Floyd Abrams: Why WikiLeaks Is Unlike the Pentagon Papers

[TheWebHead]

The Pentagon Papers revelations dealt with a discrete topic, the ever-increasing level of duplicity of our leaders over a score of years in increasing the nation's involvement in Vietnam while denying it. It revealed official wrongdoing or, at the least, a pervasive lack of candor by the government to its people.

WikiLeaks is different. It revels in the revelation of "secrets" simply because they are secret. It assaults the very notion of diplomacy that is not presented live on C-Span. It has sometimes served the public by its revelations but it also offers, at considerable potential price, a vast amount of material that discloses no abuses of power at all.

...Mr. Ellsberg understood that some government documents should remain secret, at least for some period of time. Mr. Assange views the very notion of government secrecy as totalitarian in nature. He has referred to his site as "an uncensorable system for untraceable document leaking and analysis."

But WikiLeaks offers no articles of its own, no context of any of the materials it discloses, and no analysis of them other than assertions in press releases or their equivalent.

more:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204527804576044020396601528.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

free via google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22But+WikiLeaks+offers+no+articles+of+its+own%2C+no+context+of+any%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1WZPB_en___US359

Fwiw, I completely agree with Abrams. Wikileaks is indiscriminate when it comes to leaking information no matter the consequence, and its founder uses the threat of additional even more indiscriminate and reckless leaks as a form of ransom as a shield for protection from whatever crimes he may commit either in his personal life or as it pertains to Wikileaks.

[JDPriestly]

1. Frankly, I don't know whether Wikileaks is indiscriminate or not.

because I do not know what information was provided to Assange in the first place. I have heard from some sources that he is indiscriminate and from others that he has carefully redacted the documents he was given to delete names.

The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and I would not trust it as a source. It is just a polished version of Fox News.

I don't know how you can know what Assange has or has not done.

[gateley]

2. +1 and well said! nt

[truedelphi]

3. You actually nailed it .

I too don't know how much of the stuff Assange holds has been redacted. But like some are saying on this website and other websites, just where are the lists of names of the victims of the releases, if there are so many victims?

And if Assange is so evil, than why wasn't Rove or Cheney put to trial for the release of Valerie Plame's name. People DID DIE on account of Plame being outed, but that was to politically punish Plame's husband, so I guess that then it is acceptable? Yet Fox news didn';t seem to care about that.

[11cents]

4. The "source" here isn't the WSJ; it's Floyd Abrams.

He's a very well-known, groundbreaking lawyer and legal scholar on civil liberties and (especially) free speech issues. Look him up.

He may or may not be right about Wikileaks, but it's silly to dismiss an opinion piece because it's run in a paper that's an unreliable "source." This is Abrams' opinion, not the WSJ's. Rupert Murdoch didn't write the editorial; Floyd Abrams did. Either you agree with it on the merits or you don't.

[sabrina 1]

6. Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers disagrees with Floyd Abrams.

Ellsberg defends WikiLeaks founder, Army private

Daniel Ellsberg said Thursday that Wikileaks' disclosure of government secrets on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and thousands of diplomatic cables was "exactly the right thing" to do.

"I think they provided a very valuable service," Ellsberg said, also referring to man suspected of leaking the documents, Pvt. Bradley Manning. "To call them terrorists is not only mistaken, it's absurd."

Ellsberg said he frequently hears people praise his 1971 leak of the Pentagon's secret history of the Vietnam War while condemning the WikiLeaks disclosures. The 79-year-old former military analyst rejected that argument, calling Manning a "brother" who, if he indeed provided the documents to WikiLeaks, committed "a very admirable act."

And he said the government is wrong to pursue criminal charges against Assange, comparing him to New York Times and Washington Post journalists who have published information from classified documents.

"Anybody who believes Julian Assange can be distinguished from The New York Times ... is on a fool's errand," Ellsberg said

Anyone who works for Rupert Murdoch cannot really be taken seriously. To contribute to a man and his organization who is more responsible for the dumbing down of America than any other single individual, discredits Abrams.

I'll take Ellsberg's word on Wikileaks. I think he knows what he is talking about. I have a feeling that Abrams would have been attacking Ellsberg back then also.

[Kalun D]

10. Damning

""Anybody who believes Julian Assange can be distinguished from The New York Times ... is on a fool's errand," Ellsberg said""

that's utterly damning because the NYT is just a stooge mouthpiece of the greedpig corporations

I think Wikileaks is a CIA front, or at the very least it's been fed a bunch of disinfo by that same police arm of the death-skull banking elite.

