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.'"
The Gist (Score:5, Interesting)
Since no one ever RTFA, the gist is that Wikileaks sees things in a very simple, black and white universe. Everything must be open at all times. With the leak of the Pentagon Papers, not all of it was leaked initially. In fact, portions of it were held back for years because the leak would only cause harm to diplomatic relations and it had no bearing on the purpose of the leak (to expose the fact that the US government lied to its people about Vietnam).
The latter part of the article is the important part. It suggests that Wikileaks may force the government to come down hard in its enforcement of laws, and hurt journalism in the long run.
To the former, I personally have no respect for Wikileaks simplistic view of total transparency when they are shrouded in secrecy themselves. As for the latter, I really hope that isn't the case.
Re:Hypocrites (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a big difference between whistle-blowing and leaking someone's bank account details (or cloying emails to a sweetheart). So far, Wikileaks has published approximately nothing that is shocking or surprising or that reveals unlawful activity -- and I include the misleadingly edited "Collateral Murder" video in my consideration -- but it has published a lot of frank discussion and analysis that is similar to your private emails.
Would you mind uploading your email archive to a web server for the rest of us to look over? If you wouldn't do that, why would you want the US government to do the same thing?
Re:No it's not Wikileaks that is negative impactin (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hypocrites (Score:4, Interesting)
You apparently don't know what "reasonable expectation of privacy" means as a legal term of art. For one thing, it triggers Fourth Amendment protection against government search -- but just because the government could search and seize your personal effects does not mean the government could publish them. For another, even the EFF's (quite good) page on "reasonable expectation of privacy" says you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your bank records. For a third, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in what you do at work. For a fourth, the concept doesn't apply to the US government as a whole.
It may not be rocket science, but it is legal art, and you apparently fail hard at it.
No misconduct found in the leaks? That's a lie. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm confused, because TFA states "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." Did the author even look at them, or just accept this fact from others, because I've heard of several examples of misconduct. I've also heard of a ton of stuff that's innocuous or laudable, and I personally am uncertain this leak was overall a good idea, but to say that the release brought no evils to light is disengenuous at best.
The most notable that I recall is funding of companies that support child sex slavery [change.org]. That's a pretty serious charge that was suppressed for political reasons. I don't really follow all the furor over the leaks, but I know there were other similarly damaging issues brought to light, and you cannot truthfully state that there was 'no misconduct' found.
Flyod Abrams needs to actually read the leaks. (Score:5, Interesting)
[Ellsberg didn't release four volumes on the] diplomatic efforts of the United States to resolve the war.
Yeah, because undermining an effort to stop a war is a bad thing. That's a diplomatic action that's, you know, doing good in the world. These recent cables on the other hand, reveal the shady underhanded diplomacy of the USA.
-Shoving USA-style IP laws onto Spain
-Bribing, threatening, and then withholding millions in aid to Ecuador and Bolivia so they'd agree to the Copenhagen Accord. But Saudi Arabia gets a free pass, because we need their oil.
These cables were not about stopping a war. Getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't hinge on Russia or China. It's mostly just saving face for politicians in the USA.
I like America. It's a nice place. But we're supposed to be the good guys. That's WHY I like America. If the USA is being shady, then we need to fix that. And the first step is to know that it's being shady. So simply because these cables are "diplomatic", doesn't mean that they get a free pass.
TFA:
[the leaks] which appears to demonstrate no misconduct by the U.S
Floyd apparently hasn't read much of the actual leaks. In addition to the above, there's also:
-DynCorp, funded by USA taxpayers, bought young male sex slaves for Afghan cops in a "batca bazzi" party. It's a tradition over there apparently.
-They're moving prisoners out of Guantanamo to foreign prisons.
-Under reporting deaths in Afghanistan. It's not going nearly as well as they've said it has. That's lying to the American people.
-Diplomats know that the Saudi Arabians are the primary donors to Al-Queada. Aren't they an ally? Isn't our "strong military presence" in the area supposed to stop that sort of thing?
