cables released as part of the Venona Project show that Communist espionage in the United States, long dismissed by the Rosenbergs' defenders, actually occurred, and that Julius was an atomic spy. But the same cables strongly suggest that Ethel played little or no role.”

A case can be made against the execution, if not for the innocence, of Ethel Rosenberg. But the Times doesn’t stop there, adding: “There is no reason to believe either Rosenberg passed on secrets so valuable that they should have been blamed for tens of thousands of deaths.”

But the worst is saved for last, as the editorial concludes with the usual accusations of anti-Communist hysteria: “The Rosenberg case still haunts American history, reminding us of the injustice that can be done when a nation gets caught up in hysteria.”

One doesn’t know what to make of the Times stance here. After admitting Julius Rosenberg was an atomic spy who passed secrets to the Soviet Union, the paper then claims his execution for this treasonous act was an “injustice.” That’s a loaded word and it demands explication: What injustice is the Times accusing the government of? That the death penalty was used to punish Julius Rosenberg (who even the Times admits was an atomic spy for the Soviet Union?) The Times doesn’t say. Lacking any cited examples of injustice, we’re left with the Times admitting that, yes, Julius Rosenberg committed Communist espionage -- but that punishing him for it was McCarthyite “hysteria.”

Sam Roberts, deputy editor of the Times Week in Review section, also thinks the Rosenberg’s death sentence was unjust. Roberts (author of a book on the case) writes for the Sunday Week in Review: “But to justify the death penalty, which was invoked to press the Rosenbergs to confess and implicate others, the government left the impression that the couple had handed America's mightiest weapon to the Soviets and precipitated the Korean War.”
Perhaps the paper’s stilted defense of the Rosenbergs is partly due to liberal guilt-tripping over imagined sins of Times past. As Susan Tifft and Alex Jones write in “The Trust,” their history of the New York Times, then-publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger (grandfather of the Times current publisher Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger) “refused to run an ad advocating the commutation of the death sentence of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who had been convicted of giving atomic secrets to the Russians, on the grounds that public opinion had the power to sway judicial decisions and the Times did not accept ads aimed at doing that.”

For the rest of the Times editorial on the Rosenbergs, click here.

For the rest of Sam Roberts’ story on the Rosenbergs, click here.

GOP Draining Government of Its Lifeblood

David Firestone’s Thursday story, “House Votes to End Federal Estate Tax as Senate Battle Looms” leaves no doubt where Firestone stands on tax cuts (or as the Times inevitably phrases it, “large tax cuts.”)

“The House voted today to eliminate the federal estate tax, the third time in a month that Republicans have approved a large tax-cut bill over objections from Democrats that the government is being deprived of its lifeblood. The permanent elimination of the estate tax is a long-sought goal of the conservative Republicans who lead the House, and many said today that the measure would keep family businesses from dissolving to pay the tax upon an owner's death. Democrats countered that only a few thousand of the very richest estates have to pay the tax every year, and several said it was immoral to add to the nation's record-setting debt to benefit those at the economic pinnacle.”

Note how the Democrats are allowed to use judgmental terms like “immoral” to characterize tax-cutting conservatives. Then, imagine how the Times would react to a socially conservative Republican accusing Democrats of an “immoral” stand on gay rights. Apparently the one “higher” morality the Times respects is the kind leading to higher taxes.

For the rest of David Firestone’s article on ending the estate tax, click here.