Why WikiLeaks Is Unlike the Pentagon Papers

[wndycty]

Why WikiLeaks Is Unlike the Pentagon Papers
Everyone knows that Daniel Ellsberg leaked top-secret government documents about the Vietnam War. How many remember the ones he kept secret, or why?

By FLOYD ABRAMS

In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg decided to make available to the New York Times (and then to other newspapers) 43 volumes of the Pentagon Papers, the top- secret study prepared for the Department of Defense examining how and why the United States had become embroiled in the Vietnam conflict. But he made another critical decision as well. That was to keep confidential the remaining four volumes of the study describing the diplomatic efforts of the United States to resolve the war.

Not at all coincidentally, those were the volumes that the government most feared would be disclosed. In a secret brief filed with the Supreme Court, the U.S. government described the diplomatic volumes as including information about negotiations secretly conducted on its behalf by foreign nations including Canada, Poland, Italy and Norway. Included as well, according to the government, were "derogatory comments about the perfidiousness of specific persons involved, and statements which might be offensive to nations or governments."

The diplomatic volumes were not published, even in part, for another dozen years. Mr. Ellsberg later explained his decision to keep them secret, according to Sanford Ungar's 1972 book "The Papers & The Papers," by saying, "I didn't want to get in the way of the diplomacy."

Julian Assange sure does. Can anyone doubt that he would have made those four volumes public on WikiLeaks regardless of their sensitivity? Or that he would have paid not even the slightest heed to the possibility that they might seriously compromise efforts to bring a speedier end to the war?

Mr. Ellsberg himself has recently denounced the "myth" of the "good" Pentagon Papers as opposed to the "bad" WikiLeaks. But the real myth is that the two disclosures are the same.
-snip-

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204527804576044020396601528.html?KEYWORDS=floyd+abrams

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lamp_shade]

2. K&R. Good article (even if it is WSJ).

[lunatica]

3. How does anyone know Wikileaks hasn't done the same?

Assumptions based on mere opinion are drivel.

[tavalon]

4. Wall Street Journal?

No conflict of interest, there, eh?

[wndycty]

7. Do you know who Floyd Abrams, the author of the OpEd is?

While I am not a fan of the Wall Street Journal many of the folks who author OpEds are people many of us look up to.

[tavalon]

10. I'll admit, I don't know of him

That he chose to write a damage control piece for the WSJ doesn't lend him much credence with me, a priori. Feel free to post other links and I'll read them. First impressions of him aside, I can have an open mind.

[wndycty]

16. I am supposed to compensate for your ignorance?

No you are on your own. You can google him, its not my responsibility to make up for your ignorance.

[tavalon]

20. Well, okay

It's your OP. If you want me to worship the guy whose article you quoted, you provide. I have hundreds of things in my google cue, you don't get bumped to the top without links. Ok, thanks, bye.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tavalon]

33. You've given me no reason to

You lambasted me for not running to the google (in my last few minutes before I head to bed for my night, but that's barely relevant). My remark about worshiping him was over the top and meant to poke at you and I must say, it worked. In the old days here, one was expected to provide links to show the truth of what they imparted. I am hardly ignorant, but neither will I be taunted by you for not wishing to run off on your task list when I have plenty on my plate right now.

You like the person who wrote the OpEd. You seem to feel that I'm ignorant to have a different point of view about the person based on just one Oped. I asked you for further information (with a dig placed, inappropriately. Apologies) and you said no. So, rather than discuss my ignorance, perhaps we might discuss your intransigence? I know that the informal rules around here have become lax of late. But since you have a high post count, I'm quite sure you remember the rules and expectations we had for one another. I do.

[wndycty]

41. Oh brother. . .so I am glad I made your day. . .enjoy your ignorance.

:kick:

[Occulus]

40. You need to read my post below.

Ellsberg drew a direct parallel between what he did and what Wikileaks does. It would appear he lauds their efforts.

RATIGAN: What is your sense of disclosure of information to the American people today, compared to the period of time that you lived through, where there was similar issues with, with the perception of reality of information being withheld from the public?

ELLSBERG: ... I think if many people had recognized that their oath of office, which called them in to support the Constitution, really contradicted their promise to keep certain secrets, when those secrets concealed lies, concealed deception to the American public and getting us into a hopeless war, they should have given priority to the oath of office and they should have put that information out to Congress and the public. They should have done what I wish I had done much earlier than I did I had been in that position, too.

edit: the author of the op-ed in the OP appears to be a completely biased (not to mention, totally wrong) shit on this particular issue. And no, I don't care what his credentials are.

[wndycty]

44. Explain what you base your assertion that he is biased on. . .

. . .go right ahead.

[Occulus]

134. No.

I am not your monkey.

[JackRiddler]

38. Do you know what Daniel Ellsberg, the subject of the OpEd, had to say about Wikileaks?

It's a bitch for everyone trying to say Wikileaks is nothing like the Pentagon Papers that the discloser (and part-author) of the Pentagon Papers is still around and making unequivocal statements in support of Wikileaks.

