Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Ellsberge and Assange are two peas in a pod. Why would anybody be surprised by this? This merits a front page story here?
I'd like slashdot to have some balance. Why can't you post one opinion (there have been many published) that don't agree with what Wikileaks is doing here.
WTF were the Pentagon Papers? Were they pentagonal?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
...that you're a rapist too?
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?
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Wikipedia article , basically Ellsberg copied a couple of meters of reports stating that there were now way the US could win the Vietnam war.
Maybe I'm just being overly cynical about things.
Ellsberg had sex with two Swedish girls, failed to call them back the next day, and was therefore accused of rape and held without bail? Ellsberg received extrajudicial death threats from members of congress?
In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.
Justice Hugo Black 1971
http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
In other words, she is your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate.
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.
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?
The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
...or something more sinister. I'd hate to see his site being flooded requests misinterpreted by the media as an attack.
"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."
Wow, I didn't realize they DoSed his website in 1971!
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.
While I don't agree with a lot of what is going on, this automatic assumption that any leak = good on the part of many I also disagree with. I believe the pentagon papers leak was good over all because the public needed to know the information and that needs was enough to outweigh any harm it would cause and just generally breaking the oath and trust to keep information confidential he'd taken. So the reason it was a good thing was the context, what was leaked, and why.
So Wikileaks can very well be seen as different because their information is different. Personally I have thus far not seen a good reason for the leak. All the information I've been pointed to thus far (I don't have the time to go and sift through it myself) has either been things the public already knows (like the fact that there are civilian casualties in a war) or things that the public has no compelling interest to know (like diplomats private conversations about other world leaders). I haven't seen anything that I've said "Yes, the public needed to know this, it is important and shouldn't have been secret."
No, in other words, she worked directly with a group funded by the CIA.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Just because the statements made against Ellsburg back in the 70s were similar to those made against Wikileaks now doesn't infer that Wikileaks has the same moral high ground. Either Wikileaks' actions stand on their own merits, or they fail.
Drawing a poor analogy: If I call someone a liar, it's not automatically a falsehood just because Joe Wilson called Barack Obama a liar a year or so ago. You have to look at the circumstances and evaluate whether the statements are true in each case.
#DeleteChrome
"Daniel Ellsberg, who released the pentagon papers in 1971, has written an editorial on the subject..."
The editorial was written by Michael Ellsberg, not Daniel Ellsberg, though it quotes Daniel Ellsberg.
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.
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.
I was wondering if and when Ellsberg would weigh-in on this sad story. Can't wait to read what he has to say, and will do so when his site is no longer slashdotted.. At this moment ellsberg.net is giving: "Error establishing a database connection"
If the CIA were going to frame him for rape, I'd think they could do a better job of it than they did. No evidence, flimsy and contradictory testimony by the victims, crazy interpretations of the law, public and friendly interactions with him after the fact, waiting days before making the accusation, not even an accusation of violence. I would imagine that a CIA frame up would be a bit better constructed that the case against him is.
Actually, this smells of a 100% typical CIA op. It is the same organization that planned to topple the Cuban regime by chemically shaving Castro. Can you get any more stupid than that?
You should not believe Tom Clancy's books so much, you know. In reality, Jack Ryan never shot anyone in London, and the only non-GS job he's ever had was his brief appointment as a Secretary of the Treasury, where he was instrumental in helping Lehman Brothers sink.
While his dumber subordinates were covering for Madoff.
Wow, interesting early comments. I remember the Pentagon Papers release (their release caused Nixon to go into a paranoid overdrive that resulted in Watergate) and the blowback it caused due to the government's lies.
Frankly, the more secrets they release, the more transparent national leaders' lies will be to the public. That's not to say that's good or bad, it just is.
As for being a traitor to America or Russia or the banking system, riiiiiight.
Some of the cables shed light on why closing down Guantanamo is so hard. The US has some captured Kuwaitis, and Kuwait doesn't want them back. Kuwaiti Minister of Interior Shaykh Jaber al-Khalid Al Sabah: "If they are rotten, they are rotten and the best thing to do is get rid of them. You picked them up in Afghanistan; you should drop them off in Afghanistan, in the middle of the war zone." About a group of Iranian drug smugglers the US had captured after their boat foundered, he said "God meant to punish them with death and you saved them. Why?"
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.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
You know, I'm really curious. I remember the big thing about the Pentagon papers was that a sitting Congressman entered the whole of the Pentagon papers into Congressional record during a meeting of a committee this Congressman was on. Wikipedia search says he name was Gavel and there was a Supreme Court case over it.
