Daniel Ellsberg Endorses the WikiLeaks Publication of Iraq War Log

 There appears to be a direct correlation between Daniel Ellsberg, once called 'The most dangerous man in America' and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. According to the article below, Ellsberg famously leaked 7,000 pages of Pentagon documents much as Assange is now leaking Pentagon Documents.
   . . . June

----------------------


The 'most dangerous man in America':
gulfnews

Daniel Ellsberg, former US military analyst, speaks during a press conference in London to endorse the WikiLeaks publication of almost 400,000 Iraq war logs last week

The 'most dangerous man in America' is how former US National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger once described the man. But in person Daniel Ellsberg is anything but. Down to earth, friendly and a bit jetlagged is how I find the 79-year-old former military analyst when we meet in London — where he had journeyed to attend the largest intelligence leak in US history by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Nearly 40 years ago, long before Julian Assange became a household name, Ellsberg famously leaked 7,000 pages of Pentagon documents which are said to have helped bring to an end the Vietnam War.

There are, of course, key differences between the ways the two leaks were conducted. For one, in Ellsberg's case, back in 1969, the internet wasn't an option when it came to spreading the word. He had to copy the Pentagon Papers on a slow Xerox machine in the small advertising agency of a friend while his 10-year-old daughter cut the words "Top Secret" off the top and bottom of the pages. His son helped too.

It wasn't a decision he had taken lightly. Ellsberg risked life in prison for carrying through with the task he had set himself. Yet he wanted his children to know their father wasn't a traitor, that he felt what he was doing was right for the country. A top Pentagon official at the time, working for the RAND Corporation, Ellsberg spent months smuggling out the papers in his briefcase after becoming deeply unhappy with the long war in Vietnam which was ongoing under President Nixon at the time. The documents exposed the lies and cover-ups the American people had been fed about the war.

He initially tried releasing the documents through politicians, but when that didn't work out, Ellsberg got the New York Times and Washington Post involved. With some difficulty, the information was finally released in 1971. Ellsberg went on the run but was eventually arrested and charged under the Espionage Act. He was acquitted in 1973 after gross government misconduct and illegal evidence gathering were revealed.

Read entire article


---------------------

Julian Assange, WIKILEAKS Founder Hits Out At Wired Magazine

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder has attacked Wired magazine, claiming it is deliberately spreading misinformation. According to the following article, Assange said that speculation on one of the US tech magazine's blogs led to more than 700 articles being published all over the world this week about WikiLeak's SUPPOSED upcoming release of confidential Iraq war documents.Maybe they need to confirm their sources.
    . . . .June

----------------------------
WikiLeaks founder takes aim at credibility of Wired magazine
The Daily Telegraph:

WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange has attacked Wired magazine, claiming it is deliberately spreading misinformation.

The criticism comes amid ongoing speculation this week about the release of confidential Iraq war documents.

In a post on Twitter yesterday, Assange, 39, accused one of the US tech magazine's blogs of being a 'known opponent' of WikiLeaks and a 'spreader of all sorts of misinformation' about the whistle-blowing website.

Assange wrote that speculation on the blog led to more than 700 articles being published all over the world this week about WikiLeak's supposed upcoming release of confidential Iraq war documents.

He wrote that the only source of claims that WikiLeaks would release nearly 400,000 documents on Iraq was Wired blog.

Assange wrote that the magazine had "ramped up" its attacks on WikiLeaks since the whistle-blowing organization called for an investigation into what role Wired magazine played in the arrest of US intelligence analyst Bradley Manning.


Manning was arrested by US authorities on suspicion of leaking video footage of a US air strike in Baghdad. The footage was published by WikiLeaks in April 2010.

Assange also accused two Wired blogs - Threat Level and Danger Room - of "ship[ping] puff pieces" and publishing "a tremendous amount of other completely false information [about] WikiLeaks."

Wired senior editor Kevin Poulsen hit back at Assange's attack, saying the magazine and its blogs had "diligently charted WikiLeaks' successes, and its setbacks" in more than 70 stories over the years.

Read entire article


-------------------

WIKILEAKS FUNDING Blocked After Government Blacklisting?

