Floyd Abrams: WikiLeaks Cables Are No Pentagon Papers, and Julian Assange Is No Daniel Ellsburg

Floyd Abrams is on the left, so he holds Ellsburg in higher regard than most conservatives. But more importantly, he holds Julian Assange in low regard.

I didn't know the part about Ellsburg holding back volumes of the Pentagon Papers that referred to current events, current officials, and current diplomatic efforts in Vietnam. It's an interesting contrast, as Ellsburg was at least selective in his leaking, and did not leak purely out of a childish urge to burn the house down.

In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg decided to make available to the New York Times (and then to other newspapers) 43 volumes of the Pentagon Papers, the top- secret study prepared for the Department of Defense examining how and why the United States had become embroiled in the Vietnam conflict. But he made another critical decision as well. That was to keep confidential the remaining four volumes of the study describing the diplomatic efforts of the United States to resolve the war.

Not at all coincidentally, those were the volumes that the government most feared would be disclosed. In a secret brief filed with the Supreme Court, the U.S. government described the diplomatic volumes as including information about negotiations secretly conducted on its behalf by foreign nations including Canada, Poland, Italy and Norway. Included as well, according to the government, were "derogatory comments about the perfidiousness of specific persons involved, and statements which might be offensive to nations or governments."

The diplomatic volumes were not published, even in part, for another dozen years. Mr. Ellsberg later explained his decision to keep them secret, according to Sanford Ungar's 1972 book "The Papers & The Papers," by saying, "I didn't want to get in the way of the diplomacy."

Julian Assange sure does. Can anyone doubt that he would have made those four volumes public on WikiLeaks regardless of their sensitivity? Or that he would have paid not even the slightest heed to the possibility that they might seriously compromise efforts to bring a speedier end to the war?

...

WikiLeaks offers no articles of its own, no context of any of the materials it discloses, and no analysis of them other than assertions in press releases or their equivalent. As Princeton historian Sean Wilentz told the Associated Press earlier this month, WikiLeaks seems rooted in a "simpleminded idea of secrecy and transparency," one that is "simply offended by any actions that are cloaked."

He then discusses whether Assange can be prosecuted under the notably-broad Espionage Act. He concludes he can be, if it can be established that Assange engaged in these actions with the intent to harm the national interests of the United States -- and given Assange's grandstanding, juvenile-nihilist public statements, that probably can be established.

posted by Ace at 01:32 PM

| Access Comments