I do see some differences with the Pentagon Papers. First the Papers were not widely disseminated on a network where anyone could get them. Since it's all over the Internet by now, does this mean it's going to become Public Domain? I don't see how it couldn't, there's no putting the cat back in the bag on this one. Secondly, the Pentagon Papers were kept from the vast majority of Congress and even National Security Advisors at the time. The majority of the state cables I'm guessing was pretty well known throughout Congress, the State Department, etc.
Anyway, I'm sure there will be some legal precedents set here. I'm curious to see what...
Go see for yourself!
It's sad that the US Government would go so far out of it's way in the face of basic guaranteed freedoms. It seems that their efforts to control the situation are backfiring one after another. I don't think the MasterCard/Visa cable would have been nearly as interesting or shocking if it weren't for the pageantry leading up to it's release. So many of these cables fall flat from "smoking gun" whoppers that everyone expected. I'm not saying there aren't a few gems in there, but it seems like it is mostly mundane communications that no one would have been terribly surprised by. The stories released are scrutinized so much more by disenfranchised citizens, and on the world stage, because of this giant PR abortion.
Agree with it or not, this is NOT the way to handle a bad PR situation. They clearly didn't learn from their mistakes the first time. I for one look forward to seeing them flail around the next time they make the same mistakes.
I'm Spartacus and I'm glad Anonymous is too. Power to the people!
"Nothing we despise in the other person is entirely absent from ourselves." -- Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer
One might note that NY Times v. United States only invalidated the injunction preventing the publication on prior restraint grounds, it explicitly allowed the government to prosecute those involved for publishing. And, in fact, the government did prosecute them (the prosecution was thrown out due to actions of the government that were tangential to the charges, including illegally wiretaps for which they then claimed to have lost the tapes.)
Since the government did not, in this case, seek an injunction imposing prior restraint on publication of the information, the applicability of NY Times v. U.S. would seem to be remote at best.
If the CIA were going to frame him for rape, I'd think they could do a better job of it than they did. No evidence, flimsy and contradictory testimony by the victims, crazy interpretations of the law, public and friendly interactions with him after the fact, waiting days before making the accusation, not even an accusation of violence. I would imagine that a CIA frame up would be a bit better constructed that the case against him is.
Actually, all they need to do is get him to Sweden and from there a rendition flight back to the Good 'ol US-of-A where the real fun starts.
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
I think where Wikileaks loses sympathy is with the release of diplomatic cables that have no other purpose than to release them. It's one thing to release information of wrong-doing. It's another altogether to release materials simply because you have them and can. It's disappointing that a) Ellsberg would equate the two and b) that Wikileaks is attempting to justify it.
For that reason I'm against Wikileaks. I don't consider them a journalistic organization. The NYT wouldn't ever say, "Look if you go after our reporter we'll release even more information!" They would take a stand or not take a stand. So Wikileaks really throws any media protection they may have had out the window. They've moved into a retaliatory mode. I'm not sure this doesn't make their actions combative and therefore a legitimate threat.
"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."
So, Ellsberg had sex with^H^H^H"raped" Swedish women?
I'm inclined to believe we were actually "Winning" and lying about it.
Ding ding ding! Give the man a cigar.
The Vietnam war was, strategically, about stretching it out to siphon Soviet assets (military and otherwise) into that conflict and away from Eastern Europe. Yes it had secondary objectives more local to the region and much of the actual execution sucked donkey balls (although never as bad as portrayed in the media), The military defeat didn't happen until after the US and allied forces withdrew and Congress reneged on promised support to South Vietnam, leaving them twisting in the wind.
-- Alastair
He's a massive liability for WikiLeaks and even WikiLeak insiders are starting to realise that ...
"It has nothing whatsoever to do with WikiLeaks or the CIA and I regret very much that Julian Assange does not publicly say that himself."
"I don't think it was a conspiracy, but this provided a golden opportunity for the enemies of WikiLeaks to use the situation"
"I spoke to him (Assange) about this. I warned him that it was not a good way to behave ethically."
"His (Assange) weakness was - is - women. I warned him it would cause him trouble."
is a wonderfully subjective word - as it is entirely subjective and short-term-ist (I wish I had the vocabulary for the word that should have been there).
People 'win' in Vegas, when they hit a jackpot. Nobody ever subtracts their previous losses from the total.
If you play a game with pre-defined rules you can win in a clear fashion - We won a football game, I won a chess match etc.
The term should NEVER be applied to any situation where the rules haven't been defined up-front. If we'd clearly stated we were going into Iraq to remove a nuclear threat - well we'd have forfeited that a long time ago.
