4 ms·

> There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US secrets. How is it different from the Washington Post leaking the Pentagon papers? Honest question,

by rafale 5y ago

> There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US secrets. How is it different from the Washington Post leaking the Pentagon papers? Honest question, not snarky.

ChrisKnott 5y ago
I don't think they actually published the papers, they just wrote stories using the papers as the source. Assange is also accused of assisting his source in attempting (unsuccessfully) to crack a password hash, thereby (the prosecution alleges) taking on more the Daniel Ellsberg role rather than the Washington Post role. Not commenting on the appropriateness or not of prosecuting Assange, but the situations have significant differences.
- himinlomax 5y ago
  > I don't think they actually published the papers, they just wrote stories using the papers as the source. "The New York Times began publishing excerpts on June 13, 1971" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Leak
- ZoomerCretin 5y ago
  He assisted his source in a failed attempt to crack a password hash? This is the "significant difference" you think makes him worthy of prosecution? He was a journalist exposing war crimes. He is not a US citizen and is not subject to US laws. If China extended their ban on youths playing video games for more than a few hours in a week to the world, you would probably have a problem with them forcing authorities in a country you're vacationing in to arrest your children and extradite them to China.
  - ChrisKnott 5y ago
    > This is the "significant difference" Yes, one of them, the other being that he published the full documents and not just stories using them as a source. > you think makes him worthy of prosecution It was so obvious I would get downvoted by Assange stans for answering the GP's question, that I literally preemptively stated I wasn't saying this. Wasn't enough apparently.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      You're being downvoted as you are just wrong. Though the New York Times did not publish the full papers, it was because the leaked documents took up five books. You can find Ellsberg's annotated copies of the books the Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/pentagonpapersde00beac https://archive.org/details/pentagonpapersde00beac
      - ChrisKnott 5y ago
        I don't understand how that shows I'm "just wrong"...? We agree that Assange published the documents in full and The New York Times didn't. You have linked to the version published after Senator Gravel made them public domain by submitting to the congressional record - nothing comparable happened prior to Wikileaks publishing it's material.
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        The New York Times and other publications published multiple pages of the Pentagon Papers, they just were unable to realistically publish the entire leak. If you read the Supreme Court case involving the Times, it clearly says it was about publishing the contents of a classified study, not writing articles about a classified study. There is no content difference, both contained leaked documents and articles about them, the only difference is the limitations of the medium.
Melting_Harps 5y ago
> How is it different from the Washington Post leaking the Pentagon papers? Honest question, not snarky. 2 main ways: first, Julian is an Australian and never lived in the US, and Daniel Elsberg was a US citizen living in the US the time he released the PP and thus was protected under some semblance of need for a trail to ensure he was in fact an enemy combatant or a spy for a foreign nation-state--these charges were then dropped subsequently when the public was made aware of Watergate and Nixon stepping down. Secondly, it's a blatant selective application of the Law, even with Snowden who has repeatedly asked to be tried by a jury of his peers, which will never happen. There is nothing more to it than that, Jullian never stepped foot in the US and the leaks were ultimately done by Chelsea Manning and hosted on Wikleaks and sent to major publications around the World, who has also been through hell and back before getting her sentence commuted. Ultimately, it's become a politicized issue and Julian Assange has been a the bane for the DoD and Intelligence Agencies of not just the US but many other countries, so despite the UN calling his continued arrest a Crime Against Humanity, nothing will change until he is either made an example of, ironically this means that Assange will have lived up to his supposed reputation for being a megalomaniac and thus will become a martyr the same way Arron Scwartz has become from the FOSS community. Suffice it to say, I'm a big fan of Jullian and followed his work since his talks at the CCC (2011?) and all of his Wiki stuff which involved Bitcoin etc... I fear the Julian we all knew has likely been eroded away and has clearly had his faculties get destroyed along with his physical health, mental health--he was diagnosed as autistic but I'm sure the PTSD, loneliness and forced isolation have been more severe than anything else after all these years. Julian isn't a hero, he is a deeply flawed Human being who decided that he couldn't bare not acting at a time of crisis; something that we should as a species should laud, but instead we are forced to witness the systematic destruction of a Man's life for making the World aware of what took place in perpetual and unjust wars.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by rafale 5y ago

> There is no doubt that he really is guilty of leaking US secrets. How is it different from the Washington Post leaking the Pentagon papers? Honest question, not snarky.

