Why WikiLeaks Is Unlike the Pentagon Papers

Wall Street Journal ^ | December 39, 2010 | Floyd Abrams

[lbryce]

In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg decided to make available to the New York Times (and then to other newspapers) 43 volumes of the Pentagon Papers, the top- secret study prepared for the Department of Defense examining how and why the United States had become embroiled in the Vietnam conflict. But he made another critical decision as well. That was to keep confidential the remaining four volumes of the study describing the diplomatic efforts of the United States to resolve the war.

Not at all coincidentally, those were the volumes that the government most feared would be disclosed. In a secret brief filed with the Supreme Court, the U.S. government described the diplomatic volumes as including information about negotiations secretly conducted on its behalf by foreign nations including Canada, Poland, Italy and Norway. Included as well, according to the government, were "derogatory comments about the perfidiousness of specific persons involved, and statements which might be offensive to nations or governments."

The diplomatic volumes were not published, even in part, for another dozen years. Mr. Ellsberg later explained his decision to keep them secret, according to Sanford Ungar's 1972 book "The Papers & The Papers," by saying, "I didn't want to get in the way of the diplomacy."

Julian Assange sure does. Can anyone doubt that he would have made those four volumes public on WikiLeaks regardless of their sensitivity? Or that he would have paid not even the slightest heed to the possibility that they might seriously compromise efforts to bring a speedier end to the war?

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.

[lbryce]

..in a secret brief filed with the Supreme Court, the U.S. government described the diplomatic volumes as including information about negotiations secretly conducted on its behalf by foreign nations including Canada, Poland, Italy and Norway. Included as well, according to the government, were "derogatory comments about the perfidiousness of specific persons involved, and statements which might be offensive to nations or governments."

The diplomatic volumes were not published, even in part, for another dozen years. Mr. Ellsberg later explained his decision to keep them secret, according to Sanford Ungar's 1972 book "The Papers & The Papers," by saying, "I didn't want to get in the way of the diplomacy."

At least for me Daniel Ellsberg is never going to be seen as having been noble for the things he didn't publish despite what he says today nor exonerate himself, make himself look good by comparison just because he's being compared to another sc*mbag who was worse than him.

[Lazlo in PA]

The fact is that this weaselly counter culture maggot Ellsberg would have pushed the last of the papers if he thought he could get away with it. This guy was going for a full discrediting of anyone involved with the war and wanted an unconditional surrender by the US. He knew the courts would never let the unreleased sections out back then. The fact that there are people today rehabilitating this sick POS is ridiculous.

[OneWingedShark]

You know something; I’m not sure I agree.
I think that perhaps one of the reasons we are in the mess we’re in right now is because a lot of wrongdoing can-be and has-been covered up by labeling it as “confidential,” or “secret,” or “vital to national security.”

I think our leaders would be at least an order of magnitude better were they held to account for their actions.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Ellsberg’s cohort in stealing the Pentagon Papers was the late (thankfully) Anthony Russo, an avowed hardcore communist sympathizer and supporter of Hanoi.

Bet you didn’t see this in the newspapers. Some of Russo’s background can be found at the research site “www.Keywiki.org”, Search by his name “Anthony Russo”. Keep watching his page for updates as more information on his communist connections become available.

The same for communist fronts that Ellsberg supported.

[runninglips]

AMEN, a closed govt is a tyrannical govt. We don’t need to know everything, but we absolutely need to know if we are being lied to. We were lied to about the Vietnam war, we are lied to about a lot of things. Things that our enemies know, but “We The People” do not. THAT is wrong.

[Lazlo in PA]

You are correct. We need to have more information open to us. The problem arises when we have genuine enemies of the state like Ellsberg deciding what information gets leaked.

The real criminality belongs to an unresponsive congress. It is our elected officials responsibility to ferret out what info is necessary to keep private for our safety and what is being withheld for BS reasons. At least I can vote out the rat bastard rep that screws the country. What could we ever do to Ellsberg but throw a rotten egg at him.

[StonyBurk]

The most notable difference I see —is the “already captured press” has rushed to draw attention to Wikileaks-the publisher
and ignores the homosexual Pvt.Manning who provided access to the “classified material”And the media has rushed to present the typical homosexual who betrayed his countries trust in a tantrum typical of the jilted queer. ..the media has rushed to portray Manning as some sort of hero in this.
With the Pentagon papers -everybody remembers the attorney
Ellsburg but ignores the publisher.

[StonyBurk]

Must AGREE— Well said— ,Sir T’anks