 According to the article below, the whistleblowing group WikiLeaks claims that it has had its funding blocked and that it is the victim of financial warfare by the US government. Moneybookers emailed the organisation to say it had closed down its account because it had been put on an official US watchlist and on an Australian government blacklist. This came a few days after the Pentagon publicly expressed its anger at WikiLeaks and its founder for obtaining thousands of classified military documents. Retaliation?
     . . . June

---------------------------
WikiLeaks says funding has been blocked after government blacklisting
Media | The Guardian:

The whistleblowing group WikiLeaks claims that it has had its funding blocked and that it is the victim of financial warfare by the US government.

Moneybookers, a British-registered internet payment company that collects WikiLeaks donations, emailed the organisation to say it had closed down its account because it had been put on an official US watchlist and on an Australian government blacklist.

The apparent blacklisting came a few days after the Pentagon publicly expressed its anger at WikiLeaks and its founder, Australian citizen Julian Assange, for obtaining thousands of classified military documents about the war in Afghanistan, in one of the US army's biggest leaks of information. The documents caused a sensation when they were made available to the Guardian, the New York Times and German magazine Der Spiegel, revealing hitherto unreported civilian casualties.

WikiLeaks defied Pentagon calls to return the war logs and destroy all copies. Instead, it has been reported that it intends to release an even larger cache of military documents, disclosing other abuses in Iraq.

Moneybookers moved against WikiLeaks on 13 August, according to the correspondence, less than a week after the Pentagon made public threats of reprisals against the organisation. Moneybookers wrote to Assange: "Following an audit of your account by our security department, we must advise that your account has been closed … to comply with money laundering or other investigations conducted by government authorities."

When Assange emailed to ask what the problem was, he says he was told in response by Daniel Stromberg, the Moneybookers e-commerce manager for the Nordic region: "When I did my regular overview of my customers, I noticed that something was wrong with your account and I emailed our risk and legal department to solve this issue.

Read entire article

Demonstrators Call for Release of Soldier in Wikileaks Case

 Bradley Manning,the soldier accused of leaking military secrets to the public is facing 52 years in prison for leaking the Iraq documents to WikiLeaks for publication.  The US government warns that these documents could imperil the lives of US troups still in Iraq. However, Marjorie Cohn, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, argues that if Manning did what he is accused of doing, he should be honoured as a hero for exposing war crimes. I guess there are a;ways two sides to every story.
   . . . June


---------------------


Demonstrators to call for release of soldier in Wikileaks case
Media | guardian.co.uk:

Rallies will be staged in 21 US cities this week calling for the release of Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of leaking military secrets to the public.

Manning allegedly passed on the video known as 'collateral murder' that showed American troops shooting civilians from a helicopter in Iraq in July 2007. The dead included two employees of the Reuters news agency.

Though the actions depicted in the video amount to violations of the Geneva Conventions (aka war crimes), none of the soldiers have been prosecuted.

Manning, who faces 52 years in prison, is also being investigated for allegedly leaking the 'Afghan war diary' documents that were posted on Wikileaks and reported by The Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel.

Marjorie Cohn, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, argues that if Manning did what he is accused of doing, he should be honoured as a hero for exposing war crimes.

In a separate development, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been told he is not obliged to remain in Sweden even though prosecutors are however continuing to investigate rape allegations against him.

Assange's lawyer, Björn Hurtig, said: "I have been told that there is no arrest warrant against him."

Assange has said the allegations against him are part of a "smear campaign" aimed at discrediting his website, and that he will stay in Sweden to prove his innocence.

Read entire article . . .

