Daniel Ellsberg was a hero. How is Julian Assange not a hero?

[Simplicio]

@Martin_Hyde

Additionally, before publishing it, Ellsberg actually went to people inside the Nixon Administration to try and get them to go public, since the papers were from the Johnson Administration he thought they may be willing to do so. However, they were not, only then did he go to the New York Times.

Bradley Manning never tried to do that, for one, so that immediately makes his behavior a little less respectable

FWIW, news organizations had been trying to get the gov’t to release the attack helicopter footage. So while Manning didn’t request its release, others had, and the gov’t had made it clear it wasn’t going to release it.

[newcomer]

@VinylTurnip

Boy, I bet he felt like a chump when we were greeted as liberators, uncovered stockpiles of WMD, and the war was over in a matter of weeks and completely paid for itself!

Someone that embarrassingly wrong on every count should have the decency never open his mouth again, let alone be taken seriously by anyone with a functioning brain…

I think you mixed up two Bushes and two wars against Iraq but the point still stands.

Hm, now that I read what I just wrote it makes whatever we’re talking about here totally and utterly meaningless as it seems that things WILL happen no matter what – against the war, for the war, pacifist – makes no difference. Sometimes I feel that people go on endless debates about it only to subdue inevitable depression that comes after realizing how insignificant as individual they are.

If I have to define one thing I expected WikiLeaks to disprove is the idea that all the mangled wars lately are NOT due to incompetence. This is one thing that bugs me a lot – this idea where, when faced with all kinds of post-event information about an event there is a tendency among the upstanding citizens to rationalize the work of their elected officials as incompetence.

[Marley23]

I guess it’s a cheapshot to say that nobody ever accused Daniel Ellsberg of rape, but there’s that, too.

@BrainGlutton

This, BTW, is why Ecuador gave Assange asylum:

No, it’s why Ecuador says it gave Assange asylum. The real reason is probably this:

@Ravenman

That article completely leaves out what might be the most important factor: that a government friendly to Hugo Chavez is doing something to poke the imperialist United States in the eye.

Some commentators have already pointed out that it’s rather hypocritical or self-serving of Assange to accept the support of a country that is so opposed to a free and independent press. Focusing on Assange’s personal attitude is a little beside the point, although it’s easy to see why he annoys the crap out of a lot of people. I do think WikiLeaks has a point that governments go much farther than necessary in keeping information from the public even though a lot of the stuff they’ve released has no value and holds no interest for anybody, while the Pentagon Papers had real significance (even more than the helicopter video). And maybe people feel it counts for something than Ellsberg was willing to stand behind what he did rather than hiding; certainly Nixon’s attempt to persecute him later made him more sympathetic and might’ve reminded people that a conscientious lawbreaker is better than an unconscientious lawbreaker, especially if the second one also works for the government. And on that note the “demands” regarding Manning are really ridiculous.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Ravenman

Basically, his conclusions were that tens of thousands of Americans would be killed by the fearsome Iraqi army (punctuated by a description of how the Iraqis would lure our military in to traps around their military fortifications in the desert, release oil and set it ablaze, leading to our servicemen being brutally burned alive), that the war would likely be a long, hard, slow slog, and a draft was almost inevitable.

Weirdly, though, this doesn’t sound a great deal unlike Gulf War redux.

[tomndebb]

@BrainGlutton

:dubious: Nothing in my argument even implies a position that publishing secret information is always praiseworthy in and of itself, without context.

But, you knew that.

Actually, you have gone out of your way to avoid making an argument, despite posting in Great Debates.

But you knew that.

[cckerberos]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Weirdly, though, this doesn’t sound a great deal unlike Gulf War redux.

Not really. I mean, he got the long and slow part right but that’s about it.

[Simplicio]

@Marley23

And maybe people feel it counts for something than Ellsberg was willing to stand behind what he did rather than hiding;

?? Ellsberg literally went into hiding.

[Marley23]

@Simplicio

?? Ellsberg literally went into hiding.

He went into hiding after the first Pentagon Papers excerpts were published (I forgot about that), but only briefly. He resumed public life and turned himself in when criminal charges were brought against him. Like I was saying, I perhaps people think that gives him some gravitas that Assange doesn’t have.

[Paranoid_Randroid]

Wow. I have difficulty picking back up a conversation after a five minute gap; some of you can let two years go by as if it were an instant.

[John_Mace]

Assange isn’t the one we should be comparing the Ellsberg. Assange didn’t take any classified info, and he isn’t even a US citizen. Manning is the Ellsberg analog here, and the fact he was a member of the US military puts a whole different spin on the issue. As someone in the military, he’s subject to military, not civilian justice for acts committed as a military person.

IOW, he’s fucked.

[Simplicio]

@John_Mace

Assange isn’t the one we should be comparing the Ellsberg. Assange didn’t take any classified info, and he isn’t even a US citizen. Manning is the Ellsberg analog here, and the fact he was a member of the US military puts a whole different spin on the issue. As someone in the military, he’s subject to military, not civilian justice for acts committed as a military person.

IOW, he’s fucked.