-The CIA pressured Spain into dropping investigations into the killing of José Couso, a Spanish journalist, in Iraq by American troops.
Plus there's plenty of examples of the USA knowing that others are doing blatantly illegal things, like
The Shell Oil Company claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to every movement of politicians. Ann Pickard, then Shell's vice-president for sub-Saharan Africa boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.
Or that China was indeed behind the attacks on Google. Which, of course, most of slashdot was aware of. And here's the thing. Even though we-in-the-know would bet good money that it was China, the ignorant masses would tell us to prove it, and say our claims were unsupported gossip. Which it was. But now we have evidence.
Please, Mr. Abrams, go read the wiki page on the actual content of the cable leak [wikipedia.org]. (and all the fractured sub-sites that hopefully isn't some ruse to hide away the information)
Re:Hypocrites (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really. Assange occasionally attempts to appear less radical than he actually is.
Read his paper on goverment as conspiracy [cryptome.org]. He doesn't really want any large organization to be able to have private communications. That WikiLeaks is largely opaque, authoritarian and secretive is ironic, but doesn't seem to bother him much.
I'm making no judgment as to whether Assange's world view is correct or not, but he's far more complicated than your typical muckraker or whistleblower. It's a bit like living in a William Gibson novel - the hackers are starting to strike back.
Re:Secrecy is necessary for Diplomacy (Score:4, Interesting)
You miss the entire point. An inquiry HAS been made and the worst that they can figure they can hold him for is punishable by a $700 fine. He hasn't been charged with anything else, nor has he even been ACCUSED of anything more. Now explain why he has a $200,000 bond and Interpol involvement. Even if you don't support Wikileaks (and I"m not their biggest fan) anyone with any sense can see something is wrong, and there is much more involved here than meets the eye.
Try actually reading about the case. It is obvious that something is wrong when they go to so much trouble and spend many thousands of dollars in taxpayer money (in the UK and Sweden), over a crime that has a fine equal to a serious traffic ticket.
Keep in mind, having him in Sweden does nothing to help them create the charges against him, since he won't cooperate anyway, so if they were going to charge him with anything more serious than a $700 citation, they would have done so before his bond hearing, to prevent him from getting a bond. Seriously, you just don't have to look at this very deep to see that something is amiss.
Re:No it's not Wikileaks that is negative impactin (Score:5, Interesting)
Chomsky noted twenty years ago that discussion of the alleged dangers of unrestricted free speech was already occurring openly back in the mid-1970s:
"...the issue debated is whether the media have not exceeded proper bounds... even threatening the existence of democratic institutions in their contentious and irresponsible defiance of authority. A 1975 study on "governability of democracies" by the Trilateral Commission concluded that the media have become a "notable new source of national power," one aspect of an "excess of democracy" that contributes to "the reduction of governmental authority" at home and a consequent "decline in the influence of democracy abroad." This general "crisis of democracy," the commission held, resulted from the efforts of previously marginalized sectors of the population to organize and press their demands, thereby creating an overload that prevents the democratic process from functioning properly." [Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions, South End Press, 1989, available online at chomsky.info]
Re:DaveSchroeder works in US intelligence (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Under the law, NO DIFFERENCE.
2. No, they gave the files to five major newspapers and only put the redacted cables up. Also, seeing as how they were not profiting off the copied (not stolen) information, they are not a fence. You can not "fence" copied goods. You might be guilty of additional unauthorized copying, but not fencing. Maybe the USA can go after him on copyright violations, hehe.
3. No demand was made. "Don't kill me, bro" is not a demand, as "I won't kill you" the default, legal course of action. Demanding someone NOT break the law is not blackmail.
My predictions:
Manning will commit suicide by fifty three self inflicted hammer blows to the head, before he goes to trial
Wikileaks has committed no crime that the US has any jurisdiction over. They stop publishing anything once the US has killed enough of the staff.
Assange will die shortly after releasing information on the true masters of the world, the banks.
In closing, you seem a little bit too gleeful over the punishment, why does the idea of someone dieing painfully excite you?