Rest in Peace Daniel Ellsberg

submitted by penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable from (consortiumnews.com)

all 15 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]unagisongsBurn down Reddit! 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A true American hero gone. They are so few and far between.

[–]kingsmegLiberté, égalité, fraternité 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Ellsberg gained his freedom only after gross prosecutorial misconduct was revealed.

How times have changed.

[–]risistill me 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Yes, and not because prosecutorial conduct is a thing of the past: When speaking of Snowden, Ellsberg himself said his case would never have been dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct today.

[–]Centaurea 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

In fact, I doubt the NY Times would publish something like the Pentagon Papers today. They certainly would not go to the Supreme Court to get a ruling that they had a right to publish the leaked documents, as they did in 1971.

Instead, they no doubt would immediately get their CIA handler on the phone, identify the whistleblower, and assist in the prosecution/persecution of said whistleblower. They probably would also publish an editorial condemning the whistleblower's actions.

(Unfortunately, I can't put a sarcasm disclaimer on this comment. I mean it seriously. This is what American "journalism", at least the corporate variety, has devolved into.)

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

This is because in 1971, they did not yet control all levers of power. The jewish NY Times advocated for free speech because they wanted those in power to allow them to subvert our nations and infiltrate the power structure. Now they do not advocate free speech, because they are in power and want to keep others out.

JFK was murdered by the jews because he opposed their secret societies which he said had infiltrated and controlled the nation.

Nixon was also aware of the jewish problem and Daniel Ellsberg is a jew (I'm assuming based on the name), so the reason Ellsbergs whistleblowing was celebrated by the jewish media is because he was helping jews gain more power and undermine nonjewish power. The reason Snowden and others are not getting praised by the media but threatened is because they are problematic to jewish power.
Jews are extremely racist and everything they do and say is framed through the biased lense of "is this good for jewry?". Jewish racism is where they derive all their principles from.

[–]shatabee5 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Are the people in power actually doing what is best "for jewry"? Or are they doing what is best for billionaires?

The target of your complaints is misguided.

[–]InumaGaming Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Save yourself the stress. Find a workaround...

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You have lots of factions of jews that have different visions about what is "best" for jewry and what the right path for jews are, but they all agree on the goal. No billionaire is opposed to the jewish agenda, and when/if they are, they get Kanye'd. Elon Musk is a great example of a billionaire who barely challenged the jewish power structure by talking about offering free speech on twitter. He quickly learned to bend the knee to the ADL and then instituted a WEF puppet as the CEO. Before bending the knee to Jewry and WEF, his stock tanked massively, advertisers pulled out, investors pulled out, government investigations started into Musk, his ESG score tanked and became lower than that of Tobacco companies lol, and so on. You either toe the line of jewish power or they eliminate you.

The billionaire class is beholden to jewish interests.

[–]shatabee5 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The billionaire class is beholden to jewish interests.

It's their money that gives them power, not their religion.

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is both actually. The talmud tells them they are Gods chosen and the rest exist to serve them. This creates narcissist behaviours and it makes them very racist and nepotistic as an ethnic group. This is very efficient when combined with money, because it allows them to crush opposition and to keep themselves in power over generations.

Color blind and individualistic billionaires with only profit in mind have no such in-group and hence are left undefended against other billionaires with a collectivist mindset. It also allows jews to use their money to create institutions and structures that are shaped to privilege jews directly and indirectly making it easier for them to succeed compared to other groups.
The jews also use their hold on education and the media to make everyone else "individuals" because an individual cannot wage a war against them as a collective and they can easily target you and single you out.

Other groups have tried to emulate the jews, like free masons and jesuits but they all fell to jewish infiltration last century. The remaining oligarchs of the old western power structures are all marrying into jewish families now, because they know the writing is on the wall, so to say.

[–]InumaGaming Socialist 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What gets me is that casapulapula marched with Daniel and the ghouls in antiwar are attacking him for his anti- imperialism work.

I find it amazing how much he continues to move forward even if he faces so much adversity.

[–]risistill me 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

The war mongering ghouls of anti war, including one who claimed to be a fed and self-identified as a glowie.

How Orwellian, except I didn't find 1984 dead boring the first time I read it, unlike my first encounter with the fed and with that sub.

[–]Promyka5When in the course of human events... 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Should've been Kissinger. That old ghoul is still walking. Somehow.

RIP to one of our most fearless truth-tellers.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Daniel Ellsberg died at 92 on Friday in hospice care after a battle with pancreatic cancer.

Ellsberg was considered the greatest whistleblower of certainty his generation if not in U.S. history. His decision to leak the top-secret government study of the Vietnam war to the press was certainly one of the most courageous acts in the nation’s history.

The decision by the Nixon administration’s Department of Justice to order the press to stop publishing the Pentagon Papers led to a landmark Supreme Court decision against the government’s use of prior restraint.

Former President Richard Nixon had Ellsberg charged under the Espionage Act nonetheless. He gained his freedom only after gross prosecutorial misconduct was revealed.

In his later years Ellsberg continued to speak out against injustices and supported a new generation of whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning.

He was also a fearless advocate for WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange as he battles against his own Espionage Act case.

[–]risistill me 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The decision by the Nixon administration’s Department of Justice to order the press to stop publishing the Pentagon Papers led to a landmark Supreme Court decision against the government’s use of prior restraint.

It wasn't so much a leak as copying the papers and delivering the copies to the NYT, in a low tech version of what Manning did. And, while I don't know what the cases says, if anything, about involvement of the NYT before delivery, I doubt Ellsberg just showed up out of the clear blue one day at the offices of the Times with a stack of papers, shouting "Surprise!". So, my guess is that the NYT was involved before the copying.

Maybe Ellsberg tried to tell the Times the story and they said they'd need to see the docs before going to press with the story? (I once tried to blow the whistle on a state employee who sought sex in exchange for a favorable agency action. The reporter asked me for proof. So, I put the reporter on the phone with my source, the victim. However, she refused to give her name for fear of repercussions, so the reporter would not publish the story. Like no one ever quotes an anonymous source! Point is, a paper will ask for proof.)

And, yes, I'm also talking about Manning and wikileaks as well.

Also, yes, New York Times Company v. United States was an appeal from an injunction that prevented the NYT from publishing the Pentagon Papers and the NYT appealed. So, it's only about prior restraint.

But, since then, the US has been reluctant to go against a publisher for simply publishing, even after publication has occurred. Which is why the charges against Assange involve other alleged conduct by Assange. But I doubt that what Assange did with Manning was much different than what the NYT did with Ellsberg. It's too bad that Ellsberg cannot testify to that, one way or the other, any longer.

And it's too bad that the NYT today will impose a prior restraint upon itself in order to accommodate government, as it did when it withheld publication of a story for an entire year. FML anymore--all of us.