Yeah he is definitely not Daniel Ellsberg. Of course people are going to focus primarily on Assange and not on people who are working hard to responsibly leak information that has a purpose.

In retrospect, I think Assange should have made an effort to only release information that revealed corruption or wrongdoing. I don't see much point in leaking classified information just for the sake of releasing classified information. Less wikileaks, more wikiwhistleblowing. Were there any other major bombshells other than the 'Collateral Murder' video? And what ever happened to those supposed leaks that were to bring Bank of America to its knees? Daniel Ellsberg he is not.

I had the privilege of talking with Daniel Ellsberg a couple of weeks ago about Assange and wikileaks and while he's in support of the freedom of information, he still feels Assange is a bit of a strange character.
Hard to separate the message from the messenger, but necessary to do so.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
*promote the propaganda.

a 22 minute anti-obama ad using nationalism as the vehicle.
america rah rah rah!!!
honor ...duty...and the american way.
because when we come to kill you in your sovereign country,due to you being brown,nobody should be made aware of those assasinations *cough* i mean "high priority" military targets.

this video is just one big ball of bullshit.

lets ask daniel ellsberg how he feels about leaking intelligence.

*promote the propaganda.

a 22 minute anti-obama ad using nationalism as the vehicle.
america rah rah rah!!!
honor ...duty...and the american way.
because when we come to kill you in your sovereign country,due to you being brown,nobody should be made aware of those assasinations *cough* i mean "high priority" military targets.

this video is just one big ball of bullshit.

lets ask daniel ellsberg how he feels about leaking intelligence.

"Bradley E. Manning (born December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was arrested in May 2010 in Iraq on suspicion of having passed restricted material to the website WikiLeaks. He was charged in July that year with transferring classified data onto his personal computer, and communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source. An additional 22 charges were preferred in March 2011, including "aiding the enemy," a capital offense, though prosecutors said they would not seek the death penalty. He currently awaits a hearing to decide whether he will face a court martial.[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

So he's been locked up with no trial, only charges, for a full year (almost).

Not to mention that very shabby conditions he's being held in, which to me seem obviously punitive, which is illegal.
>> ^Morganth:

He does though. They can't just give you a trail date immediately when you're arrested. His trail date is within the next two months.>> ^gwiz665:
But here's the kicker - Manning hasn't been tried for anything. Not found guilty of anything. He has just been imprisoned.
In a society of law, this can't be right.
>> ^SDGundamX:
I think there are two separate issues here: breaking the law and morally doing the right thing. They're not always the same. Obama's answer shouldn't be shocking to anyone because from the government's standpoint Manning did indeed break the law. So did Daniel Ellsberg. The only reason Ellsberg wasn't convicted in fact was because of the gross misconduct of the government during the prosecution of his case, which resulted in a mistrial. But Ellsberg freely admits to knowing he was breaking the law and expecting to go to prison--he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do.
If someone with access to classified or top secret information mentions--even in a casual conversation--anything about the materials they have access to, they know they are going to go to be arrested and tried. That's what the law says. The law has said that since the Espionage Act of 1917. If people disagree with it, they need to lobby to have the law either amended or repealed. To be fair though, the law has been used successfully many times to prosecute actual spies and others who tried to make a profit by selling classified materials. I think given the circumstances, though, the law needs to be updated somehow to account for whistle-blowers.

He does though. They can't just give you a trail date immediately when you're arrested. His trail date is within the next two months.>> ^gwiz665:

But here's the kicker - Manning hasn't been tried for anything. Not found guilty of anything. He has just been imprisoned.
In a society of law, this can't be right.
>> ^SDGundamX:
I think there are two separate issues here: breaking the law and morally doing the right thing. They're not always the same. Obama's answer shouldn't be shocking to anyone because from the government's standpoint Manning did indeed break the law. So did Daniel Ellsberg. The only reason Ellsberg wasn't convicted in fact was because of the gross misconduct of the government during the prosecution of his case, which resulted in a mistrial. But Ellsberg freely admits to knowing he was breaking the law and expecting to go to prison--he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do.
If someone with access to classified or top secret information mentions--even in a casual conversation--anything about the materials they have access to, they know they are going to go to be arrested and tried. That's what the law says. The law has said that since the Espionage Act of 1917. If people disagree with it, they need to lobby to have the law either amended or repealed. To be fair though, the law has been used successfully many times to prosecute actual spies and others who tried to make a profit by selling classified materials. I think given the circumstances, though, the law needs to be updated somehow to account for whistle-blowers.

