from The Associated Press
Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department official who leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War, is urging government insiders to provide similar classified documents about the invasion of Iraq.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Wow, that's pretty brave.
I wonder if that is legal, or if they are risking incarceration to do that. I guess it's not a crime to leak documents, so it's not encouraging people to commit a crime.
Still, considering the political climate, that's pretty damn brave.
Good find, Ryan.
The Pentagon Papers were classified documents, so what Ellsberg did was very illegal, and he knew it, and I think he was expecting a lengthy prison term. On the other hand, he felt the government was pursuing an illegal war, and doing so by deliberately deceiving the American people. Think of it as high-level civil disobedience. That he was not convicted relates in part to the subsequent Watergate scandal (Nixon ordered a break-in into Ellsberg's office, among others), but also to a shifting consciousness among Americans against the war. This phenomenon affected prosecution at every level; for instance, draft-office raiders were convicted much more consistently at the beginning of the war than by the end, when juries were more sympathetic to war protesters.
For some reason I was thinking that whistle blowing was not actually illegal--maybe because they always commend the whistle blowers in the Senate hearings. (Just something in the back of my mind about that. )
Well, if it's illegal, then telling people to do it is also illegal, because it's illegal to encourage people to commit crimes.
Kind of an interesting subject. I think I will look into it.
Wait, wait!!! I'm not nuts!!! Here's a an excerpt from the Congressional Record on whistleblowing (July 11, 2001):
SENATOR GRASSLEY: "I am also pleased to see as part of this order that the Attorney General has enhanced whistleblower protection for FBI employees who come forward with protected disclosures. As an author of legislation that is on the books now for whistleblower protection, the last time we enhanced the protection for whistleblowers there was just enough sympathy--and unjustified sympathy--within this body for the FBI that somehow the FBI could have a separate set of regulations just for whistleblowers within the FBI. As a result,
whistleblowers within the FBI have not had the same amount of protection that whistleblowers in any other agency of the Federal Government might have. So this will also help in that direction. I thank the Attorney General for that. "
I thought there was something I remembered about that. Maybe things have changed
I think it sets a dangerous precident that could lead to even more military deaths. I would advocate an internal reporting of such sensitive material. If the person has such conviction and holds sensitive information of a dubios nature, they should bring it to the attention of the Senate, who can better determine if the information should be acted on. Such informational leaks to the press only aid the enemy and could lead to more danger for our troops. (Freom a military point of view)
Probably depends on what kind of info is being leaked. If it's military info, then I agree that you should stick with the Senate first, but if it were something political, then maybe the press would be better.
Unfortunately that line gets blurred far too often.
Post a Comment