Ellsberg: Snowden’s NSA leak more important than my Pentagon Papers

[Divernan]

Source: Yahoo linking to op-ed published today in Guardian

Daniel Ellsberg, whose leak of the so-called Pentagon Papers to The New York Times in 1971 exposed the secret history of the war in Vietnam, thinks Edward Snowden's leak of the National Security Agency's surveillance programs was more important than his.

"In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden's release of NSA material, and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago," Ellsberg wrote in an op-ed published by the Guardian on Monday. "Snowden's whistleblowing gives us the possibility to roll back a key part of what has amounted to an 'executive coup' against the U.S. constitution."

Ellsberg added on CNN Sunday night that “it can’t be overestimated to this democracy. It gives us a chance, I think, from drawing back from the total surveillance state that we could say we’re in process of becoming, I’m afraid we have become. That’s what he’s revealed.

In 2011, Ellsberg was among a group of noted whistle-blowers that penned an open letter asking that a "transparency award" given to Obama earlier that year be rescinded. They called the Obama administration's record on secrecy and surveillance "a disgrace."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ellsberg-snowden-nsa-leak-pentagon-papers-142811185.html

---

In the Guardian, Ellsberg scoffed at Obama's response, and effectively schooled the Obama administration and all the loyalists trying to spin this matter on DU:

For the president then to say that there is judicial oversight is nonsense—as is the alleged oversight function of the intelligence committees in Congress. Not for the first time—as with issues of torture, kidnapping, detention, assassination by drones and death squads—they have shown themselves to be thoroughly co-opted by the agencies they supposedly monitor. They are also black holes for information that the public needs to know.

The fact that congressional leaders were "briefed" on this and went along with it, without any open debate, hearings, staff analysis, or any real chance for effective dissent, only shows how broken the system of checks and balances is in this country.

There are legitimate reasons for secrecy, and specifically for secrecy about communications intelligence. That's why Bradley Mannning and I – both of whom had access to such intelligence with clearances higher than top-secret – chose not to disclose any information with that classification. And it is why Edward Snowden has committed himself to withhold publication of most of what he might have revealed.

But what is not legitimate is to use a secrecy system to hide programs that are blatantly unconstitutional in their breadth and potential abuse. Neither the president nor Congress as a whole may by themselves revoke the fourth amendment – and that's why what Snowden has revealed so far was secret from the American people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/10/edward-snowden-united-stasi-america

[Divernan]

1. Dismisses court warrant under FISA as "kangaroo court with rubber stamp."

Since 9/11, there has been, at first secretly but increasingly openly, a revocation of the bill of rights for which this country fought over 200 years ago. In particular, the fourth and fifth amendments of the US constitution, which safeguard citizens from unwarranted intrusion by the government into their private lives, have been virtually suspended.

The government claims it has a court warrant under Fisa – but that unconstitutionally sweeping warrant is from a secret court, shielded from effective oversight, almost totally deferential to executive requests. As Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency analyst, put it: "It is a kangaroo court with a rubber stamp."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/10/edward-snowden-united-stasi-america

On edit:• Editor's note: this article was revised and updated at the author's behest, at 7.45am ET on 10 June

[frylock]

2. there will be people here shortly to tell us that ellsberg is mistaken..

as if they know fuckall.

[Divernan]

3. Scurrying around right now divying up the attack assignments.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

4. There are people here who would have crucified Ellsberg in 1971.

No doubt in my mind.

[frylock]

5. i agree

[cascadiance]

22. I guess they probably would have been more likely to do so if Nixon were a Democrat at the time...

Perhaps the same people would have been bowing to Snowden if it were McCain, Romney, or Bush in office though.

This in my book isn't a partisan issue. It reaches up in our power structure beyond the two parties, and is a fundamental flaw in our system today that sorely needs fixing. I respect a lot those who take risks to try and expose and fix it.

Could some of these whistleblowers done it with better thought and perhaps less stepping on the edges of lawbreaking? Sure. But it seems clear to me that in these two cases of Manning and Snowden, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt of *trying* to do the right thing. Nobody's perfect.

