Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I realize there are some other wikileak topics going around but I wanted to focus on more specific aspects of this event instead of starting out with a broad and general topic.
For those of you who either lived through it, are fans of history, or perhaps haven't heard of The Pentagon Papers, these were a stack of documents listed as top secret from the RAND corporation on our intervention into Vietnam.
What was shown in the Pentagon Papers was that while the American public was being told by a number of Presidents from Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, that the US was trying to stay out of the war or keep a low advisory profile, in truth they were trying their damnedest to escalate. In essence, nearly everything told to the American people was a steaming pile of poo.
Well a fella by the name of Daniel Ellsberg who worked at RAND corporation and was for all intents and purposes a leading analyst and escalation advocate, began to have doubts and later decided to leak these documents to the press.
Now this is where a great difference between the then and now begins. Ellsberg took his documents to the NY Times and Washington Post, and later several other papers and the government got an injunction preventing the press from printing these documents. In fact, I believe this was the first time in US history that the government took the press to court over such a matter.
The various newspapers reviewed the material and their legal departments decided to run the story. However it should be noted that then Sen. Mike Gravel read these Pentagon Papers into the Congressional record as part of a filibuster to which after this it was public record.
The difference today with the Wikileaks is two fold thus far. One these documents are for all intents and purposes just being dumped onto the net in a rather raw fashion. There are no major legal firms and departments weighing whether this information is in fact a matter of national security or fit to print.
Secondly, is that the Pentagon Papers were mostly about how various Presidential administrations bent evidence and out right lied in order to escalate American involvement in Vietnam. These weren't tactical information and near to the front operational information that would jeopardize soldiers in the field.
These are pretty huge differences, but where they are alike is that in both cases the American public is shown where their government hasn't been honest with them and in many cases has flat out lied in order to take America to places it might not otherwise be.
Another place where I suspect we will see a similar effect is how the people react. At first the Pentagon Papers were the news for weeks. The people read it, they digested what was implied and they put it down and forgot about it. I have a feeling that much the same will happen with the Wikileaks folks.
Do you think the reason people so wish to put such things out of their mind is because they don't wish to believe that their government would so casually mislead and lie to them? Are we such a people that we can't honest conceive of the idea that we might not always be so noble in our designs?
As a person who believes that our government should have greater transparency in general, and shouldn't be able to just state that things are state secrets in order to keep them from the public without some Congressional say, there are differences between the current Wiki Leaks and what came before it, known as the Pentagon Papers.
As I've noticed in some other threads, people believe that all these documents should be released to the public in their entirety, and as hard as this may be to believe coming from me, I disagree with this. Wikileaks has offered information on tactical levels and on current operations taking place with front line soldiers who in turn may be placed at far greater risk. This is being done without any real legal department reviewing their content. This is also being done by a third party from another country, not a high level analyst from inside our own government struggling with their conscious.
While I feel that the bulk of what is being released by wikileaks are things that probably should be known, there are things that shouldn't, and this person makes no such distinctions.
As a person who believes that our government should have greater transparency in general, and shouldn't be able to just state that things are state secrets in order to keep them from the public without some Congressional say, there are differences between the current Wiki Leaks and what came before it, known as the Pentagon Papers.
As I've noticed in some other threads, people believe that all these documents should be released to the public in their entirety, and as hard as this may be to believe coming from me, I disagree with this. Wikileaks has offered information on tactical levels and on current operations taking place with front line soldiers who in turn may be placed at far greater risk. This is being done without any real legal department reviewing their content. This is also being done by a third party from another country, not a high level analyst from inside our own government struggling with their conscious.
While I feel that the bulk of what is being released by wikileaks are things that probably should be known, there are things that shouldn't, and this person makes no such distinctions.
I am all for the release of any document that sheds light on what is actually being done in those corrupt wars - like the mass slaughter of the civillians in countries where we have no business being in. I would not like 'tactical' information released that directly endangers our troops, but if the documents lead to enough public outrage, then maybe Obama would move his ass, and us OUT!
I think a public who really believes they have the capability to arm-chair quarterback a war with pieces of information, whether it is accurate information or not, is a dangerous place for any country. Without an entire picture and the ability of seeing both the before and after scenarios...making judgment calls is inappropriate and downright stupid.
This is the reason why Obama thought we could easily pull out of a war before he was totally briefed after being elected.
I used to work for the military. Even in my limited knowledge, I can say for sure there is so much that the public thinks they understand and know.....and nothing could be further from the truth. Leaking documents only adds fuel to a really inept fire.
Unfortunately there are too any people who want to wrap themselves in the flag and trust everything that happens with the government. They “believe” in the people they elected to office to represent them in Washington, and they just can’t think otherwise. It’s not hard to understand that when lobbyists bought and paid for their representatives it’s no longer a government of the people and for the people. Whether it’s an issue of war or a bill that needs to be voted on about other issues, your representative voted in the best interest of the corporation lobbyist that paid him off.
There are still many (too many) Americans who just can’t come to grips with any news about the government lies about the war. They failed to understand and agree with investigative reporting years ago that validated “things are not what you think you see”, yet they continue to remain “frightened” because they listen to the war mongers who tell them to be afraid be very afraid.
The illegal war put the nation into the start of a finical disaster to say nothing about the loss of life for our servicemen and women and the many civilians.
Secondly, is that the Pentagon Papers were mostly about how various Presidential administrations bent evidence and out right lied in order to escalate American involvement in Vietnam. These weren't tactical information and near to the front operational information that would jeopardize soldiers in the field.
This is why I am besides myself in anger over the WikiLeaks, because instead of exposing policy, WikiLeaks has exposed dozens of agents and assets on the the ground. Even worse, Assange is totally unaware of if having just dumped the documents onto the web without even he or his compatriots vetting the documents before hand.
I for one am glad the docs were released. I too think the gov should be allowed to hiding behind the national security wall and cover up all their dirty deeds.
This is why I am besides myself in anger over the WikiLeaks, because instead of exposing policy, WikiLeaks has exposed dozens of agents and assets on the the ground. Even worse, Assange is totally unaware of if having just dumped the documents onto the web without even he or his compatriots vetting the documents before hand.
I agree with you, but extra care was taken during the second release and for upcoming dumps to redact names and some other compromising information from the documents.
Just a quick question folks or perhaps just speculate if you will. One of the things that came out of the Pentagon Papers was the Supreme Courts decision in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 and most notably the opinion of Justice Hugo Black
In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. […] The word 'security' is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.
—New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971)
This case has been cited countless times since by a wide range of challenges to the First Amendment. Do you think that WikiLeaks will end up with a court ruling of any magnitude resembling that of NY Times v. United States 403?
I agree with you, but extra care was taken during the second release and for upcoming dumps to redact names and some other compromising information from the documents.
Lot of good that will do for those who chose to work with the military.
As Stephen Engelberg, the managing editor of ProPublica and a former national security correspondent for The Times, pointed out in my link above:
For the past several decades, there has been an informal understanding between the reporters who uncovered newsworthy secrets and the government intelligence agencies, which tried to keep them from public view.
We would tell senior officials what we’d learned. And they would point out any unforeseen consequences that might arise from publication, such as the death of an American informant. Ultimately, the call on what appeared rested with editors. But it was a decision informed by more than our own guesswork.
Unlike legitimate journalist and I do not consider Mr. Assange to be one, being careful when you arrogantly dismiss, or refuse to even engage the government makes your efforts pure guesswork. In short they could just put the documents on a board and throw darts at it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