>> ^NetRunner:

Good on activists for pushing on Obama about this. Bad on them for making it about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial.


Very good point. Yes, he can legally be Court-martialed, but that is a much lower standard of justice. One which should only be used when a proper trial is truly not possible. The same goes for everyone accused of terrorism.

The ethics of what he did is much harder to defend. Most leaks are done to expose specific crimes or wrongdoing, and they are a courageous act of patriotism when that is the case. But leaking a database of hundreds of thousands of documents in the hopes that some will show wrongdoing (or at least be embarrassing), is not really the same as what Daniel Ellsberg did.

Of course, his treatment while awaiting court-martial is unacceptable. Unless he genuinely is suicidal, even then they could handle it in a less cruel manner.

But here's the kicker - Manning hasn't been tried for anything. Not found guilty of anything. He has just been imprisoned.

In a society of law, this can't be right.
>> ^SDGundamX:

I think there are two separate issues here: breaking the law and morally doing the right thing. They're not always the same. Obama's answer shouldn't be shocking to anyone because from the government's standpoint Manning did indeed break the law. So did Daniel Ellsberg. The only reason Ellsberg wasn't convicted in fact was because of the gross misconduct of the government during the prosecution of his case, which resulted in a mistrial. But Ellsberg freely admits to knowing he was breaking the law and expecting to go to prison--he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do.
If someone with access to classified or top secret information mentions--even in a casual conversation--anything about the materials they have access to, they know they are going to go to be arrested and tried. That's what the law says. The law has said that since the Espionage Act of 1917. If people disagree with it, they need to lobby to have the law either amended or repealed. To be fair though, the law has been used successfully many times to prosecute actual spies and others who tried to make a profit by selling classified materials. I think given the circumstances, though, the law needs to be updated somehow to account for whistle-blowers.

I think there are two separate issues here: breaking the law and morally doing the right thing. They're not always the same. Obama's answer shouldn't be shocking to anyone because from the government's standpoint Manning did indeed break the law. So did Daniel Ellsberg. The only reason Ellsberg wasn't convicted in fact was because of the gross misconduct of the government during the prosecution of his case, which resulted in a mistrial. But Ellsberg freely admits to knowing he was breaking the law and expecting to go to prison--he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do.

If someone with access to classified or top secret information mentions--even in a casual conversation--anything about the materials they have access to, they know they are going to go to be arrested and tried. That's what the law says. The law has said that since the Espionage Act of 1917. If people disagree with it, they need to lobby to have the law either amended or repealed. To be fair though, the law has been used successfully many times to prosecute actual spies and others who tried to make a profit by selling classified materials. I think given the circumstances, though, the law needs to be updated somehow to account for whistle-blowers.

First of all, the book is being charged because the staff members of NYTimes had to read through piles upon piles of information, sifting through the redundant text and picking out things that are actually worth of note (U.S. Diplomatic cable leak alone were over 250,000 classified cables from various U.S. Embassies).

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/over_250000_us_diplomatic_documents_released_by_wi.php

And they summarized the information they found into a book, and is charging a service fee for the work they've put in. I have no disillusions about why the book is being charged as it is called a 'service fee' and that's how a free market works, you trade in resource or capital value in exchange for goods and services.

I heard the story on NPR interviewing NYTimes executive editor Bill Keller and he explains the situation a little further than just purely relying on this little video clip for all the information on the matters involved (do some research of your own over this matter. It wouldn't hurt). It seemed that NYTimes as well as other journalistic organizations couldn't really trust this Julian Assange guy, as he acted on this hidden agenda of his own that Assange never fully reveals; an alterior motive separate from fighting against the evils of the world and taking down giant corporations.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/01/133277509/times-editor-the-impact-of-assange-and-wikileaks

Keller also mentions his doubts against the demand for full disclosure of everything, including exposing his staff writers to the public eye to be hassled and receive death threatened from this numerous yet anonymous people. But that's another issue.

