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.'"
WTF were the Pentagon Papers? Were they pentagonal?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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.
It could just mean that he's been smeared as a rapist to try to discredit him, which he has.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Wikipedia article , basically Ellsberg copied a couple of meters of reports stating that there were now way the US could win the Vietnam war.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Assange accused of having consexual sex?
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Maybe I'm just being overly cynical about things.
With Better Sharing of Intel Comes Danger
You mean consexual sense, of course.
Yes, and locked up for that. Good riddance, I say. Sex is dangerous, and that's precisely why we have Playstations and D&D.
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"
Then you should use AMD instead.
Go ahead and post one. Who keeps you from doing it?
Freedom of speech swings all ways, it also means that you may post here something that people might not like. I would like to see it! Give me ONE good reason why Wikileaks is wrong in what it's doing. So far nobody manged to convince me, but I would very much enjoy reading a good reason why Wikileaks should cease to exist.
I do think that Wikileaks did a great service to the world, but I do not benefit from listening to opinions that match mine. People telling me that I'm right do not give me any meaningful input. I already "know" that I'm right. People are always in the assumption that they're right. But to be "more right", I need more input. More input allows me to adjust my position, to test that input against my existing input and either verify or falsify my point of view. Welcome to science. It works for opinions, too!
Only an input that challenges my point of view and presents me with an antithesis can offer me more insight. So please do. I would be happy to hear it!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
But he didn't tell the women he was having a one night stands with that he might have a one night stand with someone else as well! She might not have had a one night stand with him if he had said so! He also said he would call her back and then he didn't!
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.
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."
I misread that as PlayStations and the Department of Defense.
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
He's accused of having non-consensual sex. The claim is that there was consensual sex up to a point, but the woman asked him to stop and he failed to do so, at which point it became non-consensual.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
"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.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Assange accused of having consexual sex?
Yes. The formal charge is consensual sex contrary to the condom laws of Sweden. Previous charges of non-consensual sex have been dropped.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
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"
No, but there was this:
Ellsberg later claimed that after his trial ended, Watergate prosecutor William H. Merrill informed him of an aborted plot by Liddy and the "plumbers" to have 12 Cuban-Americans who had previously worked for the CIA to "totally incapacitate" Ellsberg as he appeared at a public rally, though it is unclear whether that meant to assassinate Ellsberg or merely to hospitalize him.[24][25] In his autobiography, Liddy describes an "Ellsberg neutralization proposal" originating from Howard Hunt, which involved drugging Ellsberg with LSD, by dissolving it in his soup, at a fund-raising dinner in Washington in order to "have Ellsberg incoherent by the time he was to speak" and thus "make him appear a near burnt-out drug case" and "discredit him". The plot involved waiters from the Miami Cuban community. According to Liddy, when the plan was finally approved, "there was no longer enough lead time to get the Cuban waiters up from their Miami hotels and into place in the Washington Hotel where the dinner was to take place" and the plan was "put into abeyance pending another opportunity".
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
All you have to do is look at how that post was modded to know why you don't see opposing opinions on the matter (unless you browse at -1).
There are some valid points on both sides, and my personal beliefs on the matter tend run in line with Wikileaks. However, anything brought up here that may look at this with any negative light on Wikileaks are usually censored with mod points (and, based on my experience, met with anti-American insults).
Maybe they sent him a black fax or stuck a lace card into a computer belonging to him, RAND Corp, or the Times. ;)
After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
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!
He also did not cuddle afterwords, for which he may get the chair.
The Air Force is building a super computer using like a 1000 playstations. They're part of the DoD I think.
I drank what? -- Socrates
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.
Surely you can't be serious!
I drank what? -- Socrates
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
Personally, I'd consider diplomats being "diplomatic" in their choice of words a step ahead. Right now it feels like office gossipping, i.e. smiling at your boss or coworker when they're around and then telling very ugly stories about them as soon as they turn their back. With a more "delicate" approach, one might arrive at a more sophisticated way of communication and in the long run a more friendly diplomatic climate altogether.
