The Pentagon Papers v Wikileaks: It’s Different
Julian Assange was dragged out of the Ecuadoran Embassy in London yesterday, placed under arrest by the London police. Assange, the founder of the internet site Wikileaks, spent seven years claiming asylum in the Embassy, after jumping bail in London. Assange was wanted in Sweden for sexual assault, charges that were later dropped. The London police are currently holding him for extradition to the United States, where he is under indictment.
Assange made the mistake of annoying his Ecuadoran hosts. Like “The Man Who Came to Dinner,” his seven-year stay may have been ended as much by an out of control cat and a lack of personal hygiene than any international pressure placed on Ecuador.
What we know of the US indictment, accidently revealed several months ago in a filing in Alexandria, Virginia; is that Assange is accused of helping Chelsea Manning, a US soldier stationed in Iraq in 2010, break into US communications to reveal over half a million documents regarding the Iraq and Afghan wars. Manning claims that she is a “whistleblower,” revealing US knowledge of their allies’ corruption, and a willingness to inflict collateral damage waging the war, including intentional killing of innocent civilians and even journalists.
Manning was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison after pleading guilty to ten counts and being convicted on seventeen other counts of espionage. She served seven years, then her sentence was commuted by President Obama.
Manning claims that her actions were similar to those of Daniel Ellsberg, the Rand Corporation analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971. The Paperswere a Defense Department internal history of the Vietnam War, revealing the duplicity of the US government in their public explanations of the War. Revelation of the Papershelped lead to further public protests against the war when they were published by the New York Times and the Washington Post. The United States Supreme Court denied the US Government’s attempt to block publication of the Papers in the landmark case New York Times Co v United States (403 U.S. 713, 1971.)
Ellsberg was charged with espionage, with a possible 117 years in prison. But, due to government misconduct in investigating him, including breaking into his psychiatrist’s office to find information (executed by the Nixon White House “plumbers” who later made a similar break-in to the Democratic Headquarters in the Watergate Office Building) all charges were eventually dismissed.
Assange and Wikileaks claim that their role in the Chelsea Manning revelations was the same as the New York Times and Washington Post in the Pentagon Papers: they were simply revealing information and serving as a “conduit” for whistleblowing information. Many journalists on “mainstream media” defend Assange, arguing that to charge him puts the US Government on a slippery slope of muzzling reporters.
Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post helped Daniel Ellsberg sneak the Pentagon Papers out of his Rand Corporation offices. They received the complete files, got their editors (and their lawyers) together, and determined to print the material. They even gave the US Government the opportunity to comment, and redacted parts that they considered too sensitive to ongoing operations. They acted responsibly with the information they received.
That’s a huge contrast with the actions of Wikileaks and Assange. Assange is accused of actually participating in the stealing of the information, allegedly helping Manning with passwords to get to the files. Wikileaks then took the entire dump and put it online, without any regard for possible security implications. That is Wikileaks standard, get information and put it out, regardless of the consequences.
Assange is accused of helping Manning, but also dumped the Edward Snowden information, more documents stolen from the US Government. The Snowden files revealed government surveillance of US domestic communications, and were published by newspapers around the world.
Progressives in the United States welcomed both the Manning and Snowden downloads, using the information to try to curb the excesses of government reaction to 9-11 and the terrorist threats. In that sense, the “whistleblower” aspect of Wikileaks was welcomed as the new way to gain insight into government actions.
But progressives weren’t so pleased when Wikileaks became the conduit for Russian Intelligence and the hacked Democratic National Committee emails in the 2016 election. “Wikileaks” became a common theme in the Trump Campaign rhetoric, and definitely contributed to the success of the Trump candidacy.
But Assange hasn’t been charged with conspiring with Russian intelligence, and he hasn’t been indicted for the Snowden information. He has been brought to the bar for conspiring to assist in Chelsea Manning’s espionage. Whatever the information gained, the US Government has a reasonable claim to maintain security, and to prosecute those who participate in breaking into their computers. Assange, if he aided Manning in stealing the documents, has taken a step beyond journalism.
The slippery slope really isn’t that slippery, the US prosecutors are on firm footing. It is the difference between the thief and the reporter, and Wikileaks ain’t the New York Times.