Ellsberg was saved by the fact that the Nixon Admin couldn’t put one foot in front of the other without three illegal wiretaps and a burglary, so the judge ruled a mistrial. I imagine he would’ve been at least mildly fucked if the Administration had had their act together, civilian court or no.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Condescending_Robot

Your problem with Bradley Manning is that he didn’t tell his military superiors in advance that he was going to release video of the U.S. army murdering people? Um, OK.

Nope. I just said that’s one of the things that makes him different from Daniel Ellsberg. Plus, the whole point of my post was actually that Assange isn’t Ellsberg in this scenario, he’s the New York Times. The Ellsberg in this situation is Bradley Manning.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Simplicio

Ellsberg was saved by the fact that the Nixon Admin couldn’t put one foot in front of the other without three illegal wiretaps and a burglary, so the judge ruled a mistrial. I imagine he would’ve been at least mildly fucked if the Administration had had their act together, civilian court or no.

Yes, Ellsberg wasn’t military but he had a job in the executive branch and a security clearance. Anyone who has a security clearance is subject to criminal penalties for violating it. Ellsberg deliberately violated it, but as you say the Nixon administration basically was inept in prosecuting him and it resulted in a mistrial. Ellsberg was supremely lucky.

The Nixon Administration basically broke all the rules and got their case thrown out. They had like two or even three cases in which they had conducted illegal surveillance on Ellsberg, and also failed to disclose various pieces of evidence to the defense team they were required to disclose.

[magellan01]

@Martin_Hyde

Yes, Ellsberg wasn’t military but he had a job in the executive branch and a security clearance. Anyone who has a security clearance is subject to criminal penalties for violating it. Ellsberg deliberately violated it, but as you say the Nixon administration basically was inept in prosecuting him and it resulted in a mistrial. Ellsberg was supremely lucky.

The Nixon Administration basically broke all the rules and got their case thrown out. They had like two or even three cases in which they had conducted illegal surveillance on Ellsberg, and also failed to disclose various pieces of evidence to the defense team they were required to disclose.

Yes, VERY lucky. His ass should have been thrown in jail and still be there. Hopefully we’ll get it right with Manning and Assnage.

[DSeid]

@BrainGlutton referring to Ellsberg

He did the heroic thing for impeccably heroic reasons.

@BrainGlutton referring to Assange

Not lies, apparently, just a lot of embarrassing little secrets.

@BrainGlutton

:dubious: Nothing in my argument even implies a position that publishing secret information is always praiseworthy in and of itself, without context.

It seems you’ve answered your own question. Few would argue that those who work for governments should be able to have private conversations. Most of us have no problem with secrets per se.

Per your presentation Ellsberg revealed information to expose lies and illegal actions with the understanding that he was likely going to face significant consequences for his actions. Assange exposed secrets with no end other than revealing private conversations that might be embarrassing. Assange’s mission seems to be make those who work for governments afraid to speak frankly to each other, to say, in private, what they really think about another leader lest it comes out in a dump. And to make a name for himself and get laid. And to be able to be above the law of Britain and Sweden by evoking the boogeyman of big evil United States.

The only thing they have in common is that they both were involved in the publishing of secret information of the United States. The context and pretty much everything else about the two circumstances was completely different. And as you note, the context is what matters.

[BrainGlutton]

Daniel Ellsberg chimes in!

[Evil_Captor]

@Jackmannii

Agreed.

Plus, if BrainGlutton thinks Assange is a hero for making secret government information public, he must also believe that Robert Novak is a hero for outing CIA agent Valerie Plame.

You have things exactly backward. Valerie Plame was outed to get back at her husband, Joe Wilson, for an article revealing that the Dubya falsely claimed in his state of the union message that Iraq had been seeking to buy yellowcake from Niger. Plame was outed as a CIA agent by the White House in RETALIATION for revealing a government secret. Novak was merely their willing tool.

Joe Wilson is a hero, Novak was just a press toady for the Bush Administration … one of several that were approached by Scooter Libby and others with this information. You could not POSSIBLY have gotten things more backward.

Cite.

In other news, Daniel Ellsberg and Julian Assange are also heroes.

[BrainGlutton]

@magellan01

Yes, VERY lucky.

Ellsberg agrees he was lucky.

AMY GOODMAN: You were charged? You were indicted for having secret documents and giving them away?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: For possessing them and for possessing them without authorization. There was a second grand jury going on that would have gotten me in a second trial for distribution, which of course I was also involved in. I didn’t contest any of the facts. And would—that would probably, for the first time, have brought in newspaper people, like Neil Sheehan and Hendrick Smith. That was quashed after government criminality led to the ending of my trial, and so they dropped the other grand jury. As a result, we have no prior precedent of a newspaper person being tried under that charge. I was a former official. Julian Assange would be the first, again, charged. No newspaper person has been so charged.

[BrainGlutton]

@magellan01

Hopefully we’ll get it right with Manning and Assnage.