[sabrina 1]

12. That isn't the point. The NYT has lost credibility. However,

Ellsberg was responding to those who make the claim that Wikileaks is not a legitimate news source and who believe that the NYT is. I am sure Ellsberg is very aware of the fact that all of our media is controlled either by corporations or by the intelligence community or both. So, to find an example of a really free independent news source in the U.S. would be virtually impossible. He had to go with what people perceive to be legitimate.

As for your other comment, that's what the CIA would like to make people believe. I wouldn't be surprised if they started that rumor. What better way to make people afraid to trust Wikileaks?

Assange has been around for a long time. Not one source who trusted Wikileaks was ever outed by them, including Manning.

But thanks for doing the work of the CIA for them. They've tried everything else to try to destroy Wikileaks.

[Kalun D]

13. Wiki is biased

and it hasn't really done anything of consequence. What individuals either in government or banking have been brought down? We are constantly hearing about all these damning leaks, where's any results?

why does Assagne constantly get corporate media coverage? Usually when you are truly going against the grain you get zero coverage. this single fact is highly suspicious. That and if Wiki was real Assagne would already be dead.

[sabrina 1]

14. What has Wikileaks accomplished? Are you serious?

Try doing some research. Wikileaks didn't just appear when they leaked information last year about the U.S.

Ask the people of Kenya eg, what they think of Wikileaks.

Ask the people of Iceland if they have brought down anyone in the banking industry.

Ask Amnesty International why they presented them with their New Media Award for 2009.

As for why he is NOW getting 'corporate media coverage'? Do you really not know why?

Of course they are going against the grain, as you put it. And because they actually HAVE brought people down, some pretty bad guys actually, this government and Wall St. know that when they promise the exposure of more bad guys, they intend to follow through.

Because of those fears, and because of Wikileaks' reputation around the world, rather than ignoring them until it is too late, they chose, as revealed in a CIA document ironically published by Wikileaks, that the 'corporate media' would discredit them before the expected damning leaks become news.

If they did not embark on this smear campaign, once the news comes out, people would look at the source and see a highly respected International News Org. But if they can discredit them before that, they can then distract from the actual news by calling Assange a 'rapist' or Wikileaks itself, a 'terrorist organization'.

It is so clear that they are terrified of what is going to be revealed and what has already been revealed. The very fact that they are spending so much time and effort trying to discredit is proof that they know Wikileaks has some pretty damning information on some pretty important people and institutions.

Wikileaks is an idea and it is a real threat to corrupt governments and institutions and individuals as quite a few of them have already found out. I suggest you not depend on the U.S. media for what you know about this organization. It was known worldwide before the U.S. paid much attention to them. We in the U.S. are so misinformed, under-informed, compared to the rest of the world. It is no surprise that you were unaware of the work already done by this organization.

[Kalun D]

16. Okay

I will do some more research. I didn't know Wiki was involved with the Iceland deal. That's what needs to happen here.

I get most of my news from independent sources, and several of them don't like Wiki, but that may not be accurate, I'll have to read further.

I still want to seem more real damage done here in the US before I really believe.

[sabrina 1]

17. Thank you for keeping an open mind.

I posted on OP yesterday which is in my journal, which gives a little information on Wikileaks' Iceland leaks.

As far as damage being done here, with what has already been revealed, eg, the illegal use of the State Dept. for espionage against member states of the U.N. and the U.N. Secretary General, that alone should have sparked a Congressional Investigation and those found guilty of violations should have been removed from office if still serving, (Hillary Clinton eg) and those now out of office, (Condi Rice eg) should have been held accountable.

Much has been revealed that should have resulted in investigations and prosecutions, war crimes eg, as revealed in the Iraq video. The war crimes were so obvious in that horrific video, yet nothing was done about it.

I won't list everything that has been revealed as there isn't time, that should have resulted in consequences. But the reason you are not seeing results, as eg, were seen in Iceland after the revelations, is because it appears our entire government is corrupt. The leaks HAVE revealed that to be the case. Eg, the condoning of torture and the outright disdain for Europe's Court of Human Rights and its highly respected judges.

Expecting to see results from the revelations of crimes committed, would be like expecting to see results in the old Soviet Union if someone leaked info on crimes committed by their leaders. What would have happened? The messenger would have been the one punished. And that is what is happening here. Rather than prosecute the crimes revealed in the leaks, our government is going after Assange.

So, it is not that damning information has not been leaked, it is that this government is outraged over the leaking of it, NOT the crimes revealed.

However, if Wikileaks publishes the information they have on the Corporate World, then we might see some action. My OP mentioned above, includes an interview with Assange where he promises they will release some pretty damning information on certain banks in the new year.

[Scruffy1]

42. Interesting-and not too far fetched

When I consider how the FBI or CIA has infiltrated everything from the Black Panthers to the RNC Welcoming Committee
I can see the possibility that they have someone inside to filter what is released and what isn't. I doubt that Assange is anything but what he seems to be, but in this world you can trust nothing.