As its title the following post by zunguzungu had a line that is remembered by everyone who's ever seen the Woody Allen movie, "Annie Hall" (1976). To shut up a blowhard who is blabbing nonsense about Marshall McLuhan on a movie line, the Allen character suddenly pulls the actual Marshall McLuhan out from behind a screen, and McLuhan tells the blowhard he's full of bullshit. The blowhard's response?

“I think my insights into Mr. McLuhan have a great deal of validity!”

(Posted by zunguzungu on December 9, 2010)

“I know Daniel Ellsberg. Mr. Assange, you are no Daniel Ellsberg.”
–Todd Gitlin“Everything is Data, but Data isn’t Everything”

“The mainstream media mantra “Pentagon Papers good; wikileaks bad” is totally misguided. That’s just a cover for people who don’t want to admit that they oppose any and all exposure of even the most misguided, secretive foreign policy…I just voted for Assange as @TIME’s 2010 Person of the Year.”
–Daniel Ellsberg

http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/i-think-my-insights-into-mr-mcluhan-have-a-great-deal-of-validity/

Ellsberg remembers that in his own time, he had his life threatened and was attacked using all the same faulty arguments as are applied to Wikileaks. He was called a traitor and a danger to the world. The government also tried to prosecute him under the Espionage Act. So it must be funny to him now, seeing all these people who would have condemned him back then pretend today that the Pentagon Papers leak was honorable, but Wikileaks is somehow criminal.

[wndycty]

43. Abrams acknowledged Ellsberg's assertion and laid out a case outlining. . .

. . .why he believed they were different.

[no limit]

5. Yup, I'm sure if those derogatory comments were released...

...the entire Vietnam war would have been a giant cluster fuck. Dodged a bullet there, didn't we?

[tavalon]

9. Ouch

True dat.

[treestar]

6. All Julian wants is attention - notice he will be writing his autobiography

not anything about the leaks.

Ellsberg also stood trial for what he did without whining about how unfair it all was.

And many other differences.

[Voice for Peace]

11. I don't agree.

you may be projecting there.

[tavalon]

13. Assange is taking a different tack

He stayed in the public eye to stay alive. Ellsberg went underground for a time until he felt it was safe to turn himself in. Assange had all of his monetary avenues cut off, Ellsberg did not. That is the main reason Assange is writing a book. I'm unclear how he thinks the powers that be will allow him access to that money but I'm not privy to all of his thoughts, nor to Ellsberg's. The similarities between them, though, are much greater than the differences.

[treestar]

19. The glaring difference as I see it

Ellsberg had a specific issue, the Vietnam War.

Julian has no particular issue or evil that he's trying to expose. He's trying to expose himself and his abilities.

[tavalon]

21. Government secrecy is his gig

He doesn't think it's a good thing. I agree with him.

[treestar]

29. Diplomatic secrets aren't government secrets from the people

They are secrets we as a nation keep from other countries.

Everyone and every country knows that. Julian is exposing nothing there. Just petty stuff. There is no grand cause.

Our government is about as transparent as any government in the world is likely to be. Why didn't he do it for other countries that are far worse?

Answer: because he's just showing off. And choosing to write a book about his autobiography rather than a book defending his actions just adds to the mountain of evidence of it.

[tavalon]

39. I just bet you know how to tie a cherry stem in your mouth

Irrelevant? Actually, not after what you just pretzeled yourself into.

[treestar]

75. Huh? Is that a fancy way of saying no more than "No!"

You disagree, but are just insulting to put it in those words, but have no substance.

You do not agree that the government needs to classify some information? You believe it all should be out in the open, even where other countries don't do that? So as to give those other countries the advantage over us?

[no limit]

59. Yup, our tax dollars going to pay for child sex slaves sure is just petty stuff

who needs to know about that?

[treestar]

78. Oh really, so why isn't Julian writing his book about that?

Why is it to be, his autobiography?

Again, you show what you want to be true more than what is true, so no doubt, you cannot prove that charge.

Oh yeah, our government is entirely evil and Julian's only purpose is to expose that. :sarcasm:

[no limit]

97. Why would he need to write a book about it? He released it to the world

you are free to take that information and write a book about it if you wish.

Well I didn't say that our goverment is evil. But using our tax dollars to fund child sex slaves is pretty fucking evil.

[coalition_unwilling]

47. Assange is a publisher (like the NYTimes or WSJ). Ellsberg was a leaker.

Abrams argument is specious on its own terms if for nothing other than that. And that's in addition to the fact that Ellsberg has unequivocally and unambiguously endorsed Wikileaks.

Edit for typo.

[grahamhgreen]

14. Do you realize the definition of autobiography is a biography one writes about oneself?

[treestar]

17. Yeah. So it's not a book about why the leaks are important

or what they are about or what evils they supposedly expose. It's a book about the life of Julian that he wants to do.

