[Imc-dc-editorial] Ellsberg Feature

[Chuck0]

matthew bradley wrote:
> actually, i don't, 'cause i'm running thru a thousand other things.
> 
> the purpose of my solitary post wasn't to tell the story. that was 
> repeated a couple of times (the post itself even has a note that it 
> isn't adequate alone). so only with more stuff provided (and my 
> "threshold" for "more stuff" just being brian sharing a clip and a real 
> summary, he said he would when i saw him there, when he got the chance) 
> is there something worth (in my opinion) the DC IMC featuring. now - my 
> email is much closer to a summary. so, some combination of what i shared 
> in the email, what brian might share, and any facts i might have 
> accidentally report in my post, is probably fair - if it includes links 
> to the media shared on the wire and the background links.
> 
> bullet points
> + ellsberg had a press conference
> + ellsberg leaked the pentagon papers (something about WHAT those are)
> + he's an experienced military analyst from the vietnam era, and an 
> ex-marine
> + ellsberg sees parallels to the pentagon papers and more potential in 
> the current leak story and stories about intel agencies not happy with 
> leadership
> + ellsberg has made a call for more people to leak
> 
> gotta run. i can't think about this too hard anymore.

I think this is a good idea for a feature, because it ties current anti-war 
activism with the peace movements of the 60s and 70s. Americans are very 
ignorant of their own history and the younger generation of activists is no 
exception.

One problem with the UPI story is the part that says that the release of the 
papers "is widely credited with helping to turn public opinion against the 
war in Southeast Asia." The release of the papers had little effect on public 
opinion, which has bothered Ellsberg for many years. Polls taken shortly 
after the papers were published showed little change in public opinion.

But more importantly, the release of the papers really ticked off a paranoid 
Richard Nixon and set the stage for illegal activities by that regime that 
would lead to Nixon's resignation and the eventual end of the war (many years 
after the anti-war movement died down).

Let me add some points that could be made in this feature:

* Ellsberg's call for government workers to leak reflects the fact that many 
military planners oppose the Bush regime's war plans. This was similar to the 
1960s, where military planners had doubts about the Vietnam War. The Pentagon 
Papers made these doubts public.
* A recent survey of federal workers showed a lot of support by federal 
workers for whistleblowers and protection for whistleblowers from official 
sanctions and punishment.
* Ellsberg's call ties into the new developments in the UK surrounding the 
release of that information about US spying on the UN.

Finally, Ellsberg's story highlights the importance of anti-war activists 
*talking* to pro-war people, instead of yelling at them. If some patient 
anti-war activists hadn't radicalized Ellsberg during the 1960s, the Pentagon 
Papers may never have been released.

Chuck0

------------------------------------------------------------
Personal homepage        -> http://chuck.mahost.org/
Infoshop.org             -> http://www.infoshop.org/
MutualAid.org            -> http://www.mutualaid.org/
Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/
Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/
Anarchy: AJODA           -> http://www.anarchymag.org/

"The state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away. 
You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you 
assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which 
you resist is the degree to which you are free..."
---Utah Phillips