I can see the threat of even less information being recorded, of course. Yet, let's be honest, certain information has to be recorded, like it or not. The real solution would of course be to establish some kind of supervising entity that oversees everything... but then again, who gets to be that, and who would supervise them?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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
All you have to do is look at how that post was modded to know why you don't see opposing opinions on the matter (unless you browse at -1).
I'm seeing the post at 0 - which is the level of posts comming from AC-es. Like this one (which I chose to post as AC not to ruin my mod points on stupid arguments).
Ellsberge and Assange are two peas in a pod. Why would anybody be surprised by this? This merits a front page story here?
Unless there's a /. page 2 I haven't noticed, isn't every story a "front page story"?
I can see some merit here - the "good leak" guy saying "you know, the only difference between me and him is that history hasn't moved on far enough for him to become a hero too."
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'
Though this is not a claim supported by Assange nor the woman involved - which suggests that to be supported there must have been someone else in the room watching, and thus able to supply evidence contrary to that of the two primary parties.
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 is, and don't call him Shirley.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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.
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.
How do you know is or isn't important at the time? Some minor paper that at first glance appears totally trivial could provide the one piece of information that adds the context necessary to understand something much larger.
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
But he did for her a taxi so their even!
Every government on the planet is calling for Wikileaks to shut down. It seems like they are twisting the legal system, and that we are being governed by immoral, corrupt bastards who will break any law, twist any fact, in their effort to smear anyone who dares speak the truth.
Under that standard, and under the belief that Tom Jefferson said that a corrupt government has no authority, I see that Wikileaks has no option but to use any and all means to defend itself. The governments will piss on their own laws and due process to crush Wikileaks; therefore Wikileaks is perfectly justified in trying to destroy the governments' credibility by publishing every bit of damaging info that they can.
Anyone who thinks that any truly dangerous information that Wikileaks has isn't already in the hands of our enemies is living in a dream world. Wikileaks' greatest "crime" is revealing that the massive security appartus of the state has no idea what the hell it is doing and is useless against anyone with a brain. It's a money & freedom consuming monster that does more harm than good to the society it purports to protect.
Personally, I'd consider diplomats being "diplomatic" in their choice of words a step ahead. Right now it feels like office gossipping, i.e. smiling at your boss or coworker when they're around and then telling very ugly stories about them as soon as they turn their back.
I may not be a diplomat, but I see no problem with honest reports from diplomats to the people back home. Lets take the comments about Putin 'playing Batman to Medvedev's Robin'. That's the diplomat's opinion - expressed in private - but no doubt it has some truth to it.
Obviously it would be undiplomatic for ambassadors to say such things to their host governments. Presumably they don't do that. Probably Putin is a bit of an arse sometimes - it might be useful for Washington to know this. How is it possibly bad for communications to reflect this?
But this is Slashdot home of the intelligent moron and people that still believe in super hero's so it will go unnoticed!
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
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 NYT has much more resources and people than Wikileaks does.
Put yourself in their shoes:
I have all this juicy information that I think the public should know about. I want to comb through, redact, and release the info (with the help of large news orgs like NYT), but I'm scared that I may get disappeared before I've had the chance. I've distributed an encrypted copy of the info for which the key will be released if I'm dead to make sure the info can't be suppressed, and to reduce the benefit of killing me in the first place.
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.
Yes, releasing information that reveals the corruption of our elected officials that are supposed to be representing us (or corporations abusing the system) is horrible, and they deserve all of that privacy and secrecy. I just can't even stand to think of all of the people who died because of Wikileaks' irresponsibility!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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
Actually, those of us who know better are mostly just keeping mouths shut and enjoying the foaming at the mouth going on here every time Assange and the Wikileaks people get what they are manifestly deserving. Also, now I know for a fact that many people here are just anti-American, and not just all about 'information wants to be free'. Don't bother protesting, both my mind is made up, and my country's collective government's mind.