That's what he wants the attention to be on.

[no limit]

32. Yeah, what an asshole for writing an autobiography. Do you apply that standard to everyone?

[JackRiddler]

42. Hmmm, Obama's march to the presidency started with an autobiographical memoir.

But Assange has some nerve writing an autobiography for money given that he is not a reputable person like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and all the other people who've had bestsellers with autobiographical works.

[no limit]

18. So you think Assange should stand trial? On what charges exactly?

And how do you propose he pay his lawyers?

[treestar]

22. For whatever laws he violated.

If he is extradited. He can get a public defender if he can't afford a lawyer. I'm sure in his case there will be high profile volunteers, however.

Why should he not be tried as anyone else would be for doing the same thing?

It's not persecution. it's the price one knowingly pays for this sort of thing. Like Ellsberg did. the charges against him were dismissed because of government irregularities in gathering evidence. So good for him. But he did take the consequences.

[no limit]

30. And what laws did he violate?

[treestar]

36. Just for starters

18 U.S.C. §§ 952 (prohibiting disclosure of diplomatic codes and correspondence), 1924 (unauthorized removal
and retention of classified documents or material); 50 U.S.C. § 783 (unauthorized disclosure of classified information
to an agent of a foreign government, unauthorized receipt by foreign government official) This report does not address
such prohibitions, nor prohibitions that apply to military personnel under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
23 18 U.S.C. § 793(a)-(c) provides:
(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or
reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the
advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information
concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, , or any prohibited place so designated by the
President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for
the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as
to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense;
or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes,
makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain any sketch, photograph, photographic
negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of
anything connected with the national defense; or
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or
obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any connected with the
national defense, knowing or having reason to believe ... that it has been or will be obtained, taken,
made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter <18 U.S.C. §§ 792 et[br />seq.]....
24 18 U.S.C. § 793(g) provides:
If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one
or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such
conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404.pdf

[EFerrari]

51. Except there is zero evidence thata Wikileaks or Assange

had any intent whatsoever to harm the national defense of the United States.

[treestar]

68. That is what investigations are for

That's why these things are not so black and white as people make them out to be.

[EFerrari]

73. So you don't know if Assange could be charged or not. n/t

[Pavulon]

94. I do, he could be charged with conspiracy

if the evidence is there.. He could also be charged with espionage, none of those charges are impacted by his citizenship.

[Vinnie From Indy]

144. LOL!

Is there no limit to your nonsense? Please explain how Assange could even remotely be charged with espionage.

[no limit]

53. That applies to the people that steal the information, not people that leak it

and I hope you aren't the guy that would argue that a federal appeals court had no effect outside of their district. Because if you are I really have no interest in having this discussion with you/

[treestar]

70. these would apply to Julian

(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes,
makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain any sketch, photograph, photographic
negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of
anything connected with the national defense; or
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or
obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any connected with the
national defense, knowing or having reason to believe ... that it has been or will be obtained, taken,
made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter <18 U.S.C. §§ 792 et
....
24 18 U.S.C

there's also another statute somewhere about publishing, but I won't bother to look for it for you, since what the law is is of no interest to you whatsoever - you can be directed to read it in black and white and if you don't like what it says, just deny it. Apparently the law is to conform to your personal opinions and emotional preferences and anyone who tries to educate you is evil.

[no limit]

98. So they also apply to Bob Novak and Judith Miller?

[verges]

96. This might be more relevant if

Assange were either an American citizen or in the US when the transgressions occured (has he ever been in the US at all?).

[TalkingDog]

31. Even the government admits he hasn't broken any laws

Right now they are scrambling to implement something to charge him with.

Of course it wouldn't be applicable to the Valerie Plame leakers.....

[treestar]

37. That is certainly not so

They may be looking into it as it may not be as simple as many would think it is, but there is certainly a statute criminalizing publication of classified information.

as to proposed legislation, that would only apply in the future.

[no limit]

56. So you are saying you would make a better prosecutor than Patrick Fitzgerald ?

Because he clearly doesn't agree with you.

[treestar]

67. who the hell is Patrick Fitzgerald?

:rofl: :rofl:

There are many prosecutors, so unless he is the only one empowered to bring charges in these matters and has decided not to, Julian is up for possible charges. And :rofl: if Julian were safe from any US charges, he could no longer be a victim!!

[no limit]

101. lol, did you above tell me to educate myself and you don't know who Patrick Fitzgerald is?

that is funny.

Are you aware of who Valerie Plame is? She was an undercover CIA operative that the Bush administration outed. They stole classified information and gave that information to Judith Miller and Bob Novak who then published that information in newspapers.

Patrick Fitzgerald was the prosecutor in charge of the case. He didn't charge Judith Miller nor Bob Novak with anything related to publishing the information. They were charged for contempt of court for refusing to disclose the source, never chaged for publishing the information.