If we had a better system of transparency and accountability, their sense of judgement wouldn't be tested as much, and perhaps they could have helped fix some of our system abuses by working up the chain of command or through watchdog groups more without having to go directly to the press or the public. That I blame our government for, not them. "State Secrets privilege" is a perfect example of another screwed up "tool" that both parties have used since the Bush era to hide the lawbreaking at the top way too much. It needs to be taken down. Sibel Edmonds' efforts to try and work within the system to expose wrongdoing when that was thrown against her multiple times is a prime example of this.

[Catherina]

9. Ellsberg never loved him

[Doctor_J]

15. And he doesn't understand how the government works

See, there are three branches, and...oh

[Harmony Blue]

24. In a way it is sad

really. At least the last few days shows where people stand on this issue though.

[24601]

33. Ellsburg' was a leak of history. Snowden's appears to be an active program. The damage isn't

even close to equivalent.

[Divernan]

39. Oh, sweetie! Vietnam was NOT history when Ellsberg leaked it!

I use the term "sweetie" as Penny would when gently trying to explain the real world to Sheldon.

What on earth knowledge or experience places you above Ellsburg in comparing and contrasting the significance of Snowden's actions versus Ellsburg's?

[24601]

44. Bless your little heart, but your information is inaccurate. As noted below, and I'll include the

URL,: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

"The Pentagon Papers, officially titled United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political-military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967."

So yes, when leaked in 1971, information that covered history ending in 1967 was not operational but was in fact history.

Never claimed to be above Ellsburg. As a citizen, I have precisely the same standing & right to point out that one compromises an active program while another leaked history for a period that ended 4 years prior to the leak.

[Divernan]

45. You're wrong. The Vietnam War was still raging in 1971.

It's disingenuous on your part to posit that information concerning an ongoing war was "history".
The intent of leaking the Pentagon Papers was to effect policy of an ongoing war; to transcend the time period covered in the papers, and as a 1996 article in the New York Times stated: (T)he Pentagon Papers "demonstrated, among other things, that the Lyndon Baines Johnson Administration (1963-January 20, 1969) had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance".

Ellsberg said the documents "demonstrated unconstitutional behavior by a succession of presidents, the violation of their oath and the violation of the oath of every one of their subordinates". He added that he leaked the Papers to end what he perceived to be "a wrongful war". http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/02/1331255

Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon papers in 1971. US combat operations in Vietnam did not end until 1973. The ceasefire was not signed until January 27, 1973. The US had 60 days to withdraw its troops. The cutoff date for issuing the Vietnam Service Medal was March 28, 1973.

On 29 March 1973, the last American combat troops left Vietnam. Their departure was part of the Paris Peace Accords, which the United States had signed with North and South Vietnam two months earlier, on 15 January. The Peace Accords also stipulated a cease-fire between the North and South, the releasing of American prisoners of war, the reunification of the two sides, and a call for elections in Vietnam. But except for the releasing of the POWs, these other terms were violated soon after the United States withdrew.

Although the last combat troops left in March 1973, several thousand American civilians (as well as a few hundred military personnel) remained behind to continue to aid and advise South Vietnam. Because the war was far from over for the Vietnamese. By early 1974, the war was once again raging full force, and it didn’t stop until April 1975, when communist forces finally captured Saigon.

- See more at: http://spotlights.fold3.com/2012/03/28/u-s-troops-leave-vietnam/#sthash.yBQPWWSw.dpuf

[24601]

46. There is a complete disconnect on your implication. The Pentagon Papers was a study that showed how

The US got to where we were by 1967. It didn't compromise ongoing intelligence sources & methods active in 1971 but instead revealed embarrassing info, primarily about LBJ's administration. The fact that Ellsberg has a lofty view of himself doesn't make it so. He wouldn't be the 1st or last to claim that his leak was for justifiable reasons.

You'll not see anything in my posts that addressed the dates of the Vietnam "war".

