Pentagon Papers Ellsberg Supports Wikileaks

wierd_w writes "Daniel Ellsberg says: 'Every attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.' Due to the recent debates over the pros and cons between the wikileaks releases and those of the historic 'Pentagon papers,' Daniel Ellsberg, who released the pentagon papers in 1971, has written an editorial on the subject declaring that he rejects the mantra of 'Pentagon Papers good; WikiLeaks material bad,' and that further '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. The truth is that every attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.'"

Comments

That's what's so facepalm-inducing about it all

[AdmiralXyz]

The other day, Lieberman (who is looooong past his expiration date as a politician. Let's get with the program, Connecticut) was mouthing off on Fox News about how the New York Times should be investigated for espionage for cooperating with Wikileaks and publishing the cables. It's like, has he really never heard of New York Times v United States ? This wasn't that long ago, and it was the same newspaper to boot. And apart from the really right-wing Neocon wingnuts, find me a person today who doesn't think the leak of the Pentagon Papers was ultimately for the best. Why should Wikileaks be any different?

Re:That's what's so facepalm-inducing about it all

[Saishuuheiki]

Divulging classified information may be a felony, but it's a felony in this country. It's hard to argue we should arrest a foreign citizen who hasn't set foot in American territory or stolen the documents himself. Now arresting the person who leaked the documents to Assange is a different matter.

By your point of view, if someone leaked information detailing Iran's nuclear program, we should immediately send them back to Iran to be executed. After all, it's clearly against the law

Re:That's what's so facepalm-inducing about it all

[Danse]

I have not studied the issue, but I have seen credible arguments that the leak of the Pentagon Papers was ultimately destructive of the best interests of the American people. I do not have an opinion one way or the other at this point and the event happened far enough in the past that I am not going to do the study needed to decide. I will say that those who at that time promoted the idea that publishing the Pentagon Papers was a good idea were pushing a destructive political agenda.

Eh? You haven't studied the issue, you don't intend to study the issue, but you'll go ahead and declare that those who supported the release were pushing a destructive agenda. Why doesn't that surprise me? Seems like the sort of thing that people do when they can't be bothered to actually get informed on a subject. Just find some source that agrees with their pre-conceived notions and declare their verdict on the issue.

I can't believe anyone is surprised

[paulsnx2]

The Leak is Leaked and every corporations are pressured by the government to take silly actions against Wikileaks. All before we get any analysis of the content. Now it seems that everyone blasting Wikileaks must be for selling boys for sex parties (one of the cover ups documented in the leaks).

Yeah, they called Putin "Batman", and yeah the US has been twisting arms all over the world to get governments to lie to their people. But selling pretty little boys out for sex and covering it up because an American company was involved?

The "Danger" to American Diplomacy is accrued when our diplomats are involved in totally unethical and immoral behaviors. The "Danger" gets paid out when the documentation of such things gets out to the public. If our government wants to protect its diplomatic efforts, then DON'T ACCRUE the risk in the first place. Then you don't have to fear the leaks.

And if Mastercard and Visa (who now look like they want a world safe for the KKK and those that sell "Boys for Sex") would just wait for the Analysis before bowing to pressure, then they might get out of this without looking like fools.

Re:I can't believe anyone is surprised

[jkauzlar]

One more thing: people seem to forget that (unlike Ellsberg), Julian Assange does not actually have a classified status. I.e. he didn't actually leak the cables, or for that matter anything he publishes on the site. To the extent that the information is damaging, it is as much a failure on the part of our national security to protect the information from being leaked in the first place. Wikileaks is just an easy target. To actually clean up our fragile intelligence classification system would be expensive and, though it is the real problem here, those responsible for making the information so easily 'leak-able' have chosen to demonize the messenger instead.

This is why I support Wikileaks and not those trying to hush them. If this is a national security issue (and not just a transparency issue), it has everything to do with our gov't's ability to keep the information secure and nothing to do with wikileaks. Let me say it again: he didn't commit espionage to obtain the information; he was GIVEN it.

That being said, the press needs to be questioning the gov't to find out what steps have been taken to limit access to information that endangers our national security. I'm guessing nothing unless they find a way to outsource the mgmt of classified information to a multi-national company like Haliburton for twenty-seven times the cost, otherwise there's no money for it.

What I can't get my head around...

[Somewhat Delirious]

What I can't get my head around is al those people that spend their time complaining that Wikileaks is not careful enough in redacting the documents and is putting lives at risk. I mean talking about a skewed world view... Not one death on the whole planet has been directly or indirectly attributed to any of the Wikileaks revelations. Not one! Not even by US state officials who would have every reason to do so if they could only find one!

Meanwhile, what digging in the wikileaks files has confirmed or revealed (so far) about the US: torture ongoing after Abu Graib, systematic lying to the electorate and the governments of friendly powers, the killing of thousands upon thousands of civilians including women, children, the elderly, even handicapped people by US armed forces, lying about civilian death tolls, the killing in cold blood of enemy forces after they surrendered, systematically turning a blind eye to the use of torture by allied forces, complicity in having allies break their own national laws in order to support the US war effort... do I have to continue?

Seriously people...do you really want to spend your time and energy arguing about the way Wikileaks redacts the leaks?

You can't have it both ways

[copponex]

Either Assange is subject to US law or he isn't. If he is, he should be protected by the First Amendment. If he isn't, then they have no legal right to prosecute him.

All of the idiots who want to temporarily suspend the law to punish one person always forget that it could be their turn sooner than they think. And, frankly, I'd rather not continue to establish the precedent that the world's most powerful country gets to arrogantly ignore international law and kidnap people to kill or torture them. In fifty years, it could be someone else putting hoods over US citizens who dare to mention the truth in public.

Assange is going to come out of this a hero

[Animats]

Assange is going to come out of this a hero. The "rape charge" is already falling apart. The press is now mostly supporting Assange. Give it a week, and there will be calls for resignations of some Government officials.

Some of his opponents are already in trouble. One of the "commentators" calling for calling for Assange to be killed is now the subject of a complaint that he was inciting to commit murder.

Meanwhile, Wikileaks remains online, and response times are good.

This is worse than the New York Times in 1971

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The New York Times, after publishing the Pentagon Papers, did not have its bank accounts frozen. Their legal defense was able to proceed without losing their defense fund.

Different era

[JockTroll]

That was the Seventies. This is the 21st Century. Back then people rioted, now they keep their heads down. Nowadays, Ellsberg would be silenced, nobody would print his story, and he would have an international arrest warrant issued against him for, huh, farting without authorization. Welcome to the Age of the Wimp.

Re:Vietnam war exposer

[HungryHobo]

winning isn't a matter of who got the most kills.
War isn't a round of counterstrike.

If you decide who won based on the kill ratio or kill totals then Germany won world war 2.
If you lose 10,000 soldiers and the other guy loses 100,000 but he ends up controlling whatever you were fighting over and/or he still has lots of soldiers there and you don't then he was won.

What?!

[mosb1000]

I wish there was a +1 - holy fucking shit moderation. Every time I think my opinion of the US government can not get any worse, something else comes up. What's next? Am I going to find out they've been abducting little girls from daycare and shipping abroad as sex slaves to fund human mind control research?

Don't answer that, I'll wait for the Wiki Leak.

There really is no limit at all to human depravity.

Re:What?!

[squiggleslash]

The locals including a US contractor, DynCorp, taxpayers money, and a US government-organized cover-up.

But remember kids, it's just diplomatic gossip, that would be irresponsible to make public!

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth

[bussdriver]

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
-George Orwell