So again, you seem to think that you would make a much better prosecutor than Patrick Fitzgerald, which means your resume must be really fucking impressive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzgerald

Also, you can educate yourself on this thing very easily, they even made a movie for you about it. It's called fair game.

[Luminous Animal]

107. The Republicans wanted to prosecute the NY Times for publishing

leaked information, too.

"Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales raised the possibility yesterday that New York Times journalists could be prosecuted for publishing classified information based on the outcome of the criminal investigation underway into leaks to the Times of data about the National Security Agency's surveillance of terrorist-related calls between the United States and abroad.

"We are engaged now in an investigation about what would be the appropriate course of action in that particular case, so I'm not going to talk about it specifically," he said on ABC's "This Week."

In December, the Times broke a story about the secret program.

On the talk show, when asked if journalists could be prosecuted for publishing classified information, Gonzales responded, "There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility." "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052100348.html

[Pavulon]

61. Conspiracy will be the easiest if they have a case..

all these people acting like they know shit dont. They have no idea what has been collected or if manning is willing to testify that assange pimped him. Its up in the air.

However a conspiracy charge would get him in the US on trial and if he was convicted 25 years in a federal prison.

[no limit]

66. Because we know that someone who was tortured mentally for the last year is a great witness

[Pavulon]

69. Yep, thats the new meme areound the webs. But I would bet new jesus (manning)

entire trials and tribulations are on tape. Just like MJ and OJ, they tape him so when silliness like torture comes up there is clear evidence that he was not treated poorly.

Manning can hire all the people he wants, there is nothing to suggest he is unfit to stand trial or testify for the state to avoid the needle.

[no limit]

72. Locked in solitary confinement 23 hours a day. Not allowed to exercise

not allowed to get any news information.

And what are they going to do? Offer him a deal where all he has to say is that Assange made him do it and his problems will go away.

You are totally right, he is a totally reliable witness.

[Pavulon]

80. There are 80,000 people locked in solitary at any given time in the US, including

the entire population of many prisons. They are not all insane and not all being tortured and many are later released. There are studies citing this fact. NO matter what deal manning makes he will die in solitary confinement. The only difference is if it is on death row at terre haute or in florence co.

Electronic information will be a big part of this case.

[no limit]

83. Those 80,000 people are not allowed to excercise and dont have access to news?

really?

[Pavulon]

85. 1 hour a day. Tv is earned and can be taken away.

USP Marion started the trend, others follow this pattern. State prisons and Federal prisons hold inmates in solitary for varying reasons.

posted an advocacy site here for numbers. thats a state facility, not florence adx
http://solitarywatch.com/2010/09/01/colorado-state-penitentiary-ii-opens-with-300-new-solitary-confinement-cells/

[no limit]

86. You didn't answer my question. They can't exercise in their cell?

You got a link?

[Pavulon]

89. They can pace. They dont have a bowflex

free weights,and an elliptical machine. I gave you the link. They are also NOT in the US ARMY. Being in the military adds a new level of suck to being locked up.

They are out of their cell 1 hour a day, that's it.

[no limit]

91. exercise such as pushups. Which Manning is not allowed to do

[Pavulon]

93. Aww, in the Army and no pushups. He is a lucky bastard

I heard he does not have a pillow. he should write his congressman. none of that constitutes torture, none of it is illegal, none of it makes his testimony invalid. Manning should adjust to his surroundings, odds are he will live out his life in a cage.

[no limit]

95. Well I'm glad you now support torture

did you read how his blanket is what amounts to a piece of crap and because he is forced to sleep in his boxers (with a light shining through his cell at all times) he constantly gets rag burns?

yeah, I know, what a pussy for whining about it. Those brown people that we were splashing a little bit of water on or not allowing them to sleep were also major pussies. They need to all sack up and stop bitching.

[Pavulon]

100. Holding a guy in a manner that prevents him killing himself is not torture

not feeding him lobster and steak is not torture. Making him sleep in a lit cell to he can be watched and filmed is not torture. Making him sleep in boxers is not torture.

Making me run with wet skivs with a 60lb ruck in not torture, chapped ass and swamp crotch are not torture. Making me do situps until I vomit is not torture. Making me wipe my ass with leaves in not torture. Its the Army.

He has access to an attorney and is held in the US so he has NO CLAIM for torture.

His defense can present that at trial, however none of what is described amounts to torture as defined by law. suck is not torture.

[no limit]

105. So sleep deprevation is not torture?

You also conveniently didnt address the fact his blanket might as well be carpet.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vinnie From Indy]

143. You know what is torture?

Reading your posts here on DU. You should get an award for your efforts to be a supreme ass on almost every OP in which you participate.

Cheers! :)

[EFerrari]

27. That's not true. Ellsberg and his attorney also held press conferences

and protested government dirty tricks.

[Pavulon]

84. Did he take a million.5?

for his effort... ruh ro. thats not good for the man calling for the POTUS to resign.