If we'd invaded Afghanistan with a rule of 50,000 lives limit (1/5, military/civilian split sub-clause) stated up-front, then maybe we could have pundits and stats and tracking and oh oh some swoopy CGI graphics.
I'm not trying to cover my own personal feelings on various conflicts - but just get very pissed off when people just announce they've 'won' and somebody else has 'lost'
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.
He'll never touch US soil until they've gotten everything they need out of him. The "information extraction" will occur in Cuba or another secret prison.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/213720
Wednesday, 24 June 2009, 11:37
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 KABUL 001651
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR SRAP, SCA/A, INL, EUR/RPM
STATE PASS TO NSC FOR WOOD
OSD FOR FLOURNOY
CENTCOM FOR CG CJTF-82, POLAD, JICENT
KABUL FOR COS USFOR-A
EO 12958 DECL: 06/23/2019
TAGS PREL, PGOV, MARR, MASS, AF
SUBJECT: 06/23/09 MEETING, ASSISTANT AMB MUSSOMELI AND MOI
MINISTER ATMAR: KUNDUZ DYNCORP PROBLEM, TRANSPORT FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AND OTHER TOPICS
REF: KABUL 1480
Classified By: POLMIL COUNSELOR ROBERT CLARKE FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) AND ( D)
1. (C) SUMMARY: Assistant Ambassador Mussomeli discussed a range of issues with Minister of Interior (MoI) Hanif Atmar on June 23. On the Kunduz Regional Training Center (RTC) DynCorp event of April 11 (reftel), Atmar reiterated his insistence that the U.S. try to quash any news article on the incident or circulation of a video connected with it. He continued to predict that publicity would "endanger lives." He disclosed that he has arrested two Afghan police and nine other Afghans as part of an MoI investigation into Afghans who facilitated this crime of "purchasing a service from a child." He pressed for CSTC-A to be given full control over the police training program, including contractors. Mussomeli counseled that an overreaction by the Afghan goverment (GIRoA) would only increase chances for the greater publicity the MoI is trying to forestall.
2. (C) On armored vehicles and air transport for presidential candidates, Atmar pitched strongly to have the GIRoA decide which candidates were under threat and to retain control of allocation of these assets. He agreed with the principle of a level playing field for candidates but argued that "direct support by foreigners" demonstrated a lack of confidence in GIRoA. If GIRoA failed to be fair, international assets and plans in reserve could be used. On another elections-related issue, Atmar claimed that two Helmand would-be provincial candidates (and key Karzai supporters) disqualified under DIAG rules had actually possessed weapons as part of a GIRoA contract to provide security for contractors.
3. (C) Atmar also was enthusiastic about working out arrangements with the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) in RC-South to partner with the Afghan Border Police (ABP) on training and joint operations to extend GIRoA governance south. He is considering giving BG">BG Melham, a highly regarded Afghan officer, responsibility for ABP in Nimruz and Helmand provinces. END SUMMARY.
KUNDUZ RTC DYNCORP UPDATE
4. (C) On June 23, Assistant Ambassador Mussomeli met with MOI Minister Hanif Atmar on a number of issues, beginning with the April 11 Kunduz RTC DynCorp investigation. Amb Mussomeli opened that the incident deeply upset us and we took strong steps in response. An investigation is on-going, disciplinary actions were taken against DynCorp leaders in Afghanistan, we are also aware of proposals for new procedures, such as stationing a military officer at RTCs, that have been introduced for consideration. (Note: Placing military officers to oversee contractor operations at RTCs is not legally possible under the currentDynCorp contract.) Beyond remedial actions taken, we still hope the matter will not be blown out of proportion, an outcome which would not be good for either the U.S. or Afghanistan. A widely-anticipated newspaper article on the Kunduz scandal has not appeared but, if there is too much noise that may prompt the journalist to publish.
5. (C) Atmar said he insisted the journalist be told that publication would endanger lives. His request was that the U.S. quash the article and release of the video. Amb Mussomeli responded that going to the journalist would give her the sense that there is a more terrible story to report. Atmar then disclosed the arrest of two Afghan National Police (ANP) an
Parent is correct- it has NOTHING to do with citizenship whatsoever!
The unalienable rights endowed by our creator (sound a little familiar?) concept has nothing to do with government GIVING you rights - you have them inherently already and it also has nothing to do where you live or come from just that you are "mankind" which was later expanded to include women and other races (which the generic term always could apply to.)