[PatrynXX]

6. it's knee jerks though that are causing alot of harm

Theory goes if someone disagrees one doesn't swear and call said person a dumbshit. which is pretty much where that got me. So if I say it hasn't gotten worse under Obama I pretty much get thrown under the bus. Makes one feel pretty good with the right and the left attack me. ahh now I know why I'm Left Wing libertarian. zzzzz I say it's wrong yes but it hasn't gotten worse. Obama's just keeping up with the times. We are dealing with in most cases western educated terrorists. They aren't dumbshits. So I wish we would stop attacking each other over it.

[Babel_17]

7. Ellsberg has been consistent and always ready to speak his mind (nt)

[grantcart]

13. Well actually the story of Ellsberg is that he radically changed

He was a former marine who worked at the right hand of Defense Secretary McNamara and then went to Rand where he contributed to the Vietnam War for 5 years. His world came crashing down when he was at a peace demonstration and witnessed a single demonstrator that announced he was preparing to go to prison rather than go to the war.

He writes

Randy Kehler never thought his going to prison would end the war. If I hadn't met Randy Kehler it wouldn't have occurred to me to copy [the Pentagon Papers]. His actions spoke to me as no mere words would have done. He put the right question in my mind at the right time.[8]

[Babel_17]

38. Yeah, I was talking of the evolved Ellsberg

But you raise the important point that there was a period of transformation.

I meant that since we the public got to know of him, Ellsberg has been a reliable person to go to at times when whistle-blowing, and vast government programs that are obscured by secrecy, become topics for discussion.

[Doctor_J]

8. Ellsberg just wanted a pony

He never liked Obama

[nebenaube]

28. I don't want a pony...

I don't want a pony, all I really want is to regain that sense of what it was like to be an American and how I felt about the country long ago, in say... 1976, yeah, but not a pony. But that's long gone... The experiment is over folks...

[Progressive dog]

10. Ellsberg has secret info that he won't disclose

Why does Ellsberg's opinion mean more than yours, mine, or the loyalist spinners on DU? Oh, I get it, because he agrees with Greenwald. Hey, that might be why the Guardian published his op. ed., Greenwald works for them.
We should take bets on who will write tomorrow's op. ed. Dick Cheney isn't credible, Condi Rice is forgotten except on Fox, can't imagine G.W. coming out of hiding, so I'd have to bet on a last name of Paul.

[Dragonfli]

19. His opinion means far more than yours, because well, he's intelligent and informed

The random associations you draw between Ellsberg, Cheney, Condi, and Paul reveal an intellect and level of information that let's just say is "antonymous" with informed intelligence.

[Progressive dog]

23. Where did I claim that I got to write op eds for the Guardian

You seem to be very confused about where you are.
You also may want to check the definition of "antonymous" before you use it again.

[Dragonfli]

29. I don't know what you're talking about, I responded to this "Why does Ellsberg's opinion

mean more than yours, mine, or the loyalist"

I freely admit he knows more about such things than I do considering his experiences, I would have to take each loyalist individually to assess the relative value of each one's opinion to his

So I addressed you specifically since you are the one asking however snide your rhetorical question may have been

I apologize if by answering honestly I confused you.


I used (as I always do) this definition:

Adj. 1. antonymous - of words: having opposite meanings
synonymous - (of words) meaning the same or nearly the same

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/antonymous

[Progressive dog]

34. The OP uses Ellsburg to support the claims of Snowden

From the original OP,
"In the Guardian, Ellsberg scoffed at Obama's response, and effectively schooled the Obama administration and all the loyalists trying to spin this matter on DU:"

Ellsberg's opinion that Snowden is being truthful is no more valid than that of anyone else.

[Dragonfli]

36. I maintain Ellsberg's opinion has a great deal of validity concerning the topic

He has earned the right to scoff at behavior of the type he has personally witnessed and defeated with truth and courage in real life. To make it plain, on this topic he is more a real life quarterback to your armchair wishbone defense.

It is fun to watch the game and pretend you are an expert, it is another to play the game in the big leagues and actually be an expert.