[seabeyond]

49. yup. nt

[tavalon]

8. Assange is actually quite like Daniel Ellsberg

I happened to watch a documentary about Mr. Ellsberg just last night and I was struck by the similarities between the two men. Daniel himself sees the similarity.

As an aside, anything coming out of The Wall Street Journal is damage control at this point.

[grahamhgreen]

12. Wiki is exactly like PP. War crimes were committed, they were exposed by heroes and patriots.

[seabeyond]

50. and then the gossip and giggle and nontruths just thrown out for???? nt

[EFerrari]

58. Countless people have remarked they demonsttrate the vast over classification

our government uses, including just about every member on the House Judiciary Committee in their hearing.

[seabeyond]

63. cause it is just dire we know putin is alpha dog. same old. same old EF. nt

[EFerrari]

76. Did you even read my post?

lol

[yodermon]

15. So how does the WSJ explain wikileaks decision to NOT release all the cables?

Only a small fraction have even been released.
Doesn't that material fact completely obviate the entire thesis of this piece??

[PBS Poll-435]

24. Julian is using the Kardashian method

Must stay in the public eye!

[EFerrari]

23. This article is full of misinformation and bad reasoning

Wikileaks does produce its own articles, it doesn't dump things on the net wholesale. If Assange took affirmative steps to get this material, it doesn't make him more vulnerable to prosecution because that is what journalists do every day. If Congress attempts to pass repressive legislation, that is on Congress, not Assange.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Gosh. The Wall Street Journal joins our "transaparent" Gov't in protecting us from...knowledge.

We, the common herd, needn't know what our government does or it's plans for us. Just leave it all to Daddy.

[wndycty]

28. As I said upthread, do you know who Floyd Abrams is, his background. . .

. . .his connection to First Amendment court cases including the Pentagon Papers?

Educate yourself.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. You left out his opposition to campaign finance reform (McCain/Feingold).

Or, his defense of Standard & Poors against charges of fraud on the basis of their "free speech".

But, I object to the whole idea that the people should be deprived of knowledge of what our government is doing.

[wndycty]

46. I support McCain/Feingold, but you know who doesn't the ACLU! So. . .

. . .if you are going to use Abrams' opposition to McCain/Feingold as a reason to discredit him, would you hold the ACLU to the same standard?

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-statement-campaign-finance-reform

Seriously?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. OK. As a member of the ACLU I do oppose their stand. So?

Are you saying that because Abrams and/or the ACLU did some things that I agree with I'm now compelled to agree with them always?

But, you ignore the question at hand, as did Abrams. Do you think that the people have a right to know what their government is doing? How does that conform with the notion of an "informed electorate"?

[wndycty]

54. What was the purpose of you bringing up Abrams' opposition to McCain/Feingold?

You introduced McCain/Feingold and Abrams opposition to it, to this discussion and I just merely pointed out that if you want to use his opposition to discredit him, then wouldn't it also discredit the ACLU. Personally, I don't think it should discredit either.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

103. You seem to feel/think that we should agree with him because of his supposed qualifications.

I was questioning his qualifications? N'est-ce-pas?

[midnight]

88. What is this veteran of free-speech battles doing on the payroll of a company that analyzes security...

"Making an argument about the First Amendment, to begin with. Mr. Abrams will contend that S.& P.’s ratings deserve exactly the sort of free-speech protections afforded to journalists, on the theory that a bond rating is like an editorial — an opinion based on an educated guess about the future. And for the same reason you can’t sue editorial writers, Mr. Abrams will argue that you can’t sue a bond rater because the economy went into a free fall that few saw coming."http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/business/19floyd.html?ref=floydabrams


I'm just wondering why the first amendment is so important for these deceptive money changers that have destroyed so many peoples lives, but the info. that could be revealed next month by the banking leaks, and might help prove that Americans were not irresponsible investors, might not be ok for first amendment rights?

[Union Scribe]

35. Uh oh, now you're getting yelled at for insufficient reverence.

[EFerrari]

57. And look at this, his former client, Judy Miller, is now writing for Newmax.

http://w3.newsmax.com/a/jan11/terrorism/

WorldNutDaily must be green with envy. :)

[Occulus]

34. Ellsberg himself compared Wikileaks' releases to what he himself did.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/11/daniel-ellsberg-wikileaks-assange_n_609729.html

Speaking on Obama's record-setting pace of prosecuting whistleblowers, Ellsberg said, "That's really not the kind of change I voted for when I voted for him." The former military analyst said he sees an "immediate parallel" between the Vietnam-era suppression of negative information about the war and the current U.S. restrictions on news coming out of the Middle East.

RATIGAN: Do you see direct parallels between what's developing here and what you went through?



ELLSBERG: Yes, there does seem to be an immediate parallel between me and whoever leaked the video on the assault on the 19 or 20 Iraqis. Someone -- allegedly, it was Bradley Manning -- did feel that that deserved to be out. Reuters, whose newspapermen were killed in the course of that, had been trying to get that through the freedom of information act for two years, as I understand it and had been refused. Let's say whoever did it, hypothetically, Bradley Manning, showed better judgment in putting it out than the people who kept is secret from the American people and from the Iraqis.