[11cents]

21. Floyd Abrams doesn't "work for" Rupert Murdoch

His editorial ran in the WSJ, that's all. The NY Times has run editorials by Obama and Boehner; neither works for the NY Times.

Again, I'm not saying Floyd Abrams' authority as a long-time defender of first amendment rights makes him correct in this instance. But people who are dismissing him as ignorant or "bought" are merely displaying their own ignorance.

[JDPriestly]

23. About Floyd Abrams

Floyd served on the Technology and Privacy Advisory Committee of the U.S. Department of Defense in 2003-4 and as the Chair of the New York State Commission on Public Access to Court Records in 2004.


Floyd Abrams
PARTNER
212.701.3621 Phone
212.378.2137 Fax
[e-mail]

Cahill Gordon & Reindel LL

http://www.cahill.com/attorneys/data/201

Big Wall Street firm. So much for his opinion.

[Doctor_J]

32. But WSJ, like Fox "News", publishes only right-wing propaganda

Your comparison to Boner and the prez appearing in NYT is disingenuous.

[treestar]

29. Sounds like not dealing with the issues at all

Just relying on particular people. If person X says it, you'll believe it, if person Y says it, no. But in the end you're letting other people, merely because of who they, are decide for you.

[JDPriestly]

24. FLoyd Abrams, big Wall Street lawyer.

Floyd served on the Technology and Privacy Advisory Committee of the U.S. Department of Defense in 2003-4 and as the Chair of the New York State Commission on Public Access to Court Records in 2004.


Floyd Abrams
PARTNER
212.701.3621 Phone
212.378.2137 Fax
[e-mail]

Cahill Gordon & Reindel LL

http://www.cahill.com/attorneys/data/201

Big Wall Street firm. So much for his opinion.

[saras]

33. It's not 'silly', it's necessary

If they're clearly demonstrated to be untrustworthy, then it's their judgment that is in question, not merely their factuality. I would expect them to use partial or whole truths whenever they forward their agenda, and only lie when it suits them, unlike, say, the right-wing haters (Beck, Coulter, et al) who lie on principle. The end result, of course, being that you end up where they want you to end up, truth notwithstanding.

And given that the existing evidence strongly suggests that Wikileaks was not indiscriminate, in this case or in others, so without providing contrary evidence, it appears that Abrams is merely shooting his mouth off.

And secondly, he's a lawyer.

Which is EXACTLY as valid an appeal to emotion (whether an appeal to prejudice or an appeal to authority) as the claim that he's a 'very well-known, groundbreaking' lawyer. It's still argument by appeal to authority.

[saras]

34. In the big picture

In the big picture, what Wikileaks is or is not is quite trivial.

The released documents speak for themselves, and the crime and corruption revealed dwarf anything Wikileaks or Assange has been accused of by many orders of magnitude.

The whole 'is Wikileaks good or bad' sideshow is exactly that - a sideshow engineered to draw our attention away from the policies and behaviors revealed in the documents.

[fasttense]

39. Just goes to show you, anybody can be bought.

"It's silly to dismiss an opinion piece because it's run in a paper that's an unreliable "source.""

Really? Come on, do you really expect everyone to NOT consider what biased paper or corporate rag is publishing an article?

An unreliable source is an unreliable source. The Wall Street Urinal may con some expert into mouthing the opinions of their editors but that certainly does not make the expert worthy of an unbiased consideration.

By publishing in the Urinal it has made Floyd Abrams opinions also suspect. If he was concerned about getting unbiased reviews, he should not have published in such an unreliable source.

[bhikkhu]

7. From what we have seen so far, wikileaks has been quite responsible

...and has shown a great care to not indiscriminately release any information that could harm individuals. Assange also seems to have a more developed and responsible idea of the difference between privacy and secrecy, and between private life and public life than we find in our own "journalists".

[tsuki]

19. I am unsure which is indiscriminate, Wikileaks or the overused "Secrets" stamp. nt

[JDPriestly]

26. Good point

How much of the stuff that has been released really needs to be marked "secret." My answer: very little.

How much of the stuff that Wikileaks released would have been of any public interest had it not been marked "secret." My answer: even less.

The problem is not publishing this stuff, but not discriminating between what really needs to be kept secret (and many things do need to be carefully kept as secrets) and what does not.

Just try telling your twelve-year old son that he may not read certain books on the top shelf of your bedroom bookcase. What do you think he will do as soon as you leave him alone in the house? That's just human nature.

We are all curious creatures (or at least the more intelligent of us are). The government should keep important secrets and forget about the rest.

[sabrina 1]

5. Another article written by someone who clearly knows nothing

about the subject they are writing about.