ChrisKnott 5y ago

I don't think they actually published the papers, they just wrote stories using the papers as the source. Assange is also accused of assisting his source in attempting (unsuccessfully) to crack a password hash, thereby (the prosecution alleges) taking on more the Daniel Ellsberg role rather than the Washington Post role. Not commenting on the appropriateness or not of prosecuting Assange, but the situations have significant differences.

himinlomax 5y ago
> I don't think they actually published the papers, they just wrote stories using the papers as the source. "The New York Times began publishing excerpts on June 13, 1971" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Leak
ZoomerCretin 5y ago
He assisted his source in a failed attempt to crack a password hash? This is the "significant difference" you think makes him worthy of prosecution? He was a journalist exposing war crimes. He is not a US citizen and is not subject to US laws. If China extended their ban on youths playing video games for more than a few hours in a week to the world, you would probably have a problem with them forcing authorities in a country you're vacationing in to arrest your children and extradite them to China.
- ChrisKnott 5y ago
  > This is the "significant difference" Yes, one of them, the other being that he published the full documents and not just stories using them as a source. > you think makes him worthy of prosecution It was so obvious I would get downvoted by Assange stans for answering the GP's question, that I literally preemptively stated I wasn't saying this. Wasn't enough apparently.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    You're being downvoted as you are just wrong. Though the New York Times did not publish the full papers, it was because the leaked documents took up five books. You can find Ellsberg's annotated copies of the books the Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/pentagonpapersde00beac https://archive.org/details/pentagonpapersde00beac
    - ChrisKnott 5y ago
      I don't understand how that shows I'm "just wrong"...? We agree that Assange published the documents in full and The New York Times didn't. You have linked to the version published after Senator Gravel made them public domain by submitting to the congressional record - nothing comparable happened prior to Wikileaks publishing it's material.
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        The New York Times and other publications published multiple pages of the Pentagon Papers, they just were unable to realistically publish the entire leak. If you read the Supreme Court case involving the Times, it clearly says it was about publishing the contents of a classified study, not writing articles about a classified study. There is no content difference, both contained leaked documents and articles about them, the only difference is the limitations of the medium.

Melting_Harps 5y ago

> How is it different from the Washington Post leaking the Pentagon papers? Honest question, not snarky. 2 main ways: first, Julian is an Australian and never lived in the US, and Daniel Elsberg was a US citizen living in the US the time he released the PP and thus was protected under some semblance of need for a trail to ensure he was in fact an enemy combatant or a spy for a foreign nation-state--these charges were then dropped subsequently when the public was made aware of Watergate and Nixon stepping down. Secondly, it's a blatant selective application of the Law, even with Snowden who has repeatedly asked to be tried by a jury of his peers, which will never happen. There is nothing more to it than that, Jullian never stepped foot in the US and the leaks were ultimately done by Chelsea Manning and hosted on Wikleaks and sent to major publications around the World, who has also been through hell and back before getting her sentence commuted. Ultimately, it's become a politicized issue and Julian Assange has been a the bane for the DoD and Intelligence Agencies of not just the US but many other countries, so despite the UN calling his continued arrest a Crime Against Humanity, nothing will change until he is either made an example of, ironically this means that Assange will have lived up to his supposed reputation for being a megalomaniac and thus will become a martyr the same way Arron Scwartz has become from the FOSS community. Suffice it to say, I'm a big fan of Jullian and followed his work since his talks at the CCC (2011?) and all of his Wiki stuff which involved Bitcoin etc... I fear the Julian we all knew has likely been eroded away and has clearly had his faculties get destroyed along with his physical health, mental health--he was diagnosed as autistic but I'm sure the PTSD, loneliness and forced isolation have been more severe than anything else after all these years. Julian isn't a hero, he is a deeply flawed Human being who decided that he couldn't bare not acting at a time of crisis; something that we should as a species should laud, but instead we are forced to witness the systematic destruction of a Man's life for making the World aware of what took place in perpetual and unjust wars.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]