Pentagon Papers, Watergate and Wikileaks. Is there a difference?

[K-man]

It is interesting to see the reaction of politicians both here and the US to Wikileaks. Our Prime Minister condemned Julian Assange outright and some US politicians have even called for his execution as a traitor. All this and the are not even a charge laid against him. In fact some US polititions even seem to want retrospective legislation to make the publication of such information illegal. Remember, these documents were released by a US serviceman and the information published by 'reputable' news services.
I personally find it refreshing that we are finding information that makes a lot more sense than the BS we are normally fed by our elected representatives.
The same posturing was exhibited when Nixon was trying to cover up Watergate and the Pentagon Papers showed the dishonesty of the Johnson Administration. We need whistleblowers to keep the bastards honest and if no lives are jeopardised is there a problem? Is the pressure put on companies such as Visa and Mastercard to stop funds to Wikileaks any different to the censorship that China is trying to apply to the internet?
What do you guys think?

 

[Omar B]

The question is, what was his endgame in posting these papers. This is sensitive information and it seems to be all concerning US activities for the most part. I would be all for it if he was leaking secrets from countries all across the board. But I guess he's scared, because if you leak Chinese, Korean, Iranian, etc secrets he would catch a bullet to the head really quick.

 

[K-man]

Your right that this is sensitive information but there are no State 'secrets' as such. These documents apply to the UK and Australia as well and I'm sure there will be other countries is due course. The leaks regarding our previous PM, Rudd, just show him for what we know politicians are ... prodigious liars. I think it's good that he is exposed for what he is. I'm not talking about security and state secrets. I'm talking about things that we know, like Afghanistan. The war is unwinnable, just ask the Russians. For $10 you've got a friend for life ... next guy offers $20 and you're a headless corpse. The culture is different and we don't understand the culture. Our politicians are telling us that everything is fantastic and we are making good progress towards a democratic state etc etc, while privately they are telling each other that the situation is hopeless.
But, what I'm more concerned about is the presumption of guilt and pronouncement of sentence before the guy is even charged. Huckabee is probably a redneck but Palin is a potential Presidential nominee! http://www.dawn.com/2010/12/08/palin-calls-for-execution-of-assange.html

 

[K-man]

But I guess he's scared, because if you leak Chinese, Korean, Iranian, etc secrets he would catch a bullet to the head really quick.

I presume the US would be more humane .. lethal injection, electrocution or perhaps the good old lynch mob?

 

[billc]

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/12/08/wiki-creep-in-sum/

 

[crushing]

The question is, what was his endgame in posting these papers. This is sensitive information and it seems to be all concerning US activities for the most part. I would be all for it if he was leaking secrets from countries all across the board. But I guess he's scared, because if you leak Chinese, Korean, Iranian, etc secrets he would catch a bullet to the head really quick.

The government leaked the low level confidential documents in order to have a reason to take more control of the internet. We've already seen the US government launch a DoS attack against Wikileaks and the government's corporate friends deny access to banking services such as credit card and PayPal systems.

Have any documents of consequence to anything real important been released? No 9/11 documents. No documents related to the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. No documents related the NATO protected poppy harvests. Just some catty name calling documents such as comparing Ahmedinejad to Hitler that the media tells us put Americans lives in danger.

 

[Ray]

Courts upheld that the admin could have arrested and tried Ellsworth (of course the court couldn't decide his guilt/non-guilt unless an actual trial took place). The Nixon admin decline to prosecute.

I say we need whistle-blowers to an extent. I believe that Wilileaks proprietor should be arrested and prosecuted. It's time to see how the courts would decide the extent of freedom of speech vs state secrets.

 

[Empty Hands]

I believe that Wilileaks proprietor should be arrested and prosecuted. It's time to see how the courts would decide the extent of freedom of speech vs state secrets.

What Assange and Wikileaks did is perfectly legal. In fact, it's done all the time. It is illegal to leak classified information, it is perfectly legal to publish the leaked information once it has been given to you. Otherwise, Woodward and Bernstein and the Washington Post all would have went to jail for publishing the Pentagon Papers. Or CNN would go to jail for publishing the texts of the leaked classified documents recently. And so on.

The only one that should be arrested and prosecuted is Pfc Manning or whomever gave Assange the data. What Assange did is legal and should stay that way.

 

[Empty Hands]

The question is, what was his endgame in posting these papers. This is sensitive information and it seems to be all concerning US activities for the most part. I would be all for it if he was leaking secrets from countries all across the board. But I guess he's scared, because if you leak Chinese, Korean, Iranian, etc secrets he would catch a bullet to the head really quick.

Not true at all. Here are a few snippets from their list of published documents:
"Inside Somalia and the Union of Islamic Courts - Vital strategy documents in the Somali war and a play for Chinese support"
"The looting of Kenya under President Moi - $3,000,000,000 presidential corruption exposed; swung the Dec 2007 Kenyan election, long document, be patient"
"Internet Censorship in Thailand - The secret internet censorship lists of Thailand's military junta"

There are many more. The media here simply pays much more attention to the US related leaks, so unless you look, you might think that's all there is.

Also, you rightwingers (not you Omar) should love Wikileaks. They are the ones who gave you the ClimateGate emails so you can pretend that global warming doesn't exist. Where's the gratitude?

 

[K-man]

I believe that Wilileaks proprietor should be arrested and prosecuted. It's time to see how the courts would decide the extent of freedom of speech vs state secrets.

Mmmm! Sorry, you didn't say on what charge. Hence retrospective legislation! Sounds sort of third worldish to me. We don't like what you did legally yesterday so we'll make it illegal from last week!

