I've read that summary three times now and I still cannot figure out what the fuck it is talking about. Except it's probably some kind of advertising for something called a Jamendo, whatever the hell that is.
It was a tripod+cameras that belonged to the now dead Reuters reporters.
Machine gun... reporters with cameras... Same threat, basically.
Go back and look at the unedited footage. They have (at the least) AK-47s. Possibly a RPG. That's not to say that the US military didn't mis-identify who and what they were and what they, ultimately, were doing. The military screwed up. But Wikileaks' treatment of the video was propaganda. Which is a shame. They didn't have to be dishonest about the incident for it to be worth attention.
That is a completely worthless argument because it can always be said the leaker could not see the "whole picture", even if the leak comes from the top of an organisation. It's nothing but a handy blanket excuse that can always be used to make any whistleblower with the best of intentions and the best of results look bad.
Someone will always be able to put a whistleblower in a bad light. They betray trusts, ignore duty (or more accurately, choose a duty that the detractor doesn't agree with), and act against law and/or contract. You can't go through that process looking pristine and beyond criticism.
More to the point, being a whistleblower involves risks. You don't get a pass because you claim moral imperative. If you believe the world needs to know about an injustice, it better be worth everything that doing so is going to cost. That's the danger of being a whistleblower and possibly what makes those people heroic.
We can only point the finger when it has resulted in obvious danger - for instance revealing the name of a CIA agent puts those that have been seen contacting her in obvious danger.
Interesting that we didn't see talk of changing laws, comparisons to terrorists, and talk of assassinations a few years ago, isn't it?
Perhaps the issue is that using terms like "the system" tends to lack focus or direction. We can all sit around and grouse that the world is a horrible place full of evil men. And while that might make us all feel good about recognizing the inherent evils in humanity... it doesn't actually help anyone.
has there been ANYthing that has exposed the corruptness of the system this openly at that high level before, despite almost ALL people on the world knew the system was totally corrupt ?
Are you claiming that this is the first time in history we've ever had a leak? Surely not as there is a history of these events even with the old governments, corporations, and news outlets.
I really suspect the gov'ts song and dance about "oh this is because we are sharing intel better after 9/11" is a bunch of face saving hokey.
(I hope you don't mind me killing your tt tag when quoting you).
I don't find it too hard to believe. We've heard of projects like Intellipedia. And there's been much ado about sharing of intel among agencies before this.
In any case, this is material that some 200,000 people had access to. What's amazing is that it wasn't leaked before now.
Either it isn't that secret, in which case 200k people having access to it is not a problem and it isn't really dangerous to get into the public sphere,
or it IS that secret and yet for some reason our gov't chose to share it with 200k people.
The question has been how a low-ranking soldier had access to this information. Part of the answer is part of the increased sharing of intel. The other part is that the SECRET/NOFORN classification isn't that high in the pecking order of classifications. That doesn't mean it's not important or sensitive. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be guarded. But it isn't going to be the end of the world if it gets out.
At one point, I worked on some equipment that was classified SECRET/NOFORN. I was one of hundreds of thousands of people who had access to that gear. The technical details about the equipment included a rather large volume that, itself, was classified because of a couple pages that contained sensitive information about the operation of that gear. I was one of tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) that had daily access to that information. We had access because it was part of our job; we had a "need to know." Access to information does not determine the classification of that information.
You can find out all manner of information about that gear. You can find out it's development history. How much it cost to develop it. How much it costs to manufacture it. Who manufactures it. Where it gets used. Some rough outlines of what it does and is capable of. But you don't find the details of those classified pages.
Because you somehow believe that journalists can't then "leak" the information to opposing factions? How are you going to control that, by making them sign an NDA? This is the most stupid shit ever. The only way to ensure information reaches its ultimate target - us, the people - is to actually open it to the people. If you don't trust the unwashed masses, then you're our ennemy...
I'll file this under "if Palin supported Wikileaks."
Because it's a moral and logical certainty that all the interests of the USA are precisely the same as those of the entire world, and that any "opposing faction" using intelligence against the USA is, by definition, evil?
