If you never seen the The Most Dangerous Man In America. You should. It explains Danial Ellsberg story very well

http://documentaryheaven.com/the-most-dangerous-man-in-america/

also known as The Pentagon Papers.

HOPE X just featured Ellsberg and Snowden, and it was better than ever. So keep an eye out for recordings of it, I should be able to provide a link by tomorrow morning.

Edit 07/20: audio recording

Ellsberg live at HOPE X right now, epic as always: http://radio.hope.net/feeds/

Edit: Snowden up in 10 minutes

Edit: Ellsberg brought out the big guns, serious dose of dignity and decency here. There better be a bloody recording available for download later.

Edit 07/20: audio recording

Chatted with Ellsberg a few weeks ago. He's in full support of what wikileaks is doing, but still thinks Assange is a bit.. strange.

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.

Thanks for the quality! And you're spot on.

In reply to this comment by radx:
Hah, I was just about to submit this as well. *quality Obama, right here.

Pfc Manning has not been tried nor convicted, yet the CINC, who taught constitutional law, publicly declares him guilty. That's delicious.

To claim that you "don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate" after he decided not to prosecute Bush for all the shit, CIA officials for destroying their torture tapes, the telecoms for illegal wiretapping, etc ... that's delicious as well.

And no, the Ellsberg papers were not classified the same way as the ones Pfc Manning allegedly leaked: they were top secret, Manning's were "just" classified.