"I didn't want to get in the way of the diplomacy."

Julian Assange sure does."

Motherfucking cageliner :puke: of a Murdoch rag....

[toddaa]

48. Assange =/= Wikileaks

Until pontificators understand this, they will remain clueless. Wikileaks is a model for publishing information anonymously. Anyone with knowledge of encryption can implement the model. When the US government lost to Phil Zimmerman, Pandora's box was opened. The battle against P2P is all that is left.

[EFerrari]

55. Emptywheel takes Abrams apart.

I promise I’m going to catch up on the WikiLeaks stuff in more detail soon, but I wanted to do a quick post pointing out the idiocy of Floyd Abrams’ attack on WikiLeaks. The logic of Abrams’ op-ed–which argues that WikiLeaks is different from the Pentagon Papers and therefore bad and also ohbytheway bad for journalists–is as follows:

Daniel Ellsberg chose not to release the last four volumes of the Pentagon Papers because he didn’t want to get in the way of diplomacy.

The diplomatic volumes were not published, even in part, for another dozen years. Mr. Ellsberg later explained his decision to keep them secret, according to Sanford Ungar’s 1972 book “The Papers & The Papers,” by saying, “I didn’t want to get in the way of the diplomacy.”

But Assange–because of what Abrams characterizes as WikiLeaks’ “general disdain for any secrecy at all”–did release diplomacy-damaging materials.

The recent release of a torrent of State Department documents is typical. Some, containing unflattering appraisals by American diplomats of foreign leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Libya and elsewhere, contain the very sort of diplomacy-destructive materials that Mr. Ellsberg withheld.

Abrams tries to draw a distinction between Ellsberg and Assange with what are apparently meant to be rhetorical questions.

Can anyone doubt that he would have made those four volumes public on WikiLeaks regardless of their sensitivity? Or that he would have paid not even the slightest heed to the possibility that they might seriously compromise efforts to bring a speedier end to the war?

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/12/29/floyd-abrams-abuse-of-power/

[tekisui]

60. End of thread.

Thanks for posting.

[wndycty]

62. I think the thread can keep going. . .

:kick:

[tekisui]

87. Sure, but the OP has been wholly disputed and debunked.

It only continues as a failed hit piece. :kick:

[Karmadillo]

74. Excellent read. Thanks for posting it.

nt

[EFerrari]

79. This Abrams piece is being pimped all over the place.

That's interesting. Someone wondered(maybe Greg Mitchell) if he's is going to be hired by the NYTs.

[Cassandra]

81. Abrams was on Washington Journal a couple of weeks ago...

talking about Wikileaks and twisting himself into knots trying to accuse Assange without accusing Ellsberg. It's telling that Ellsberg supports Assange.

[Vinnie From Indy]

64. Abrams wrote a dishonest "hit" piece here

Notice that Abrams goes to great lengths NOT to discuss the actual disclosures made by the Wikileaks docs thus far. He appears to be infinitely more outraged by the leaking of information rather than the monumental revelations contained in the information.

He laughably offers that Assange would have released part of the Ellsberg papers that Ellsberg did not had he been in his place at that time. How could Abrams possibly know what Assange and Wikileaks has or does not have? How would he possibly know whether Assange has already passed on releasing some information? The fact is that Abrams does not know, but that does not stop him from attempting to hang that manufactured idiocy around Assange's neck.

Also, all DU'ers should keep in mind that Abrams is offering the same Frank Luntz approved attacks on Assange that permeates our corrupt media - Assange is a "terrorist" and he is making us all less safe.

Regardless of Abrams past writings, this article is a hit piece pure and simple.

[EFerrari]

65. It's embarrassing. We should all chip in a penny and buy him

an internet connection.

[midnight]

71. Mr. Ellsberg said what Julian Assange did was not illegal under the laws of United States.

After Mr. Ellsberg was prosecuted, it was defined by the supreme court that only a Free and unrestrained press can effectly expose deception in Govt. He says our country was created on the principle that our Govt. would not be able to have a say in what we think, hear, or read. Daniel Ellsberg said he was accused of the same things that Julian Assange is being accused of-destroying our diplomacy. While he agrees with some secrets, he does not believe we are in this mess because of exposure of these secrets-quite the opposite. He thinks, had we had the knowledge provided by a Bradly Manning we could of saved many lives. http://www.commondreams.org/video/2010/12/10-0 Watch the video.....

[Pavulon]

82. Good thing he does not work at the DOJ

and is not going to be running the federal cases that stem from the disclosure of a quarter million documents.

[xchrom]

77. unrec

[JCMach1]

90. Assange is irrelevant now as the concept is out of the bag... Hell they killed Napster, but everyone

now downloads from the net.

Nation states are going to have to deal with the new paradigm. They ignore it at their peril.

The Djinn will never go back in the bottle.