A lot of people who *think* they are accomplishing something are instead entirely discrediting themselves. EFF, take note. By the time this is done, the EFF will be about as effective in Washington as the US Communist Party.
The PR war has already been lost on this one. Anyone associated with Wikileaks will be branded a terrorist within days*, with the full assent of the US public. Furthermore, failing taking the next plane to Iran or North Korea, the principals will be turned over to the US ultimately and face the penalties for what they have done. Just watch... Refusing to extradite these people amounts to a cassus belli. No one will risk it, even China would turn them over. It should be noted that the revelation of the documents is a cassus belli as well.
Assange and his crew have attempted to blackmail a great power (the insurance file). Watch how well that is going to work... Those two Swedish women he allegedly raped might just be the last two women he ever experiences. He's already a man without a country. Those who associated with him should make arrangements, now, to flee to countries who have no diplomatic relations with the US. Time is short.
Basically, the OBL mistake was made. Since no effective response was forthcoming previously, the assumption was that the infowar against the United States could continue with impunity - even be escalated. Since Democrats are in control of the government, their native perceived weakness on national security assures that the response will be overkill. Regardless, an example has to be made to deter this type of action in the future. Those who collaborated with Wikileaks will be making the perp walk and showing up on every TV channel until the message is drummed into everyone's head. Their plaintive begging for a sentence that might let them see the outside of a prison someday (when they are old) will be transmitted widely, as well.
It might have been worth it to get all the America-haters out from under their rocks, though.
* To the extent this hasn't happened already. Some mainstream press traffic on this over the past few days.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
If you think EVER government in the world is corrupt, you have issues you need to work out.
I suggest you at least not broadcast you feel that way, it makes you sound like a raving nutter.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
There have been a lot of postings lately related to Wikileaks, and in the first few it seemed (to me at least) that the discussion was about equally modded on both sides. As there have been more posts and more discussion around Wikileaks and related issues, it seems that the modding has moved strongly in favor of Wikileaks. I personally believe this has more to do with the fact that the valid criticisms of Wikileaks are few and minor, and the criticisms of the US and other governments handling of the releases are numerous and serious. Most of the early criticisms of Wikileaks that many people agreed with have turned out to be misleading or completely false.
Just to give one example, many people early on criticized Wikileaks for supposedly carelessly dumping thousands of documents which endanger innocent lives. The US military has now admitted that there has been no evidence thus far of any innocent lives lost due to wikileaks releases. And contrary to the popular media myth, Wikileaks has not released all the diplomatic cables, for the most part they have only released the cables which were already released by other news organizations, and they included the same redactions.
So, yes, I find the modding now heavily in favor of Wikileaks, and I think that's the way it should be because they clearly did the right thing by releasing these documents.
Unless there's a /. page 2 I haven't noticed, isn't every story a "front page story"?
Check out the Sections on the left of the main page. There are stories in there that don't make it to the main page. Not all that many, but they're there.
No, he is quite correct. Every government in the world is corrupt, not only that but every government that has ever existed was corrupt. The only difference between them is the degree of corruption. Anyone who believes otherwise is a naive dolt who has no business outside of a kindergarten.
Why is this so? It is very simple: governments are nothing but collections of people with power over others. In this analysis it is irrelevant what basis that power is derived from - be it hereditary despotism or democratic media circus or something else entirely - it matters not. That is because people are imperfect and corruptible to various degrees irrespective of their location in the world or a political scheme they were raised within. Laws of probability alone guarantee that a number of corrupt individuals is present, and was present, in every possible governmental scheme, with the absolute numbers present increasing with the size of a government. Even if others within the same government detect the corruption and work against it (which itself is based on chance) there will be only so many that get expelled and due to natural generational cycles they will be replaced with new crooks elsewhere.