You remember the early seventies don't you? You have heard of the pentagon papers haven't you?

[Divernan]

40. Well stated, Dragonfli

Ellsberg has lived an honorable, courageous and inspiring life. How pathetic are these armchair commandos who attempt to diminish Ellsberg's significance to history. Attacking the significance and value of Ellsberg's opinion on a fellow whistler blower is as illogical as ridiculing Mother Teresa's opinion on charity. Why would anyone do so? I really cannot think of any other motivation then for personal gain.

[Progressive dog]

43. Ellsberg is now an expert on stuff that takes up a paragraph

in a newspaper. I didn't realize that was possible, he can probably see through walls too.
Arguing facts is different than expressing opinions, you apparently don't know the difference.

Snowden's "facts" are in dispute, Ellsburg's praise for Snowden does not prove anything about what Snowden claims.
I need to know nothing about the Pentagon Papers to understand Snowden's claims. Neither does Ellsberg.

I would consider myself an expert in the difference between fact and opinion, I think many people could make that simple claim.

[Ash_F]

11. What has Ellsberg done for me lately!?

Said the quisling poster.

[aquart]

12. Between Benghazi and Snowden, the risks of privatization should be obvious to government.

Profiteers cannot protect government lives or government secrets.

[blkmusclmachine]

14. .

.

[Divernan]

17. For we who were sentient beings during Watergate, the DU loyalists' spin is deja vu

of the Nixon White House.

[snot]

20. Kids, this isn't about who likes who, or who sides with who.

Surveillance on a scale the Stasi could only dream of simply is not compatible with a Constitution prohibiting searches and seizures without specific probable cause.

Editing to add this, also relevant, from http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022987642 :

In a book called Three Felonies A Day, Boston civil rights lawyer Harvey Silverglate says that everyone in the US commits felonies everyday and if the government takes a dislike to you for any reason, they'll dig in and find a felony you're guilty of.

The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to "white collar criminals," state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.


In response to a question about what happens to big company CEOs who refuse to go along with government surveillance requests, John Gilmore offers a case study in what Silverglate is talking about.

We know what happened in the case of QWest before 9/11. They contacted the CEO/Chairman asking to wiretap all the customers. After he consulted with Legal, he refused. As a result, NSA canceled a bunch of unrelated billion dollar contracts that QWest was the top bidder for. And then the DoJ targeted him and prosecuted him and put him in prison for insider trading -- on the theory that he knew of anticipated income from secret programs that QWest was planning for the government, while the public didn't because it was classified and he couldn't legally tell them, and then he bought or sold QWest stock knowing those things.

This CEO's name is Joseph P. Nacchio and TODAY he's still serving a trumped-up 6-year federal prison sentence today for quietly refusing an NSA demand to massively wiretap his customers.

[woo me with science]

26. Thank you. nt

[think]

27. Thank You as well. /nt

[Psephos]

30. important (and infuriating) post n/t

[idwiyo]

31. Thank you

[burnodo]

21. Obviously Ellsberg is a Republican plant!

trying to divide and conquer and split the Democrats. At heart he's a libertarian and he never loved Obama!

[woo me with science]

25. K&R

[idwiyo]

32. K&R

[Uncle Joe]

35. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Divernan.

[Divernan]

42. You are very welcome.

Ellsberg's stature is such that the more notorious usual suspects/spin doctors haven't showed up here!

[railsback]

37. Woodward went insane, too.

[Divernan]

41. Thanks to Ellsburg, the Vietnam memorial wall is "only" 75 meters long.

We owe Ellsberg a huge thank you for this article, just as the Vietnamese and the parents of those US soldiers sent to their deaths in Vietnam are in his debt for the exposing of the hollowness of the reasons for that war.

Remember Vietnam? The families of the 58,195 American men and women who died there have not forgotten. That's how many names are memorialized on the Vietnam war memorial wall in DC. Were it not for Daniel Ellsberg, how many more thousands and thousands of Americans would have died in that war? How many more Vietnamese?