And by the same logic, just because the USA has an interest, that interest must be evil?
I don't believe so, but let's call a spade a spade. If your intent is to undermine US interests, then be truthful about it. But if the intent is to uncover corruption and abuse, then how that is done is important.
When people leak stuff it's not about the cool new technology that ends up in some high tech weapon.
And intelligence isn't all about cool new weapons technology.
They leak about people lying, cheating and generally breaking the rules. It's not about releasing information about soldiers killing enemy forces in battle. It's about unaccountable spooks breaking dozens of laws and the charter of their organisations by torturing people to death.
I agree. However, at the same time, the evidence of these actions can also provide intel to opposing factions. A whistleblower and / or reporter should be considering the whole picture. There will certainly be times where the crime is heinous enough to warrent the intel damage or there will be ways to prove the incident while limiting the full intel value of the source.
Now we've had a lot of bullshit where manipulative bastards say that anyone that says anything bad about their own side, true or not, is "giving comfort to the enemy." That's just an excuse to be able to let the dead wood say at their posts without being embarrassed by enormous fuckups. The comfort angle in this case is utter bullshit because it really does not matter if somebody does the equivalent of point at one of these things and say "haha".
The fact that local tribes protect themselves against foreign aggressors trying to occupy their territory doesn't make them 'illegal' combatants, during WWII the allies called them 'La Resistance'.
And if they're shooting at troops, by all means, since they're civilians they shouldn't be shot at in return, right? That's how it worked for 'La Resistance', I'm sure.
Back to the point. Please go back and read what I wrote. I'll quote for you:
Note: I'm not saying that the US forces SHOULD have killed them.
And the main point:
Finally, the editing of the video made it look like there was no reason at all to find anything threatening about this group of civilians.
But hey - let's not let this actual thread get in the way of a good 'ole re-hashing of talking points.
First off - the right to bear arms is in the US Constitution and is not the law around the world. Secondly, we're talking a war zone with combatants who do not wear uniforms. Finally, the editing of the video made it look like there was no reason at all to find anything threatening about this group of civilians.
Note: I'm not saying that the US forces SHOULD have killed them. But I appreciate your emotionally charged statement none the less. I'm sure it was heart-felt and will be repeated whenever individual rights to own firearms is threatened by US law makers.
this is what happened up till today, and the only reason we are discovering these stuff is because some people decided governments corporations and news outlets shouldnt decide what is worth it and what is not.
Really. And what proof do you have of that? Do you know that this material has been made available to other organisation in the past?
and, if you even attempt to argue that the journalists will censor 'dangerous' information that can be used by opposing factions, that basically means anything that is detrimental to the private interests and government will be censored, including stuff like the cover up of child prostitution going on afghanistan and their cover ups for contract acquisition.
after all, its detrimental.
Well, yes. It's all detrimental. The question is whether the problem being uncovered is more important than the damage done outing detrimental information. If that is the case, then out it goes with enough information to make the case. If it takes the whole document to make the case, then so be it.
by the way, journalists are people too, from among us. if you release it to us, you release it to everyone.
And because you release it to everyone, you release it to opposing factions who use the intelligence contained. Well done. That'll help everyone. And it'll do a real wonder for whistleblowers to come.
Fun thing about Cablegate - it came about because of an increased inter-agency sharing of intel. That's more eyes seeing more information. While the obvious intent is to make intel agencies more effective (something Assange aspires to prevent), but it put information in front of more sets of eyes. After Manning's mismanagement of that opportunity, we now have the knee-jerk reaction of clamping down on that information. Less eyes. Less whistleblowers.
And of course, plenty of material for politicians to rabble-rouse with.
No. If you go back and look at the unedited video, you'll find that there were weapons in the group. But that gets removed from the edited version. But of course, the poor kids in the van that's about to get shot up gets blown up and a replay. Because details matter.
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?
It really strikes me as disingenuous when news agencies (both Fox and CNN come to mind) ask "why can't we do anything about this?" The answer should very quickly be "because there is nothing legal to do about it." But that doesn't seem to be the answer given. And in not doing so, the press is really setting itself up for the same treatment.