[Pavulon]

92. The penalty for uploading media is not federal death penalty or life in Federal Supermax

if it were I believe screeners and cams would be harder to come by. Posting SECRET information carries that penalty.

[JCMach1]

99. Whether it is espionage, or journalism just doesn't matter...

as the whole game has shifted.

Assange could disappear entirely and it still wouldn't matter.

[Pavulon]

102. Assange got his million.5. The "system" requires mannings to work

it requires a steady stream of people willing to die in prison to sustain momentum.

[JCMach1]

112. the only casualty of the infowars will be 'the truth'

Notice the small T...

[Pavulon]

115. So you now have assange truth. you do not have context

you do not have anything but random bits of data splattered around. You DO have the option to get elected and be read in on the subjects in those cables. You know the legal and democratic way to get the facts you desire.

[JCMach1]

116. Assange seriously doesn't care one way or another... in an infowar the point is to disrupt,

or destroy the system... literally, make the system work against itself...

In non-technical theory it is a kind of systemic deconstruction (think Derrida).

And here is the bit where his mission is important to all liberals and progressives:

“The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive “secrecy tax”) and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption. Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.”... http://longsworde.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/julian-assange-and-aperspectival-consciousness/

This is democracy gone global without corporate sponsorship.

[Pavulon]

122. No Anarchy is when some asshole calls for the POTUS to resign

Assange took corporate money. Just like the black block assholes who break windows but take mommy's money to go to college. There are lots of systems around, some are more efficient than others.

The system here is a representative democracy, go to sudan or somolia for paradise.

[JCMach1]

137. That doesn't even make sense... I am for any tool/system that puts more power

and information in the hands of the people...

That is not anarchy, that's true democracy.

[toddaa]

104. Only if you get caught

Manning blabbing on IRC was his mistake. The weakest link in computer security is always meatware.

[Pavulon]

106. same for any real crime. Rape, murder

people get away with them all the time, until they dont. His mistake was signing the form to get access then breaking orders and the law by disclosing it. That mistake will prevent him from ever seeing the sun rise again.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

109. To what purpose is he not going "to see the sun rise again"? Does he pose a threat to society?

Or is it merely revenge for embarrassing the mighty?

[Pavulon]

110. Like Hannsen and Ames he presents a risk of further disclosure of classified information

he will he held like hannsen in Florence ADX. That is how espionage is handled, not like manning is a special case. He will be treated like the others who proceeded him.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

111. So, who was Manning "spying" for?

China? Israel? The Soviet Union? Burundi? Togo?

[Pavulon]

113. Same as Rosenberg. You can still fry for spying for an idea

communism, hacker ethos, does not matter. The ACT is where the law is focused. His motives will only serve to help the prosecution.

His handler has not shed any light on how he used his source yet.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

118. Which will certainly disply the "ethos" of our justice system.

Or, lack of ethos. At least in the sense of "the punishment fitting the 'crime'" or "harm done". This little fit of pique by the bosses at the public finding out what they do has now reached pathetic tantrum level.

[Pavulon]

120. That old class war meme fails. the proles

dont fucking know where myanmar is on a map. dont care about yemen until some unsecured nuclear material there ends up where it shouldn't.

It is simple, disclosing classified data is illegal. The trial will be public, take a drive to Alexandria.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

123. The old "Father Knows Best" meme fails.

I know where Myanmar is. I also knew where Vietnam was when the Marine Crotch wanted me to extend my enlistment to go there and kill people I didn't know, had nothing against, and might even have liked because "Father Knows Best".

[Pavulon]

127. And why do you need to know information about a man giving information on their Nuclear program

to the US. Dates, places, things like that can be dangerous. Unlike the US where manning gets to bitch about his captivity myanmar will not grant that to a source. They will not call the NYT to be all open about what they do.

250,000 random bits of data serve no agenda.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

128. Why do the citizens need to know anything that their government does?

Your contempt for the "proles" is priceless. It's the "proles" who have to pay the price for what the bosses decide in their secret negotiations.

[Pavulon]

129. Dude we are all proles posting here. Its a class war term. This whole scam plays

on the willingness of people to buy that horse shit in the wikileak context. Assange has a book to sell, why not drop the BOA leaks. Because it needs to time with his book release. He HAS the power now and is lining his pockets. The person who actually made that fucker rich is locked in a brig and will die behind bars. No money from assange yet to him.

The entire class war construct does not work on the wikileak problem, at least not how its disciples want.

Again why does the name of a person passing information on myanmars nuclear program need to be in the clear? Why does the information about unsecured nuclear material need to be in the clear?

[toddaa]

117. His mistake was breaking anonymity

The set up wikileaks uses for submitting documents is pretty good, as far as current encryption technology goes, provided you don't blab about it. Making an example of Manning is a good psychological tactic, but that's about the extent of the state's ability to combat the wikileak model. Minimize the human element and the law is pretty much as irrelevent as Assange and Manning.

