Why WikiLeaks Is Unlike the Pentagon Papers 696
daveschroeder writes "The recent release of classified State Department cables has often been compared to the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg, the US military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers, has said he supports WikiLeaks, and sees the issues as similar. Floyd Abrams is the prominent First Amendment attorney and Constitutional law expert who represented the New York Times in the landmark New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713 (1971)) Supreme Court case, which allowed the media to publish the Pentagon Papers without fear of government censure. Today, Abrams explains why WikiLeaks is unlike the Pentagon Papers, and how WikiLeaks is negatively impacting journalism protections: 'Mr. Ellsberg himself has recently denounced the "myth" of the "good" Pentagon Papers as opposed to the "bad" WikiLeaks. But the real myth is that the two disclosures are the same.'"
Re:To summarize the article ... (Score:5, Informative)
What a load of crap (Score:5, Informative)
Taken as a whole, however, a leak of this elephantine magnitude, which appears to demonstrate no misconduct by the U.S., is difficult to defend on any basis other than WikiLeaks' general disdain for any secrecy at all.
Just off the top of my head
Wikileaks has revealed that:
security contractor DynCorp (who were commissioned to train the Afghan police forces) paying for drugs and (pre)teen party boys
"appears to demonstrate no misconduct by the U.S." ?
Re:The Gist (Score:3, Informative)
They release large chunks of information, often uncensored. They hold back portions for short periods of time only so each release can be digested independently, and to continue their funding. I expect all of the cables to be released publicly within the year, and they have handed the entirety of the cables to certain news outlets.
The Pentagon Papers were held back for over a decade to protect diplomatic relations.
Amnesty International (an organization overlooked in this discussion as a true bastion of peace and decency) rips foreign governments as well. They push for transparency of government abuse. But they look to protect individuals as well. And they rip Wikileaks for not redacting names of civilian volunteers, etc.
Wikileaks is irresponsible in how they handle the materials given to them.
Re:Hypocrites (Score:5, Informative)
What do you mean "nothing"?
How about spying on the UN? The US pressuring Sweden to prosecute the Pirate Bay? The US warning Germany to keep quiet about Khalid El-Masri? The US pressuring Spain "into dropping court investigations into the CIA's extraordinary rendition, torture at Guantanamo Bay, and the 2003 killing of José Couso, a Spanish journalist, in Iraq by American troops"? The US supporting Monsanto in Europe?
Heck, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contents_of_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak [slashdot.org] is long enough that I don't even know what to pick from it. Go take a look, you'll probably find something.
And, if after you look at that list (which is about 1% of the full archive) you don't find anything "shocking or surprising or that reveals unlawful activity", then something is very wrong with you.
Because a government is supposed to serve "the people". That's why. The government is not a person and not a corporation, it has no right of privacy, and in fact should be at all times closely watched to make sure it's doing what it's supposed to. When it starts being too secretive, that's a sure sign that something fishy is going on.
Re:To summarize the article ... (Score:2, Informative)
Except Wikileaks didn't release all the cables at once
That's the joke.
Re:Hypocrites (Score:2, Informative)
You don't have to go THAT extreme. Jeez.
More recently the US government was caught putting Americans in concentration camps (1940s) without due process, experimenting on blacks (1930s-50s), stealing an election (1970s-watergate), falsifying photos to create an excuse to go to war (2000s- Iraqi WMDs), and on and on. We the people have the right to know, and someone arguing we should NOT know these things is someone who never studied American history.
DaveSchroeder works in US intelligence (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure he won't mind me pointing out that he works in a United States government intelligence agency. This should really be pointed out at the top of this discussion, which is why I'm hijacking this stupid first post. Dave, how come you never mention this salient fact when you are pushing government propaganda?
Re:Hypocrites (Score:0, Informative)
You don't have to go THAT extreme. Jeez.
It's funny you should say that about C_amiga_fan, given that you and C_amiga_fan are the exact same fucking person.