The new York Times, as a results of a Supreme Court ruling, was not found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these secret documents. the Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional record by Senator Mike Gravel, with no charges of any kind being made of breaking any national security laws. Yet the release of this classified information was considered illegal by many, and those who lied us into the Vietnam war, and argued for its prolongation were outraged. But the truth gained from the Pentagon Papers revealed that lies were told about the Gulf of Tonkin attack. which perpetuated a sad and tragic episode in our history.
History is the damnedest thing isnt it?
"in new York Times Co. v. United States found that the government had not made a successful case for prior restraint, but a MAJORITY of the justices ruled that the government COULD STILL prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act in publishing the documents. Ellsberg and Russo WERE NOT acquitted of violating the Espionage Act, but were freed due to a mistrial based on irregularities in the government's case"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_A…
yes, history is the damnedest thing isnt it?
He is in prison, because of the alleged sexual assault charges against him. He could of talked about it before with investigators and courts, but he refused. So they issued out a warrant for his arrest. it was filled out incorrectly, but they got around to doing it the right way.
You do know that the police can contain you for questioning, all they need is a court order. He thumbed his nose at the law.
Even if you don't think he didn't, do you think that excuses him from coming in for questioning about the matter.
I do not support Assange and if he is found guilty of rape he can stay in prison for the rest of his life but I do support the 1st Amendment. All Wiki leak did was post some embarrassing information.
FYI
The Supreme Court decided, 6–3, that the government failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint injunction against a news organization.
Daniel Ellsberg was a tool of Robert McNamara. He "leaked" the Pentagon Papers on McNamara's orders. the whole thing was a set up so McNamara could claim he had been lied to by the military and the whole Vietnam fiasco was the militaries fault, not McNamara's.
The military did not "lie" about the Gulf of Tonkin Innocent. the USS Maddox was attacked by North Vietnamese gunboats. the USS Turner Joy thought it was under attack too, but aircraft scrambled to assist the Turner Joy did not find any Vietnamese gunboats present. Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara (not necessarily in that order) were looking for an excuse to deploy American ground forces to South Vietnam and seized on the Turner Joy's report. they did not wait for the military to confirm the report before they took action on it. this was a political error, not a military error, but–as noted above–McNamara wanted to blame someone besides himself for the way he and LBJ botched the war they got us into.
As far as the Wkli-leak's go, Assuage is not being prosecuted for the leaks. He is charged with rape. I don't know if he did it, or if it is an excuse to get him, but that is a whole different can of worms.