Wikileaks has won awards for its work. Of course here in the U.S. people probably think they didn't exist until they started leaking material on the U.S. That is how removed this country is from the rest of the world.

Maybe the author of that article should have done some research before, once again, making the U.S. press look ignorant of what goes on in the rest of the world.

[treestar]

28. He does know what he's talking about

"Mr. Abrams, a senior partner in the firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, represented the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case."

And before you rant on about how wrong it is for a lawyer to represent a "big corporation," even if he was on the "wrong" side, he would have known the legal issues.

[vicman]

8. The truth is genuinely frightening

We must allow our betters to rule us wisely as they are always good and kind. It's those "other people" who cause all the trouble...

[Amonester]

11. Yep! They R so good and kind, their beautiful system of crooks will lead to

a society similar to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR8O0H6gKqs&feature=related * (from 2:28 if too long).

* Soylent Green (excerpts)

Full speed ahead since the one-percenters's 2000 coup.

[Tunkamerica]

15. finally a voice of reason.

...hic...

[earcandle]

9. WikiLeaks is a neutral source for exposing the disgusting nature of our world and shows how our

economic resources, our blood and treasure are being used and
for what purposes.  If it hurts when it is exposed, it should,
so it can be healed and the waste removed.  

Time wounds all heals, and heals all wounds.  

Don't you worry.  
Just take out the popcorn and see how evolution manages itself
and how the survival of the fittest emerges.  

[leveymg]

18. Abrams is wrong. What Wikileaks shows is how massively abused the system of classification

actually is. 98% of what's contained in these classified cables reflects general and widely-held knowledge, and the other 3% is readily knowable by other governments and large institutions. It shows the arrogance of power and a delusion held by government officials that they, alone, can and should maintain some special monopoly on knowledge about world events - a monopoly that's illusory.

[Enthusiast]

20. Unrecommended.

The WSJ is not a viable source of untainted information.

[11cents]

22. Sigh. People no longer know what "information" is.

And they're afraid to analyze opinions for themselves, preferring to simply accept or reject them depending on where they appear.

What the WSJ ran here is an editorial by a Floyd Abrams, a long-time defender of first amendment rights. Floyd Abrams does not work for the WSJ and what he presented was not "information" as in a news article; it was his opinion. It may be right or it may be wrong, but it's not "tainted" simply because of the provenance of the piece of paper (or website) that it was printed on.

[Enthusiast]

27. Let me put it this way.

I refuse to read any editorial that appears on the pages of the generally right wing Wall Street Journal just as I refuse to tune my TV to Fox News. I figure if the information contained therein is favorable to my position it would not appear in the WSJ. Is that plain enough?

[Doctor_J]

35. Or, put another way,

anything that appears in WSJ or Fox "News" is guaranteed to be right-wing propaganda. What is the sense in reading or watching it?

Spot on, enthusiast

[treestar]

38. Said like a true right winger

This is how you get into a bubble. If you protect yourself from what you disagree with, you no longer have any perspective.

this it the opinion of a constitutional lawyer, high profile, who cares where it is published? Consider it published on DU.

Too much emotional squirreling away from an uncomfortable issue on this thread.

[JDPriestly]

25. Floyd Abrams is a Wall Street attorney.

Floyd served on the Technology and Privacy Advisory Committee of the U.S. Department of Defense in 2003-4 and as the Chair of the New York State Commission on Public Access to Court Records in 2004.


Floyd Abrams
PARTNER
212.701.3621 Phone
212.378.2137 Fax
[e-mail]

Cahill Gordon & Reindel LL

Big Wall Street firm. So much for his opinion.

http://www.cahill.com/attorneys/data/201

He bases his article on the assumption that Assange did not edit the Wikileaks before publishing them.

He is writing argumentatively -- starting from the premise that he wants to prove a particular conclusion. He is not exploring a question. He is arguing a point of view.

It's interesting, but not an authority, just a point of view.

[treestar]

30. This part is interesting:

"Mr. Assange is no boon to American journalists. His activities have already doomed proposed federal shield-law legislation protecting journalists' use of confidential sources in the just-adjourned Congress. An indictment of him could be followed by the judicial articulation of far more speech-limiting legal principles than currently exist with respect to even the most responsible reporting about both diplomacy and defense. If he is not charged or is acquitted of whatever charges may be made, that may well lead to the adoption of new and dangerously restrictive legislation. In more than one way, Mr. Assange may yet have much to answer for."

[bemildred]

36. Empty prattle.

False future hypothetical doom all hypothetically caused by Mr Assange's alleged carelessness.

[treestar]

37. What is the history of the legislation mentioned?

[bemildred]

40. What is the frequency Kenneth? nt

[Doctor_J]

31. Unreccing this piece of shit

Murdoch propaganda does not belong at DU.

[freshwest]

41. Agreed.