Perhaps the New York Times editor should also be charged.

Attorney Daniel Klau, a First Amendment expert, particularly on press protections, takes issue with U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman’s suggestion the New York Times should be investigated for printing stories based on documents released by WikiLeaks.

“I certainly believe that WikiLeaks has violated the Espionage Act, but then what about the news organizations — including The Times — that accepted it and distributed it? To me, The New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship, and whether they have committed a crime, I think that bears a very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department,” Lieberman, I-Conn., said on Fox News.

Klau, a partner with Pepe and Hazard in Hartford and president of the Connecticut Foundation for Open Government, said the Supreme Court has been clear in several cases where it defined the role newspapers play in this scenario.

As long as they did not actively aid the leak and obtained it lawfully, a newspaper cannot be punished for publishing “truthful information on a matter of public significance,” Klau said.

Also in the article ... "Personally, Klau thinks Assange’s actions are “grossly irresponsible,” but not illegal."

http://middletownpress.com/articles/2010/12/10/news/doc4d024883a149a725770342.txt

 

[K-man]

Just to add a little. This is today's Age Editorial, one of Australia's major papers.
It is accompanied by the following header:

"The US alliance, not the strategic advice available to Australia's Government, is the main reason for our involvement in Afghanistan."


Cables undermine Australia's case for war

December 11, 2010
Red faces have abounded, but humour has not, among the world's political leaders and diplomats since WikiLeaks began publishing more than a quarter of a million secret US diplomatic cables earlier this month. The joke-free zone continued even when the US State Department this week announced, without apparent irony, that it will be pleased to host World Press Freedom Day in Washington next May. Meanwhile, an array of US politicians was baying for the blood of WikiLeaks co-founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange.
Republican Congressman Peter King called for his assassination, and former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin wants him hunted down like al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. A more restrained Senator Joe Lieberman argues that the US Espionage Act must be amended to ensure that Mr Assange can be prosecuted for receiving and publishing confidential government documents. Whether a revised law would be enough to satisfy the US Supreme Court that WikiLeaks does not enjoy the protection of the first amendment to the US constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press and has in the past allowed The New York Times and other mainstream media to publish leaked confidential documents, is not clear. And in any case, Mr Assange does not have to be hunted down because he is already in custody, in London's Wandsworth Prison. Swedish authorities are seeking his extradition on sexual assault charges.
Lawyers from several jurisdictions elsewhere in the world, including Australia, have expressed bafflement at the Swedish charges. What is not baffling is Mr Assange's legal standing with regard to WikiLeaks' publication of the US diplomatic cables. As Senator Lieberman's campaign for a tougher Espionage Act indicates, even in the US the possible grounds for prosecuting him are uncertain. Outside the US, it is difficult to see that there could be any grounds for prosecution. Yet Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Attorney-General Robert McClelland continue to use language implying that Mr Assange, an Australian citizen, is a criminal because of WikiLeaks' cable dump. They have not, however, been able to cite any Australian law he has broken. Nor has anyone else.
The Prime Minister is not ignorant of the law, and her attacks on Mr Assange can only strengthen perceptions that she is under pressure from the US on this matter. The considerable extent to which Australian politicians are willing to comply with US requests has been one of the revelations in the WikiLeaks cables relating to Australia, which began appearing exclusively in The Age this week. Indeed, the documents even identify Sports Minister and right-wing ALP powerbroker Mark Arbib as a ''protected source'' of information. The gulf between what politicians and diplomats say to each other and what they say to the public has been the motif linking the cables' revelations, and nowhere is that gulf more apparent than in those relating to the war in Afghanistan.
The cables show that senior Australian officials, such as special representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan Ric Smith, are extremely sceptical about Australia's involvement in the war, and doubt whether some of the tasks of the Australians in Oruzgan, such as training Afghan police, are achievable. Kevin Rudd, as prime minister, confirmed to US congressmen that the Australian security establishment was pessimistic about the war, which, he confessed, ''scared the hell'' out of him. He also crassly ridiculed the work of French and German contingents in Afghanistan, although each has suffered fatality rates more than double those of Australia's forces.
None of this has been acknowledged in Mr Rudd's public rhetoric, as prime minister or since he became Foreign Minister, nor has there been a hint of it in Ms Gillard's comments. She still speaks of Australia's commitment to Afghanistan in open-ended terms, saying Australians may remain in the country for another decade, and still invokes the possibility of jihadist terrorism being exported from the region as a justification for the war. As The Age has noted before, the argument ignores the fact that terrorism is already global. Ms Gillard will no longer, however, be able to make this case with even the faint shred of credibility it had.
Federal Parliament's ''debate'' on the war has been revealed to be a duplicitious farce, because the government ministers who spoke in support of Australia's involvement relied on arguments rejected by their own advisers. But debate on the war will surely be revived outside Parliament, especially since the cables' portrayal of the war will be familiar to those who remember Vietnam - another foreign war in which Australia became involved at US behest.
Australians deserve honesty from their politicians when the lives of our soldiers are at stake, and we have not received it.

 

[WC_lun]

Personally, I think we need people like Asuage in the world. One of the responsibilities of media in a free society is to hold government accountable. If government can do anything, say its a secret, and by doing so be free from any repurcusions of thier actions then there is a huge issue there. On the other side of the coin, media needs to hold thierselves accountable to not publishing things that would risk the lives of people. From my understanding of what was released, some things were redacted to protect people from harm. I honestly have little sypmathy for a politician with egg on his face because he's acting like a douchebag or screwing a woman not his wife.