As an aside, I find myself in a bad position. I don't believe Wikileaks (nor Assange himself) is what people are saying it is - either demon or savior. I'm rather critical of actions by Wikileaks (and I find the Pentagon Papers an inappropriate comparison). But by being critical, I know I'm being pigeon-holed with the likes of Lieberman and his ilk. Such is the nature of the polarized political scene the politcal gamers have crafted, I suppose.
And how many of these other fronts are also paranoid over-reactions? You're invoking numbers here. You can't fall back on the point when the numbers are shown to be in question (granted, the numbers are implied but not stated - which is the kind of emotional slight-of-hand that gets us in to these messes to begin with).
I'd maintain that I couldn't know they were the real deal or not.
Moot point. The prosecution can easily show your intent to house classified documents. And if doing so means you've broken the law, you're in a very bad position (you're in even more trouble if they really are legitimate - and nobody has yet to put forward evidence that showing these documents aren't genuine). Keep in mind that when law enforcement sets up a sing (be it prostitution or bombing a crowded Christmas tree lighting ceremony), no actual criminal event takes place. But the prosecution can show that the target intended for it to take place and that's enough.
I completely agree with your assessment. That is the basis of my own criticisms of Wikileaks. Although I would add that there's a difference between criticism and legal action. I have no problem being critical of Wikileaks (although even here I dislike some of the political grand-standing that's associated with it). But I do have a problem with politicians trying to circumvent law to go after Wikileaks (or craft Constitutional end-runs to give them legal authority).
Benjamin franklin used to strip naked and sit on a chair in the middle of a long corridor in his mansion, after opening the windows from both sides and ensuring that the corridor had good breeze.
Thomas paine was SO aggressive in his crusade against religion that, he set up a church of reason, and started a new religion.
i can go on and on.
Please. Do go on. Because none of this sounds like it has anything to do with Assange or anything Assange has done. But do keep banging on the drum and rousing the rabble.
This is what really gets me when Wikileaks gets mentioned. We get a whole bunch of fluff trying to drown out any possible criticism of Wikileaks or Assange (and we've yet to manage to separate one from the other). It is the same kind of tactic for which we mock the likes of Palin and her ilk. Yet here we are, raising up Wikileaks as the champion of transparency and the greatest thing to happen for democracy and freedom in recent history.
It strikes me that bread and circuses work for any given crowd, even for the crowd who claims they are sick of bread and circuses if you simply season it to be more akin to their tastes.
If you've come across "classified" documents through unofficial and unverified channels, then there's a lot of plausible deniability there, right? How could you know that they were truly classified documents?
Wikileaks puts out a call for people to hold on to The Documents everyone is talking about. You answer the call. You accept Wikileaks' key so that they can start dumping The Documents on your system. And then you're going to claim ignorance?
This is where amateur hour ends. Either go in to this fully acknowledging your own risk or stay away from it.
Assange's job is to be the shit-shield for wikileaks, while everybody wastes their time hurling smear campaigns and arrest warrants against him, wikileaks is able to continue it's mission as before.
I like the new tact. Instead of putting Assange on a pedestal as a hero, we're going to put him on a pedestal as a martyr. Assange isn't an egotistical ass; he's a wiley tactician. Yes. I'm sure that'll play well. Then you can continue with posting donation links again.
I'm not arguing that the PP were much more important.
I understand that much.;)
But let's compare the Pentagon papers with someone reporting a murder and the latest leaks with the reporting of a misdemeanor. The latter is still important, right?
Interesting question. My point is that there is a world of difference between the murder and the misdemeanor. And I object to any attempts to equate reporting of the misdemeanor to the murder.
Let's say the misdemeanor is theft. On the face value of your question, it isn't really an issue of murder vs. theft. They are both crimes and they should both be reported. And that seems to be the underlying philosophical concept for a lot of Wikileaks support; reporting is paramount.
I don't entirely follow that philosophy. I subscribe to the concept that reporting either the murder or the theft has additional implications. So the crime in question has to be heinous enough to warrent disregarding those implications.