[Pavulon]

121. Death is relevant. Gerald Bull ceased being relevant

when he was shot 5 times. There is information that has no place in public. Manning will die in prison, the next manning may have been stuffed in his luggage in a london flat, curios for an mi6 employee. Someone did leave his mobile phone sitting out, wonder what that means?

There will always be turds like manning and hannssen, assange is playing in a space where only so much courtesy is given. I would bet his people are now realizing exactly what that means.

The next manning may never be heard from, just end up gone. The law ends at the border and when the actors are not subject to the US Constitution. It ends up in the trunk of a car driven onto an air base.

This problem is in the realm of the military. The same people that kill people in pakistan and yemen own the response to what is basically an intelligence agency with no state.

The CIA ha been doing this a while, some times quite badly, but still its their problem now.

[toddaa]

125. "There is information that has no place in public."

The judgment of whether information belongs in public or not is also irrelevent. All that matters is the continuing development and proliferation of tools to provide a means to disseminate this information anonymously.

Wikileaks is dead

[Pavulon]

126. Just look for the FCC ID on the PC, WAP, Modem and Cell you own

and think about how anonymous it really is. Did you read that scathing review of what assange did?

[toddaa]

130. You keep bringing this back to Assange

Assange blew it as a cryptoanarchist the moment his name become public. Most (as in all) hackers are losers and losers are generally begging for attention, which is how they get caught.

Using an uncracked "owned" device provided by Verizon or Comcast. Good one.

[Pavulon]

131. There are people who supplement their hobby

by making it their work. Not all hackers are losers, not all sit in moms basement with an army of crusty socks grooming camwores on message boards. Many work for for tax payer funded agencies.

Those folks dont give a fuck about DDOS but can walk right through IOS or JUNOS and be sure a syslog server does not get the logs.

Many recognize there are sides and choose them.

[toddaa]

133. I don't think you see the Wikileaks story the way I do

The core issue at the heart of the Wikileaks story gets all muddled when you keep bringing up quaint notions of ethics and choosing sides. It's about individuals being able to acquire tools to encrypt and share information anonymously. I don't really give a crap about government or corporate secrets. What interests me is that Wikileaks wasn't cracked by NSA hackers. It was Lamo and Manning chatting on IRC.

Remember when Phil Zimmerman was charged with arms trafficking over PGP software? That's where all of this began. It appears that the government still hasn't cracked known strong encryption tools beyond the techniques published in academic journals. Of course, they could be using Wikileaks as a front to encourage the use of broken encryption. A definite possibility, but the rhetoric suggests otherwise. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect that Manning is a ruse and the real source of the leak has yet to be nabbed.

Always best to remain suspicious, but the story is interesting because of what it supposedly tells us about the current state of strong encryption. The NSA is still no further along than academia.

[JCMach1]

114. Exactly, I can't even begin to talk about the stuff I hacked into as a teenager

in the 1980's or I would have a quick meeting with some dark-suited gentlemen.

[toddaa]

119. You're talking now

;)

[Ignis]

124. Ahh, another Wikileaks thread: They're like flypaper for authoritarianism.

At least those who prefer Daddy Knows Best over transparency have (mostly) stopped calling the Australian Mr. Assange a "traitor." :eyes:

[Forkboy]

132. One thing it has in common is the types of people it's pissing off.

[neverforget]

139. You mean the government knows best crowd?

[Forkboy]

140. That's one way to put it.

;)

[Number23]

135. heh

"As Princeton historian Sean Wilentz told the Associated Press earlier this month, WikiLeaks seems rooted in a "simpleminded idea of secrecy and transparency," one that is "simply offended by any actions that are cloaked."

'Simple-minded' is the perfect word to describe Mr. Assange's entire exercise as well as its and his supporters. Thanks for posting.

[FamousBlueRaincoat]

141. I don't mind being called simple-minded

"Simple-minded" is a pretty easy insult to throw around. It's a "simple-minded" insult, if you will, that "simple-minded" people tend to throw around.

How would one respond to being called "simple-minded"?

Perhaps with something like "sticks and stones will break my bones...." also simple-minded.

Name calling is funny. It's even funnier when supposedly respectful Ivy League Professors are so dumbfounded and flabbergasted that they have nothing left to do but call people names...

[Number23]

142. I'm sure there's a point buried in there somewhere.

Someone else can take the time to find it.

[DirkGently]

136. Mr. Ellsberg's opinion carries a bit more weight, methinks. (He supports Wikileaks).

[FamousBlueRaincoat]

138. exactly

The people who use the Pentagon Papers as a "good" thing as opposed to Wikileaks probably would have been (or were) opposed to the Pentagon Papers at the time too. Or they've grown older, boringer, and more conservative since the Vietnam War.

If Ellsberg is a defender of Wikileaks, than what exactly is the point of bringing him up in order to bash Wikileaks? It...makes....no...sense.

I'm trying to think of some sort of metaphor for it...but this whole talking point is so absurd it's beyond metaphor.