Skip to main content

I happened upon this TruthDig radio podcast embedded in a post titled:

"Daniel Ellsberg: ‘Obama Would Have Indicted Me"

"on Truthdig Radio in association with KPFK: Robert Scheer interviews the godfather of principled leakers about Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning, Edward Snowden and President Obama’s “unprecedented campaign against whistle-blowing.”

The podcast lasts about 45 minutes; so get yourself a drink, have a seat and listen to Daniel Ellsberg in his own words talk about Manning, Snowden, Julian Assange  and how he thinks the Obama administration would have treated him.

Many in the Corporate Media and within the vastness of the world wide web (www.) have compared Manning and Edward Snowden to Daniel Ellsberg. When referring to Snowden or Manning they ask if they are "traitor or whistleblower"?  The MSNBC "Replacement Liberals" without exception refer to both Manning and Snowden as "leakers" and not whistleblowers.  Alternatively, both the Corporate Media and the world wide web regularly pronounce that Daniel Ellsberg was the quintessential Whistleblower.   In the podcast Ellsberg himself addresses this inconsistency by  unequivocally declaring both Manning and Snowden Whistleblowers.  Ellsberg went on to say that the very same corporate media called him a "traitor" during his trial.

During Manning's  trial Daniel Ellsberg, sitting  directly behind the young private, reached up and tapped Manning on the shoulder attempting to offer words of encouragement, but before he could get out two words federally employed goons grabbed Ellsberg, dragged him out of the court room.  They (the Goons) told Ellsberg that it was against regulations for him to speak to the prisoner. Ellsberg had the audacity to ask, "show me where talking to the prisoner is against regulations"? They could not.

This tap on the shoulder of one history making patriotic Whisleblower to another in my opinion should have the "stuff" real reporters live to witness! It was akin to the Mahatma Gandhi sitting behind Martin Luther King  (if they lived during the same era) during his multiple brushes with the Southern court system, tapping him on the shoulder and whispering in his ear "you go". The propaganda value for the left would have been a windfall, but no one in the Corporate Media took notice. Not one of the MSNBC "replacement liberals" or their endless parade of "talking heads" mentioned this history making moment?

 During the podcast  Ellsberg mentioned that the judge was offered a  “job” by the government during his trial; the warrantless wire taps…

At one point the interviewer mentioned that  Ellsberg as once called  “one of the best and the brightest”, commenting on how by contrast the Corporate Media portrayed the Harvard educated Ellsberg to the lesser  narratives they created for Manning (the emotional basket case) and Snowden (the GED high school drop out). Ellsberg  responded, “we were smart, but we lacked wisdom and foresight”.  

Daniel Ellsberg, like Edward Snowden worked for a government contractor (the RAND corp.). Snowden worked for  Booz Allen Hamilton who’s parent company is the   Carlyle Group: which has extensive ties to the Bush family and Saudi Arabia.

Ellsberg went on to say that Obama has prosecuted more Whistelblowers then all other presidents in US history combined (7).  He also mentioned that Carl Levin admitted that  Obama asked him to take out Whisleblower protection added to an appropriations bill. Ellsberg clearly stated that he had no doubt that this administration would not hesitate to lock him away for life for what he revealed.  

Lastly, Ellsberg put forth that there should be a legal challenge to the part of the The Espionage Act  that deals with government leaks (I am talking to you ACLU). Ellsberg called it "Facially' Unconstitutional" ; and went on to say that it "chilled" free speech just by it's existence.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Told at Manning's site: (10+ / 0-)
    There was a brief recess at this point.  At 10:45 AM, Daniel Ellsberg stepped forward and placed his hand on Manning’s shoulder and leaned in. He began to introduce himself when two MPs from the back of the room came forward and intervened.  He was taken from the room. After extensive discussion in the courtyard outside the courthouse, and after a journalist intervened on Ellsberg’s behalf, he was allowed to return.

    Shortly after, a lunch recess was announced.
  •  Ellsberg was indicted--by Nixon. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thomas Twinnings

    The only reason he wasn't in prison was that the prosecution botched the case.

    And even Ellsberg will admit that.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 07:10:23 PM PDT

    •  Um. Not sure what your point is, but (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bisbonian, lostinamerica, blueoasis

      "prosecution botched the case"? You mean like the whole breaking into his psychiatrist's office and illegally wiretapping him sort of botched?

    •  Was Because the Gov't So Harassed Ellsberg (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eyesoars, blueoasis, Youffraita

      after the initial events.

      On April 26, the break-in of Fielding's office was revealed to the court in a memo to Judge Byrne, who then ordered it to be shared with the defense.[23][24]

      On May 9, further evidence of illegal wiretapping against Ellsberg was revealed in court. The FBI had recorded numerous conversations between Morton Halperin and Ellsberg without a court order, and furthermore the prosecution had failed to share this evidence with the defense.[25] During the trial, Byrne also revealed that he personally met twice with John Ehrlichman, who offered him directorship of the FBI. Byrne said he refused to consider the offer while the Ellsberg case was pending, though he was criticized for even agreeing to meet with Ehrlichman during the case.[24]

      Due to the gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering, and the defense by Leonard Boudin and Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, Judge Byrne dismissed all charges against Ellsberg and Russo on May 11, 1973 after the government claimed it had lost records of wiretapping against Ellsberg. Byrne ruled: "The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case."[24]

      And Ellsberg did not "turn himself in." The NY Times ratfinked him so knowing he would be arrested he then surrendered.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 07:28:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What you so casually (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Little, lostinamerica, blueoasis, DRo

      refer to as "botching" the case case, in the podcast Ellsberg details how during the trial the Judge was offered a job by the government (head of the FBI) , Warrant-less wire taps....


  •  Two truths, one of which I have only recently (0+ / 0-)

    realized. Let me take the second first. Our legal system rests on complaint. There has to be a complainant for the legal process to be initiated. Nature doesn't get preserved because it takes a lot to make it complain. The cops sometimes make up complainants, again because that's what it takes to get the ball rolling.
    Now, the first truth is that the legal process requires a trial of two sides. When Ellsberg complains about Manning being taken to trial and then says there should be a legal challenge, he's demonstrating that he doesn't understand that's what the Manning case is.
    What was wrong with Nixon was that he wasn't tried in court and, for that matter, Ellsberg was not tried either. It all got swept under the rug and we still have echoes of "when the President does it, it's not against the law." What that means is that the law is subject to personal caprice. Who does something is more important than what is done. Which, of course, is why the state killing people in cold blood, or in excitement, is not considered a crime.

    Officers of the law can be irresponsible because their only obligation is to obey the command of a superior person. The culture of obedience has supplanted independent justice.

    The rule about no talking in the court room is a matter of judicial tradition and authority. Judges do not want to hear from the audience or be interrupted. There is no freedom to speak in court. Even when there are juries, the jurors are ordered to remain silent. Lap tops are not permitted because the keyboards make noise. The court reporter needs to hear one person at a time, so all extraneous noises are ruled out of order.

    •  When I see Manning flanked by two (0+ / 0-)

      strapping young bucks who respond to this living breathing thinking human being not as a person, but as cargo they are put in charge of in service to their masters.

      "The rule about no talking in the court room is a matter of judicial tradition and authority."

      I understand your above statement, but I say "to hell " with tradition" and default to the spirit of the constitution (free speech) and the overriding value of ones humanity.  

      •  I am not justifying, only explaining. Our judicial (0+ / 0-)

        system has fallen into public neglect. Nobody's monitoring the judges (the press has abdicated boring work) and the other players in the court room have a vested interest to play their parts as the other players expect.

        We need court watchers.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site