Let's say an agent infiltrates an office to steal files showing a financial link between the business and a drug cartel. On the way out of the building, the agent shoots someone and kills them. Revealing either the murder or the theft exposes the operation. A whistleblower sees a report noting that there was no justification for the agent killing the person and it is, indeed, murder. Without the murder, I don't see a good reason for the potential whistleblower to report the theft (without setting up more a more convoluted scenario).
This all assumes we're even talking about murder or theft. A great deal of this material is being interpreted as either non-issues or blatant crimes depending on one's political viewpoint. Which probably also alter's one's view on whether there are any implications beyond simple embarrassment.
To put a finer perspective on this, I can't fault the leaking of the "collateral murder" video. I don't agree with the interpretation and the propaganda editing / commentary Wikileaks added to the video's release. But I could see that as being a grave enough issue that a concerned soldier would leak it in light of the US Army's response to inquiries about the incident.
The public already cared. They knew people were dying. The Pentagon Papers didn't reveal anything there. Again - the point of the Pentagon papers was that four (FOUR) administrations had claimed limitations or a lack of interest in the war; even campaigned on limiting the war. But in each case, they either knew that the scope of the war was expanding or were actively taking action to expand the scope of the war. That is the revelation of the Pentagon Papers: the US government was actively and continuously lying to the public on a fundamental level. And that is the kind of thing that (suspected) Manning and Wikileaks has so far failed to deliver.
Did you know that the Secretary of State had ordered spying on the UN officials or anything else revealed? Well, it's a revelation then. It might not be as big as the Pentagon papers, but it's still a revelation.
Is it a big enough revelation to warrent a leak? Is it that important (I suspect you see that as a bigger issue than I do)? And if that is the point, then why all the other documents? Again - this is simply a shotgun with no direction and no point. Within that scatter, you can cherry-pick interesting tid-bits here and there. But there is nothing of such dire importance to warrent the leak, much less comparison to the Pentagon Papers.
Slashdot Mirror
I've read that summary three times now and I still cannot figure out what the fuck it is talking about. Except it's probably some kind of advertising for something called a Jamendo, whatever the hell that is.
Truly a new low for Slashdot "journalism".
"I demand to be spoon-fed."
It was a tripod+cameras that belonged to the now dead Reuters reporters.
Machine gun... reporters with cameras... Same threat, basically.
Go back and look at the unedited footage. They have (at the least) AK-47s. Possibly a RPG. That's not to say that the US military didn't mis-identify who and what they were and what they, ultimately, were doing. The military screwed up. But Wikileaks' treatment of the video was propaganda. Which is a shame. They didn't have to be dishonest about the incident for it to be worth attention.
That is a completely worthless argument because it can always be said the leaker could not see the "whole picture", even if the leak comes from the top of an organisation. It's nothing but a handy blanket excuse that can always be used to make any whistleblower with the best of intentions and the best of results look bad.
Someone will always be able to put a whistleblower in a bad light. They betray trusts, ignore duty (or more accurately, choose a duty that the detractor doesn't agree with), and act against law and/or contract. You can't go through that process looking pristine and beyond criticism.
More to the point, being a whistleblower involves risks. You don't get a pass because you claim moral imperative. If you believe the world needs to know about an injustice, it better be worth everything that doing so is going to cost. That's the danger of being a whistleblower and possibly what makes those people heroic.
We can only point the finger when it has resulted in obvious danger - for instance revealing the name of a CIA agent puts those that have been seen contacting her in obvious danger.
Interesting that we didn't see talk of changing laws, comparisons to terrorists, and talk of assassinations a few years ago, isn't it?
Perhaps the issue is that using terms like "the system" tends to lack focus or direction. We can all sit around and grouse that the world is a horrible place full of evil men. And while that might make us all feel good about recognizing the inherent evils in humanity... it doesn't actually help anyone.
has there been ANYthing that has exposed the corruptness of the system this openly at that high level before, despite almost ALL people on the world knew the system was totally corrupt ?
Are you claiming that this is the first time in history we've ever had a leak? Surely not as there is a history of these events even with the old governments, corporations, and news outlets.