I have my own reasons to be skeptical about Assange's full motives.

http://videosift.com/video/Julian-Assange-helps-a-falling-old-man?loadcomm=1#comment-1135222

And from the looks of it the guys at NYTimes had a reason of their own, whatever it may be and have cut ties with Julian Assange. They suspected something was off with Assange, though they never fully reveal just exactly what it was. But they are a journalistic organization and I'm sure they've had plenty of research done on their part. Anyways that's what Keller suggests in his interview, and that's what most other journalistic organizations are saying as well at this point who has also cut ties with Assange.

Now I highly doubt NYTimes is doing this because they are somehow a part of the media conglomerates trying to undermine the works of Julian Assange. NYTimes may have gotten a bit inattentive over the years and let a few things slip (especially during the Bush years). But that doesn't mean they are ones to shy away from criticizing the wrongs of our society. They've took on Nixon's administration before, they've dealt with Daniel Ellsberg. It's not like this was the first time dealing with a situation like this. So there must have been a pretty damn good reason why such reputable journalistic organizations decided to cut ties with Assange.

We all have our doubts and suspicion. And as I've already mentioned I have my own doubts about this Assange guy. All I can say for now is that Julian Assange is just a human. Of course we shouldn't undermine the fact that he did a very difficult and brave thing as well as muster up quite a resource around him using his skills and talent. But when someone has a motive of their own that does not coincide with what he preaches himself to be, it creates a disconnect from its audience and raises suspicion amongst his partners. If he is working for the good of humanity, why is he censoring himself or trying to manipulate how the story is leaked? Why is he trying to make a career out of whatever that he is doing? If he is really serious about the cause, why won't he just go balls out against the government like Ellsberg did who was very clear about his intent, who gave up his career, his friends and his life, instead of going around the world putting himself on this role of elusive vigilante?

Assange is not this knight in shining armor on a white horse that you guys make him out to be, in my opinion. But perhaps he was just a curious boy who managed to climb up a tall tree and kicked the hornet's nest and watch the shit go down. While the rest of us down on the ground doesn't know exactly why or how it all happened.

I say Assange is not guilty. All he did is made public the documents. He did not steal them.

HULU has a documentary on the Pentagon Papers. Titled The most Dangerous man in America.

1971 Daniel Ellsberg, a high-level Pentagon official and Vietnam War strategist, concluded that the war is based on decades of lies and subsequently leaks 7,000 pages of top secret documents to The New York Times.

The Most Dangerous Man in America.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Daniel Ellsberg, Vietnam War' to 'Daniel Ellsberg, Vietnam War, classified, documents, secret, leak' - edited by calvados

Daniel Ellsberg praises WikiLeaks:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/opinionshop/detail?entry_id=78596

I agree with everything said. I just want to know what the difference between a "war criminal" is and a man who makes "rape/aids camps" and "gasses jews" and such, and what George Bush is? He is classified exactly the same as those, "war cimimals," so what is the difference?

(And yes, he is classifed in the exact same way... So even if you do not classify him that way, you do purport the same information...)

>> ^radx:
The Institute for Public Accuracy published a comment, co-signed by Daniel Ellsberg, on the current WikiLeaks situation and quoted this Pravda article, a quote I'd like to copy:

What WikiLeaks has done is make people understand why so many Americans are politically apathetic … After all, the evils committed by those in power can be suffocating, and the sense of powerlessness that erupts can be paralyzing, especially when … government evildoers almost always get away with their crimes. …
So shame on Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and all those who spew platitudes about integrity, justice and accountability while allowing war criminals and torturers to walk freely upon the earth. … the American people should be outraged that their government has transformed a nation with a reputation for freedom, justice, tolerance and respect for human rights into a backwater that revels in its criminality, cover-ups, injustices and hypocrisies.