Ellsberg on Assange:

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, everything that we’ve seen supports the position of his defense team, that this is not about sexual charges in Sweden, essentially, that that’s a cover story—whatever substance there may be to that story. But the procedures that have been followed here are extraordinary: a red notice here, very unusually given, never under these circumstances, to arrest him and these heavy efforts to extradite him, after he had offered either to be questioned by the prosecutor herself or by some representative of her in the Swedish embassy or the British embassy or by British police in London, where he was, something that, by the way, is routinely done all the time, and the expense is paid for that, if necessary—all of that being refused. Why? In a situation where this man is charged with criminal charges by no country—not by Sweden, not by Britain, not by the United States, although there may in fact be a secret indictment already waiting for him in the United States, being denied or lied about right now by my country. But no charges have actually been made public. So, here, all this emphasis just to get him charged—just to get him questioned, rather, when he’s offered himself for questioning, even right now in the Ecuadorean embassy. The state of Ecuador has actually officially proposed that that take place in the Ecuadorean embassy or elsewhere and in London. And that has been refused. All of this supports the idea that this is merely a way of getting him to Sweden, which apparently would be easier to extradite him from to the United States than Britain. If Britain were totally open to extraditing him, it would have happened by now. Two years have passed. But he’s an Australian citizen, a member of the Commonwealth, and the criteria for extraditing somebody who’s been telling the truth and is wanted for what can only be a political crime in another country are apparently more stringent here than they might be in Sweden.

So I think that—in fact, I join his lawyers, Michael Ratner and others, in saying that he has every reason to be wary that the real intent here is to whisk him away to America, where it really hasn’t been made as clear what might be waiting for him as I think one can conjecture. The new National Defense Authorization Act—and I’m a plaintiff in a suit to call that act unconstitutional, in terms of its effect on me and on others, a suit that has been successful so far at the district court level and has led to that act being called unconstitutional. But on its face, that act could be used against Julian Assange or Bradley Manning, if he weren’t already in military custody. Julian Assange, although a civilian, and not an American civilian at that, would seem to me, a layman, to be clearly subject to the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, putting in military detention for suspicion of giving aid to an enemy, which he’s certainly been accused of by high American officials. I don’t see why he couldn’t be put in indefinite contention, without even the charges that I faced 40 years ago for doing the exact same things that he did.

Ellsberg on Manning:

And Assange went on to say, “While today much of the focus will be on the decision of the Ecuadorean government, it is just as important that we remember Bradley Manning has been detained without trial for over 800 days. The task of protecting WikiLeaks, its staff, its supporters and its alleged sources continue.” That from Julian Assange’s statement yesterday. Final comment, Dan Ellsberg?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Absolutely. There’s no reason to believe that he would get what in past years, including my time when I was prosecuted, would pass for a fair trial or for fair treatment in this country. I’m sorry to say that there’s been something like a coup some 10 years ago, an executive coup against our Constitution and against the separation of government. It’s outrageous that Bradley Manning’s trial has again been postponed by the action of the government 'til next spring. He will have spent—he’s already spent more than 800 days in confinement, 10 months of it and more in conditions that Amnesty International called torture. The idea that President Obama ended torture is simply not true. He didn’t end it even in this country, in terms of isolated commitment, incommunicado, basically, and conditions of nudity, in some cases, intended to humiliate him—all intended to press him to cop a plea and reduce his sentence from the life sentence they’re asking to a much lower sentence, if he will only implicate Julian Assange in ways that would allow them to bring a trial without great embarrassment.

Now, let me enlarge on that for a moment. They don’t have to extradite anyone to bring someone under these charges under the WikiLeaks disclosures. Everything Julian Assange could possibly be charged with under our law was committed as an act by Bill Keller, the president—sorry, the managing editor of—the executive editor of the New York Times. I don’t mean the New York Times should be indicted or that Keller should be indicted. That would be an outrage, just as it is an outrage to think of indicting Julian Assange for exactly the same thing. But meanwhile, Bradley Manning is facing charges that he aided the enemy, absurd charges that amount virtually to treason. And many people have even called for execution of either of them. Well, obviously, the same charges then could lead to Julian Assange being tried under the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, which has just been found unconstitutional by a courageous and right-thinking judge in the first—in the district of Manhattan—

AMY GOODMAN: Dan Ellsberg, we want to thank—

DANIEL ELLSBERG: —right now, which has been—found that act unconstitutional. That’s the act under which I was tried. I wish I had had the chance to go for an injunction under that charge. She’s obviously right.

[Evil_Captor]

@Measure_for_Measure

This is false. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/world/30reax.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw

Look, I’m still witholding judgment on this affair: I like to do that for a few days to let things settle out. But Julian Assange hasn’t just dumped this disjointed trove of materials on the world. Whether he’s acted prudently is another matter: he certainly hasn’t enhanced his life expectancy. The Australian national is in over his head.

IMHO, they should throw the book at Pfc Manning though, who is a citizen of the US.

Well the’ve kept him in solitary for a couple of years now, made him stay naked in his cell for some portion of that time, sounds to me like they are punishing the hell out of him already. What would you like to have them do, remove his teeth without anesthethic? Electro-shock to the genitals? If there were any justice, he’d have gotten the same punishment that Scooter Libby got for his arguably more treasonous act – a commuted sentence. But there is no justice.