I really suspect the gov'ts song and dance about "oh this is because we are sharing intel better after 9/11" is a bunch of face saving hokey.
(I hope you don't mind me killing your tt tag when quoting you).
I don't find it too hard to believe. We've heard of projects like Intellipedia. And there's been much ado about sharing of intel among agencies before this.
In any case, this is material that some 200,000 people had access to. What's amazing is that it wasn't leaked before now.
Either it isn't that secret, in which case 200k people having access to it is not a problem and it isn't really dangerous to get into the public sphere,
or it IS that secret and yet for some reason our gov't chose to share it with 200k people.
The question has been how a low-ranking soldier had access to this information. Part of the answer is part of the increased sharing of intel. The other part is that the SECRET/NOFORN classification isn't that high in the pecking order of classifications. That doesn't mean it's not important or sensitive. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be guarded. But it isn't going to be the end of the world if it gets out.
At one point, I worked on some equipment that was classified SECRET/NOFORN. I was one of hundreds of thousands of people who had access to that gear. The technical details about the equipment included a rather large volume that, itself, was classified because of a couple pages that contained sensitive information about the operation of that gear. I was one of tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) that had daily access to that information. We had access because it was part of our job; we had a "need to know." Access to information does not determine the classification of that information.
You can find out all manner of information about that gear. You can find out it's development history. How much it cost to develop it. How much it costs to manufacture it. Who manufactures it. Where it gets used. Some rough outlines of what it does and is capable of. But you don't find the details of those classified pages.
Because you somehow believe that journalists can't then "leak" the information to opposing factions? How are you going to control that, by making them sign an NDA? This is the most stupid shit ever. The only way to ensure information reaches its ultimate target - us, the people - is to actually open it to the people. If you don't trust the unwashed masses, then you're our ennemy...
I'll file this under "if Palin supported Wikileaks."
Because it's a moral and logical certainty that all the interests of the USA are precisely the same as those of the entire world, and that any "opposing faction" using intelligence against the USA is, by definition, evil?
And by the same logic, just because the USA has an interest, that interest must be evil?
I don't believe so, but let's call a spade a spade. If your intent is to undermine US interests, then be truthful about it. But if the intent is to uncover corruption and abuse, then how that is done is important.
When people leak stuff it's not about the cool new technology that ends up in some high tech weapon.
And intelligence isn't all about cool new weapons technology.
They leak about people lying, cheating and generally breaking the rules. It's not about releasing information about soldiers killing enemy forces in battle. It's about unaccountable spooks breaking dozens of laws and the charter of their organisations by torturing people to death.
I agree. However, at the same time, the evidence of these actions can also provide intel to opposing factions. A whistleblower and / or reporter should be considering the whole picture. There will certainly be times where the crime is heinous enough to warrent the intel damage or there will be ways to prove the incident while limiting the full intel value of the source.
Now we've had a lot of bullshit where manipulative bastards say that anyone that says anything bad about their own side, true or not, is "giving comfort to the enemy." That's just an excuse to be able to let the dead wood say at their posts without being embarrassed by enormous fuckups. The comfort angle in this case is utter bullshit because it really does not matter if somebody does the equivalent of point at one of these things and say "haha".
I completely agree.
The fact that local tribes protect themselves against foreign aggressors trying to occupy their territory doesn't make them 'illegal' combatants, during WWII the allies called them 'La Resistance'.
And if they're shooting at troops, by all means, since they're civilians they shouldn't be shot at in return, right? That's how it worked for 'La Resistance', I'm sure.
Back to the point. Please go back and read what I wrote. I'll quote for you:
Note: I'm not saying that the US forces SHOULD have killed them.
And the main point:
Finally, the editing of the video made it look like there was no reason at all to find anything threatening about this group of civilians.
But hey - let's not let this actual thread get in the way of a good 'ole re-hashing of talking points.
First off - the right to bear arms is in the US Constitution and is not the law around the world. Secondly, we're talking a war zone with combatants who do not wear uniforms. Finally, the editing of the video made it look like there was no reason at all to find anything threatening about this group of civilians.