Far too often it is asserted that we are GIVEN our rights or that foreigners have no rights or even that its a rights issue in the 1st place! Free press has nothing to do with their rights and everything to do with PROHIBITING Congress's rights to fool with the press doing it's job. I would argue that taxation of the press abridges the press especially in difficult times. Its more clear than not taxing churches which is entirely legit (as long as you tax them all evenly otherwise it can be seen as establishing 1 over another... which isn't anymore of a leap than I just made with taxing the press.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
... who try to put conditions to freedoms. like '.... if you arent doing x' or '........ if you arent for y'.
....'.
....
are there ANY conditions, prefixes or suffixes regarding the freedoms in bill of rights, human rights declaration, or the first amendments of american constitution ?
are there ANYthing that says 'you have freedom of x IF
there arent.
leave aside that, on top of this, it says GOD GIVEN and INALIENABLE rights there. this means, the rights are inalienable. inalienable means inalienable, period - no conditions of national secrets, or trade secrets, or other kind of prefixes or suffixes to the amendment.
if something is inalienable, there can be no excuse made to make it otherwise.
yet we see a lot of people around internet now, in forums, trying to justify hampering of these inalienable freedoms with various excuses. 'national security' 'government property', 'your intent'.
there is no wordage like 'national security', 'government property', 'intent' in the documents that determine the modern civil principles and rights we have today. they are called rights, because they ARE inalienable, natural rights of people.
arguing otherwise, is betraying to these principles and papers. they include declaration of human rights, bill of rights, and various constitutions including the american constitution. what's appalling is, doing this call them 'patriotic'. since when going against one's own country's founding principles, leave aside constitution, has become patriotic
Read radical news here
"any and all exposure of even the most misguided, secretive foreign policy"
Oh yeah ... I suppose that's exactly the issue. NOT.
The issue now, as it was then. Is it's irresponsible to release the information. Leaking the Pentagon papers was bad then just as this is bad now.
This BS about information wanting to be free is a huge load of crap.
Hurricane Island Outward Bound
OB
I am actually curious about something, so please go easy on the flames if this has been spelled out or is obvious. While Assange didn't take the material itself, isn't it against US law to be in possession of classified/Secret material if you're not authorized to do so? If so, could this been seen similar to receiving stolen goods? Like if I were to steal a TV and give it to you, you're just as liable as I am if you knew the TV was stolen when I gave it to you? I realize there have been arguments made about ethical/moral "obligation" and what not, but that's a personal choice -- just wondering about the possession piece...
When Lenin and his crowd of happy murderers took over Russia during WW1, the various Revolutionaries who started running the Russian foreign Service started publishing ALL of the Tsar's Diplomatic files.
As the Tsar had been talking with everyone in Europe, Asia, and the Americas, his diplomats had sent home thousands of reports - polite and impolite, about all sides of the War, and how it all started.
The diplomatic cr%p hit the fan, and outraged people and governments everywhere; it was one of the reasons President Wilson announced his policy of "Open Agreements, Openly Agreed to" as part of his peace plans.
We've been here before, and we'll be here again. Diplomacy is about haggling with people you'd prefer to shoot, which results in agreements that everyone hates, but can't live without.
"Welcome to the Age of the Wimp." - by JockTroll (996521) on Wednesday December 08, @05:36PM (#34494232)
Correction: "Age of the STUPID APATHETIC Wimp" is more like it... why do I say that? Because "Intelligent life takes a stand!" Jerry, from ENEMY MINE (from the book of "shzzzma") - yes, I know, a film only (but, it makes a hell of a point), and intelligent life imo @ least? Even Jerry there needs a correction/modification: "Intelligent life not only takes a stand, but makes one too!" the book of APK (lol).
Especially when it's getting f'd over, in any way, shape, or form... I'm not the only person saying it either, this ought to go over well w/ the "Open Source" crowd here too, because I am about to quote one of their own, as regards apathy too:
"Justified anger is better than sitting aside while bad stuff happens." - by Bruce Perens (3872) *
on Saturday April 07 2007, @12:59PM (#18647947) Homepage Journal
FROM -> http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=229865&cid=18647947
( ... & I agree 110%/totally ++ here, on that account - with you too, but, that's only because things have NOT gotten "bad enough" yet where things are done the way you see it is all... )
APK
P.S.=> See - at times? Hey - I feel much as you do man, but when times are tough (& I think they're being made to be artificially, especially financially + employment-wise w/ offshoring especially, & intentionally done so (so the housing market prices drop/bottom out even more as a single example why, while more & more US folks lose the good paying jobs that keep getting offshored for example - heh, there's a BACKLOG of foreclosures still coming in banks is why I say that, & due to folks losing GOOD PAYING JOBS & instead being given "hand-to-mouth" no disposable income for "goods &/or services" beyond food, rent, & utility + tax bills, nothing left over for fun etc. beyond that...))?