Its basic, historically testable, undeniable logic. It is the way things are. Corruption-free government is a theoretical ideal that has never been (and will likely never be) achieved as long as the nature of the human race does not somehow change dramatically.
how well will logic resolve if the numbers come in that more than half the population of the world supports the leak/publication of these documents ? democratic terrorists ?
I am Australian and it is extremely disturbing to me to see just how much influence the US Govt has over who is elected Prime Minister of Australia.
...I obey the laws of physics....
To those who believe wikileaks was in the wrong, here's an example of what we're trying to cover up: we're pressuring the Germans not to arrest CIA agents who kidnapped, on *German* soil, a *German national* who was *mistakenly* believed to be a terrorist. We *tortured him*, then let him rot in a hole in the ground for years before letting him out with no acknowledgement of guilt or even responsibility. This shit needs to come to light. Assange may have his own axes to grind, but what he's doing is right and protected under US law (Pentagon Papers case, duh). The Times article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/world/europe/09wikileaks-elmasri.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
One of the articles on the subject it is a crime in Sweden to use emotional pressure to get someone to have sex. If that was rigorously enforced in most countries the prisons would be REALLY full.
If the scenario you paint is becoming real, freedom and democracy as we know it is dead.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Also, now I know for a fact that many people here are just anti-American,
You miss the fact that many of us are anti-Republicrat. I love the USA and hate the idiots running it into the ground the last 50 years. Both sides of the fence, most 3rd parties, and a sadly growing number of the general population that are happy to give up essential liberties to infringe on other's liberties they don't like.
Don't bother protesting, both my mind is made up, and my country's collective government's mind.
Ah yes. Another prick who has made up his mind that he's right and anyone who disagrees is obviously wrong and you don't need to think about anything, ever. You are the reason this country is going down in flames.
Learn to love Alaska
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
Many of the anti wiki posts have been modded up.--also many of them simply tow the party line. "endangering lives", "illegal", "anti American", etc. Nothing that Fox hasn't already covered.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
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?
Also, now I know for a fact that many people here are just anti-American
The American People != The American Govt. Having lived in the US, I found the people some of the friendliest and most welcoming as a nation I'd ever encountered. I am a big critic of US foreign policy but that doesn't make me blanket "anti-american". Hell, can you pick a single nationality on Slashdot where people of that nation would post "hey - please judge me by my government?" Don't muddle the issues.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
New Zealand was found to be one of the least corrupt government on the planet (top 3, I think). And they've had a number of politicians step down within the past year because of corruption. Sure, not the massively bad stuff, just little stuff like expense fraud and such, but still certainly not zero. And yes, the politicians work with corporations to make decisions that may benefit donors above constituents.
Learn to love Alaska
Now this is very true, and it's also an interesting point.
I can't think of any past incident which has simultaneously threatened so many governments. There's been loads of instances where leaks have seriously damaged - and even collapsed - a single government. But here we're looking at things which could damage governments the world over.
Paradoxically, the best chance Julian Assange has to survive is probably if he's thrown in prison. Lots of countries are run by governments with a rather lower tolerance for people who embarrass them - governments that don't mouth off to the press, they just quietly send someone with a phial of poison over to meet whoever's upsetting them. Sooner or later (if they haven't already) Wikileaks is going to release something that affects such a government.
While I'm not sure killing Assange would make one whit of difference to what's going on now, it'd send a powerful message to anyone else who wants to run such a site: "Embarrass us and you too can die horribly!".
Every government on the planet is calling for Wikileaks to shut down.
Really? Because I just did some digging and so far I can find exactly 2 governments that have said so, being the US and France. I see a ton of press debating both sides of the issue, as well as stances being taken by elected officials, but no calls to shut it down.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
The butchers bill isn't paid in full yet. The people who run Wikileaks should have to pay in kind.
The people who release info to wikiLeaks also. Only one way to deal with rabid animals ..
Hurricane Island Outward Bound
OB
Those quotes are not from Wikileaks insiders. The first is from the lawyer representing the victims, and the others are from "an acquaintance".