Note: I'm not saying that the US forces SHOULD have killed them. But I appreciate your emotionally charged statement none the less. I'm sure it was heart-felt and will be repeated whenever individual rights to own firearms is threatened by US law makers.
this is what happened up till today, and the only reason we are discovering these stuff is because some people decided governments corporations and news outlets shouldnt decide what is worth it and what is not.
Really. And what proof do you have of that? Do you know that this material has been made available to other organisation in the past?
and, if you even attempt to argue that the journalists will censor 'dangerous' information that can be used by opposing factions, that basically means anything that is detrimental to the private interests and government will be censored, including stuff like the cover up of child prostitution going on afghanistan and their cover ups for contract acquisition.
after all, its detrimental.
Well, yes. It's all detrimental. The question is whether the problem being uncovered is more important than the damage done outing detrimental information. If that is the case, then out it goes with enough information to make the case. If it takes the whole document to make the case, then so be it.
by the way, journalists are people too, from among us. if you release it to us, you release it to everyone.
And because you release it to everyone, you release it to opposing factions who use the intelligence contained. Well done. That'll help everyone. And it'll do a real wonder for whistleblowers to come.
Fun thing about Cablegate - it came about because of an increased inter-agency sharing of intel. That's more eyes seeing more information. While the obvious intent is to make intel agencies more effective (something Assange aspires to prevent), but it put information in front of more sets of eyes. After Manning's mismanagement of that opportunity, we now have the knee-jerk reaction of clamping down on that information. Less eyes. Less whistleblowers.
And of course, plenty of material for politicians to rabble-rouse with.
No. If you go back and look at the unedited video, you'll find that there were weapons in the group. But that gets removed from the edited version. But of course, the poor kids in the van that's about to get shot up gets blown up and a replay. Because details matter.
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?
It really strikes me as disingenuous when news agencies (both Fox and CNN come to mind) ask "why can't we do anything about this?" The answer should very quickly be "because there is nothing legal to do about it." But that doesn't seem to be the answer given. And in not doing so, the press is really setting itself up for the same treatment.
As an aside, I find myself in a bad position. I don't believe Wikileaks (nor Assange himself) is what people are saying it is - either demon or savior. I'm rather critical of actions by Wikileaks (and I find the Pentagon Papers an inappropriate comparison). But by being critical, I know I'm being pigeon-holed with the likes of Lieberman and his ilk. Such is the nature of the polarized political scene the politcal gamers have crafted, I suppose.
Twitter aside, I think my basic point remains
And how many of these other fronts are also paranoid over-reactions? You're invoking numbers here. You can't fall back on the point when the numbers are shown to be in question (granted, the numbers are implied but not stated - which is the kind of emotional slight-of-hand that gets us in to these messes to begin with).
I'm sure the reality denial defence you propose would work out real well.
I'd maintain that I couldn't know they were the real deal or not.
Moot point. The prosecution can easily show your intent to house classified documents. And if doing so means you've broken the law, you're in a very bad position (you're in even more trouble if they really are legitimate - and nobody has yet to put forward evidence that showing these documents aren't genuine). Keep in mind that when law enforcement sets up a sing (be it prostitution or bombing a crowded Christmas tree lighting ceremony), no actual criminal event takes place. But the prosecution can show that the target intended for it to take place and that's enough.
I completely agree with your assessment. That is the basis of my own criticisms of Wikileaks. Although I would add that there's a difference between criticism and legal action. I have no problem being critical of Wikileaks (although even here I dislike some of the political grand-standing that's associated with it). But I do have a problem with politicians trying to circumvent law to go after Wikileaks (or craft Constitutional end-runs to give them legal authority).
Benjamin franklin used to strip naked and sit on a chair in the middle of a long corridor in his mansion, after opening the windows from both sides and ensuring that the corridor had good breeze.
Thomas paine was SO aggressive in his crusade against religion that, he set up a church of reason, and started a new religion.
i can go on and on.
Please. Do go on. Because none of this sounds like it has anything to do with Assange or anything Assange has done. But do keep banging on the drum and rousing the rabble.