In hard times, folks especially then do what Thoreau said:
"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation" - Henry David Thoreau
(For the reason it's hard times, & they don't want to raise a stir that can affect them feeding them & their own/family etc./et al ("significant others" etc., you get my point) - if you've got something good, hold onto it & do NOT "make waves" etc.))
It's NOT really that they're "wimps", folks KNOW what's going on!
(E.G.-> I talk to more & more everyday on things going bad in many areas, & even complete strangers - they're more informed than you think perhaps, & know what you do/I do, but they're just scared to "rock the boat" in ANY way/shape/form, epsecially so, IF they are still on the "good receiving end" of things today (good job etc.) & do not want to blow it for themselves is all by getting the "powers that be" to come down on them - like Assange is having happen to he (unjustly imo, he's press imo, & he didn't steal the info.: His source did, & he doesn't have to divulge that afaik either))... apk
The US government constitutionally can not make any laws prohibiting a free press. period. end of story. If the press releases some information that gets people killed, SO BE IT. Tough luck if you happen to get screwed over by some newspaper. I do not give a rip. Why is this such a huge deal?? The government kills many people directly and indirectly ALL THE TIME (in the middle east its over 1 million in the wars) often INTENTIONALLY so why can't the 4th branch of government (the press) acting on its own in the process of doing its job have a little collateral damage? Hell, we don't even seem to care about collateral damage. The press can by the fact the government has no right or power to prohibit a free press.
Many things the press has printed can be argued to have caused the death of somebody, proving that in court is a huge problem especially 1st degree... but like I said, they can't be put into court for doing their job. I suppose some reasonable limits might make sense; however, the cost of imposing "reasonable" is far too great when its done by politicians.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
-George Orwell
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Now it appears that Begnini's joke is the truth if you substitute the CIA for the Mafia. It's starting to look like at least one of the girls in Julian Assange's bed had CIA ties, a history of politically motivated lies, and is very likely part of a CIA plot to discredit him. Well, I suppose it's more pleasant than a bullet from a sniper rifle.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
I am just saying they look quite similar..
http://bayimg.com/dABEnaAde
s/©//g
Do you enjoy living under tyranny? I ask because what you are describing with relish are the actions of a tin-pot dictatorship at the level of North Korea. Is that what you wish America to become?
I for one welcome our new, um ... uh, never mind.
Does the Great Firewall of China allow access to WikiLeaks? I think it was on the Australian internet filter blacklist for a time.
Any plans for similar system in the US?
Two treasonous Jews agree with each other. Film at 11. Too bad the Rosenbergs aren't still around to make it a party.
Support Petition: https://sites.google.com/site/wilibeaks/
Most people are mostly good most of the time.
The reason we know Mr. Ellsberg is Pentagon Papers. If he were to deny the morality of Wikileaks, it'd be like vanishing himself, no?
But the difference is that the Pentagon Papers was the culmination of a study that was done by the military. What WikiLeaks released is raw data with no investigation, no analysis and no context. We aren't seeing how one cable was rejected because the sender was a loon or another needs to be taken in context of some other document. This is why comparing the Pentagon Papers to the diplomatic papers is laughable at best.
If the CIA were going to frame him for rape, I'd think they could do a better job of it than they did. No evidence, flimsy and contradictory testimony by the victims, crazy interpretations of the law, public and friendly interactions with him after the fact, waiting days before making the accusation, not even an accusation of violence. I would imagine that a CIA frame up would be a bit better constructed that the case against him is.
Actually, all they need to do is get him to Sweden and from there a rendition flight back to the Good 'ol US-of-A where the real fun starts.
Not likely. If he disappears, keys to the insurance file will go out. Then the shit will presumably hit the fan for real. Given how squeemish the US Government is about anything that could remotely make them look bad (aside from, you know, just being themselves), I don't think they're willing to take that chance.
College-Pages.com - Online Colleges, Degrees, and Programs
The declaration of independence is akin to a mission statement, the goals... Which the founders also supported. Its not the constitution, which sadly is only a legal document and does not include the specificity of intent/purpose which weakens the document and is a large reason why the federalist papers were written to fill that void but those lack the weight of placing the intention in the document itself. The declaration is the best mission statement of intention from the same group; arguably a better supported document by the people of the day.
If you want to be picky, then you are incorrect that the bill of rights enumerates rights because it often prohibits GOVERNMENT instead of granting rights; its phrased this way because of the purpose expressed by the declaration of independence.
Prohibiting government action against free press logically applies to everybody. This is not a legitimately debatable matter, its a simple fact of logic.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news