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?
It might have been worth it to get all the America-haters out from under their rocks, though.
To be clear, I don't hate America, I hate those who are in control of it, and it is not the voters. Two out of the last three elections were decided by vote fraud and the third was decided by airing an unelectable ticket against the chosen candidate.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
My point is I don't think it is going down as altruistic as Assange would have us believe. Why should the cables be released? I'm not convinced that the public needs to know about what diplomats are discussing if it's not illegal. And for the most part, that appears to be the case. The cables are the pawns to protect the release of so-called "war crimes." And Assange gets to decide what is and isn't a war crime. They're left the realm of "media" and have turned against various states in what their follows admit is a war. Hopefully, they'll be treated like soldiers and dealt with. I'm all for whistle-blowing but this has gotten way out of hand.
Ah. I knew about the sections, didn't realize that some stories skip the front page. Thanks!
Support Petition: https://sites.google.com/site/wilibeaks/
Most people are mostly good most of the time.
-1 is the only way to browse. Otherwise you let modders with axes decide what you get to read.
The line between insightful and flamebait is often blurry. Why let someone else draw the line for you?
you == generic && != The_Moof
It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. --Hofstadter's Law
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.
Imagine them doing this to someone functional? "I've done acid before, and although you are all pretty unicorns spinning in circles and such, and I can clearly smell your auras, I must say that I can no longer provide the prepared words to you because I have been drugged. I know the effects of LSD, and I am experiencing them right now, and I did not intend to do this."
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I'm all for whistle-blowing...
No, you are certainly not.
You seem to be partially for whistle-blowing, so long as the whistle-blowing reveals illegal activity.
I'm not convinced that the public needs to know about what diplomats are discussing if it's not illegal.
What harm does releasing documents that reveal non-illegal activity cause? Embarrassment? I, as a voter, need to make informed decisions. I am denied the very information I need to make these decisions without releases like this.
Note: Freedom of Information Act is very limited, and would not have revealed these, as you say, perfectly legal activities.
Now, as for the illegal activities you say should be revealed -- Who make the laws that determine the legality of their actions? Hint: The very same that are performing the "illegal" actions.
An Example:
Before the Patriot Act the US government was illegally spying on the citizens, and major Telecom companies were aiding in this illegal activity. Guess what? With the Patriot Act in play it is no longer illegal to do the illegal activities that were already taking place. The Telecom's were retroactively granted immunity for their crimes against the public as well.
Far too much information is kept from the public that shouldn't be. Things that shouldn't be secret or top-secret are labeled as such.
I wonder if things would have turned out differently if the Stamp Act, and Tea Act would have been "classified" information, having the increased prices simply rolled into the sale prices of paper and tea? I'm certain this would have been better for the English Government than their Colonies (read: citizens).
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
First, don't put words in my mouth. Second, you don't vote for diplomats. You "as a voter" have very little to do with who becomes a diplomat. Advantage, moi.
There's a reason many things are kept secret. I don't have a problem with it. I think we have whistle-blowers who risk life and limb to bring these to light and in cases of illegal activity or more importantly, injustices, that's good. Wikileaks is nothing more than a bunch of petulant attention whores who thought it would be cool to poke their finger in the eye of the U.S. and other countries. I say that because, again I'll point out, they went beyond what they thought was injustice and started releasing everything.
It's sad to see Anonymous get involved. I generally think much of their work is fairly altruistic. Defending Assange isn't, however. This man should be prosecuted along with anyone else who can be from Wikileaks. They lost the high ground. They got their attention. Now they should live with it.
As for the British, the Tea Act, and the Colonies we eventually revolted as a nation. But it wasn't for such leftist ideals. I'm fully convinced, however, that the left in the U.S. will eventually have to secede, that or the conservatives. We'll see how transparent their (your?) new government is. Remember Obama and Pelosi promised the most transparent government ever.