This is what really gets me when Wikileaks gets mentioned. We get a whole bunch of fluff trying to drown out any possible criticism of Wikileaks or Assange (and we've yet to manage to separate one from the other). It is the same kind of tactic for which we mock the likes of Palin and her ilk. Yet here we are, raising up Wikileaks as the champion of transparency and the greatest thing to happen for democracy and freedom in recent history.
It strikes me that bread and circuses work for any given crowd, even for the crowd who claims they are sick of bread and circuses if you simply season it to be more akin to their tastes.
If you've come across "classified" documents through unofficial and unverified channels, then there's a lot of plausible deniability there, right? How could you know that they were truly classified documents?
Wikileaks puts out a call for people to hold on to The Documents everyone is talking about. You answer the call. You accept Wikileaks' key so that they can start dumping The Documents on your system. And then you're going to claim ignorance?
This is where amateur hour ends. Either go in to this fully acknowledging your own risk or stay away from it.
Assange's job is to be the shit-shield for wikileaks, while everybody wastes their time hurling smear campaigns and arrest warrants against him, wikileaks is able to continue it's mission as before.
I like the new tact. Instead of putting Assange on a pedestal as a hero, we're going to put him on a pedestal as a martyr. Assange isn't an egotistical ass; he's a wiley tactician. Yes. I'm sure that'll play well. Then you can continue with posting donation links again.
I'm not arguing that the PP were much more important.
I understand that much. ;)
But let's compare the Pentagon papers with someone reporting a murder and the latest leaks with the reporting of a misdemeanor. The latter is still important, right?
Interesting question. My point is that there is a world of difference between the murder and the misdemeanor. And I object to any attempts to equate reporting of the misdemeanor to the murder.
Let's say the misdemeanor is theft. On the face value of your question, it isn't really an issue of murder vs. theft. They are both crimes and they should both be reported. And that seems to be the underlying philosophical concept for a lot of Wikileaks support; reporting is paramount.
I don't entirely follow that philosophy. I subscribe to the concept that reporting either the murder or the theft has additional implications. So the crime in question has to be heinous enough to warrent disregarding those implications.
Let's say an agent infiltrates an office to steal files showing a financial link between the business and a drug cartel. On the way out of the building, the agent shoots someone and kills them. Revealing either the murder or the theft exposes the operation. A whistleblower sees a report noting that there was no justification for the agent killing the person and it is, indeed, murder. Without the murder, I don't see a good reason for the potential whistleblower to report the theft (without setting up more a more convoluted scenario).
This all assumes we're even talking about murder or theft. A great deal of this material is being interpreted as either non-issues or blatant crimes depending on one's political viewpoint. Which probably also alter's one's view on whether there are any implications beyond simple embarrassment.
To put a finer perspective on this, I can't fault the leaking of the "collateral murder" video. I don't agree with the interpretation and the propaganda editing / commentary Wikileaks added to the video's release. But I could see that as being a grave enough issue that a concerned soldier would leak it in light of the US Army's response to inquiries about the incident.
The point of why the US public cared.
The public already cared. They knew people were dying. The Pentagon Papers didn't reveal anything there. Again - the point of the Pentagon papers was that four (FOUR) administrations had claimed limitations or a lack of interest in the war; even campaigned on limiting the war. But in each case, they either knew that the scope of the war was expanding or were actively taking action to expand the scope of the war. That is the revelation of the Pentagon Papers: the US government was actively and continuously lying to the public on a fundamental level. And that is the kind of thing that (suspected) Manning and Wikileaks has so far failed to deliver.
Did you know that the Secretary of State had ordered spying on the UN officials or anything else revealed? Well, it's a revelation then. It might not be as big as the Pentagon papers, but it's still a revelation.
Is it a big enough revelation to warrent a leak? Is it that important (I suspect you see that as a bigger issue than I do)? And if that is the point, then why all the other documents? Again - this is simply a shotgun with no direction and no point. Within that scatter, you can cherry-pick interesting tid-bits here and there. But there is nothing of such dire importance to warrent the leak, much less comparison to the Pentagon Papers.