WikiLeaks Collaborating With Media Outlets on Iraq Documents

 According to the article below, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, tells Newsweek Declassified that his organization has teamed up with media organizations—including major television networks and one or more American media outlets—in an unspecified number of countries to produce a set of documentaries and stories based on the cache of Iraq War documents in the possession of WikiLeak. Wow!
   . . . June
-----------------------------


Exclusive: WikiLeaks Collaborating With Media Outlets on Release of Iraq Documents
Newsweek:
 
A London-based journalism nonprofit is working with the WikiLeaks Web site and TV and print media in several countries on programs and stories based on what is described as massive cache of classified U.S. military field reports related to the Iraq War. Iain Overton, editor of The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, tells Declassified that his organization has teamed up with media organizations—including major television networks and one or more American media outlets—in an unspecified number of countries to produce a set of documentaries and stories based on the cache of Iraq War documents in the possession of WikiLeaks

As happened with a similar WikiLeaks collection of tens of thousands of U.S. military field reports on the Afghan war, the unidentified media organizations involved with the London group in the Iraq documents project will all be releasing their stories on the same day, which Overton says would be several weeks from now. He declined to identify any of the media organizations participating in the project.

Overton acknowledges that the volume of Iraq War reports that WikiLeaks has made available for the project is massive, and almost certainly more than the 92,000 Afghan field reports the organization made available for advance review to The New York Times, Britain's Guardian, and Germany's Der Spiegel. The material is the "biggest leak of military intelligence" that has ever occurred, Overton says. As we reported when stories on WikiLeaks' Afghan holdings first appeared, the site's stash of Iraq documents is believed to be about three times as large as its Afghanistan collection. After the Times, Guardian, and Der Spiegel published their stories based on the Afghan war documents, the site itself posted 76,000 of the papers. But after coming under criticism from both Pentagon spokesmen and human-rights activists for publishing information that could jeopardize the lives of Afghans cooperating with American and allied forces, WikiLeaks said it would not itself post the remaining 15,000 Afghan war documents until activists had taken some time to review, and, if necessary, edit sensitive information from the material.

WikiLeaks had signaled that the Afghan war documents might be posted on the site in the near future; its plans for the release of those documents are currently unclear. Overton says that in their work on the Iraq War documents, his organization and its media partners have "significantly learned from past experiences" regarding disclosure of material that could put lives in jeopardy. "We are hugely aware that this is an issue, and we're taking it very seriously," Overton says. He says that his organization itself would not be posting raw U.S. government reports on the Web, adding that he sees his group's job as digging stories out of the raw material, not simply publishing it in its original form. Overton says that his bureau's media partners are also "aware of the need to ensure that information is properly redacted.

Read on . . .

Government Secrecy Versus Transparency?

Sabotage or free press? This is not a new question; nor is it one that has been resolved in earlier comparable situations. This leak of the intelligence reports could be classified as whistleblowing or irresponsible reporting, depending on which side you're on. The following article compares the disclosures to other similar incidents.
    . . . June




-------------------------------

The morality of government secrecy versus transparency
By Ronald Goldfarb - 09/08/10 12:59 PM ET 


The recent WikiLeaks (tsunami would be a better word) of about 77,000 diplomatic cables and intelligence reports raised a recurring issue of American law and policy.

A disturbed young man in our military in Europe turned over classified government documents to WikiLeaks (ironically, an organization dedicated to transparency that does not disclose its address or officers’ names). It, in turn, passed them on to The New York Times, as well as reputable British and German press organizations.

Most, not all, of the documents were published. There was wide public interest in the disclosures, and expected outrage by government officials and others. Threats of indictments against Wiki founder Julian Assange were made, in the United States for the disclosures and in Sweden for improper sexual behavior. So far, the sky has not fallen.

Sabotage or free press? This is not a new question; nor is it one that has been resolved in earlier comparable situations.

During World War II, the Chicago Tribune was investigated but not indicted for reporting secret government naval intelligence. It ran anti-war stories mentioning our breaking encrypted Japanese messages about its armada at Midway in 1942, and an account on Dec. 6, 1941, of United States military plans in Europe. The government threatened, but backed off, indicting the Tribune under the Espionage Act of 1917. One can hardly imagine a situation more warranting of prosecution than the disclosure of secret wartime maneuvers.

When the notorious Pentagon Papers were leaked and published by The New York Times and The Washington Post, the United States Supreme Court refused to enjoin publication of that Vietnam War history. It was a cause célèbre and became a landmark victory for freedom of the press. Erwin Griswold, the solicitor general who argued against publication for the government, wrote years later in The Washington Post that the documents did not threaten national security, as he had argued to the court, but unearthed a cover-up of the government’s failed policy.

Read on . . .