Daniel Ellsberg: The 90-year-old whistleblower tempting prosecution(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Daniel Ellsberg: The 90-year-old whistleblower tempting prosecution
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57341592
81 comments
> Now Ellsberg, who recently turned 90, is calling on the U.S. government to prosecute him under the 1917 Espionage Act.
> The government, Ellsberg plausibly believes, “is not anxious” to prosecute him. But he hopes to force the issue, in an attempt to bring the case to the Supreme Court and have the Espionage Act declared unconstitutional — a long-held goal of First Amendment advocates.
https://theintercept.com/2021/06/01/daniel-ellsberg-china-at...
> The government, Ellsberg plausibly believes, “is not anxious” to prosecute him. But he hopes to force the issue, in an attempt to bring the case to the Supreme Court and have the Espionage Act declared unconstitutional — a long-held goal of First Amendment advocates.
https://theintercept.com/2021/06/01/daniel-ellsberg-china-at...
"Wants prosecution" seems like a much more accurate headline. "Tempts" makes it seem like the US is considering it, and that they haven't for the four years since the release shows they're unlikely to.
Tempt doesn't have the connotation that you believe it to have. When you tempt you entice, regardless of whether the person you are tempting considers acting on your enticement.
Meaning the action needs to be enticing, even if they are not considering it.
No, I think he's right. A chocolate cake may be tempting to you but not to me.
Thank you. I have learned more about the word, tempt. It can be a verb with an object or a verb without an object. Therefore, either use is correct, but the meaning differs slightly betweem them. I can tempt you with cake, but in return you might not be tempted by the cake.
Not really. You can attempt to tempt someone with cake, but to succeed in tempting them they'd have to experience temptation.
Actually, what I wrote is true. Look at the definitions of tempt in order to see this.
Definition of tempt
transitive verb
1: to entice to do wrong by promise of pleasure or gain
2a: to induce to do something
b: to cause to be strongly inclined
was tempted to call it quits
3a: to try presumptuously : PROVOKE
tempt fate
b: to risk the dangers of
c: obsolete : to make trial of : TEST
Yes, that supports what I'm saying.
I don't understand what the positive outcome of this is. If China invades Taiwan they'll be able to hold the rest of the world hostage because of TSMC. It's still a lose-lose situation.
Ellsberg's worried about nuclear war. That would be worse than China getting TSMC.
However, as far as TSMC is concerned, the likely outcome of an invasion would be that TSMC in Taiwan permanently shuts down: https://doxa.substack.com/p/why-a-chinese-invasion-of-taiwan
However, as far as TSMC is concerned, the likely outcome of an invasion would be that TSMC in Taiwan permanently shuts down: https://doxa.substack.com/p/why-a-chinese-invasion-of-taiwan
> the likely outcome of an invasion would be that TSMC in Taiwan permanently shuts down
It would turn into rubble.
There is no way that facility would be ceded.
It would turn into rubble.
There is no way that facility would be ceded.
baybal2(1)
MAD. I don't think anyone in the US or China is going to nuke anyone else because of survival instincts. There must be chain-of-command and multi-party custody controls in the militaries of all nuclear powers to prevent unauthorized release. In such stable cases, they become worse than White Elephants: can't get rid of them because of the liabilities of inviting nuclear and conventional wars, and can't keep them because they're expensive, inherently dangerous, and tempting for crazy people to use.
Economic interdependence also creates another layer of protection from either side going too far because of the economic warfare potential before nuclear or conventional wars would be considered.
Economic interdependence also creates another layer of protection from either side going too far because of the economic warfare potential before nuclear or conventional wars would be considered.
I'd suggest reading Ellsberg's book (The Doomsday Machine) detailing the risks imposed by MAD.
China is reaching the point where they could invade Taiwan and be confident of getting away with it, but they're not quite there yet. We're currently in a narrow window where the US could and should unilaterally recognise Taiwanese statehood and commit to a firm security guarantee.
[deleted]
China is constrained by its reliance on western markets. Full stop. It would hurt to pull the plug, but if they cross a line it will happen and they know it.
Before Hong Kong I would probably have agreed with you, but You're assuming a purely rational reasoning. For China, and Xi in particular, there is a big element of national and personal pride at stake. It's for the same reason they have risked strangling Hong Kong in order to bring it more in line with the rest of China.
Xi (more so than his predecessors) is quite happy to take a short term loss for (what he sees) as a long term gain. In addition, he would love to be remembered in history as the man he reunified China.
Xi (more so than his predecessors) is quite happy to take a short term loss for (what he sees) as a long term gain. In addition, he would love to be remembered in history as the man he reunified China.
Furthermore, Hong Kong and Crimea show that western powers aren't spoiling for a fight - especially if you can present them with a fait accompli.
Agreed. This is what an obsessive focus on "facts and logic" at the expense of a similar focus on emotion, instinct, and subjectivity gets you. People have values that often contradict rationality, and in too many cases they're ready to kill and die for them.
The US is completely dependent on China for manufacturing. China is completely dependent on the US for funding development. It would be bad news for either frenemy to start anything major.
Their posture is potentially lessening that dependency somewhat though - a company I work with, for example, now tries to find suppliers in Malaysia, Thailand, etc. for metalwork, PCB manufacture, assembly and things like that, which all would have just gone straight to China five years ago. This is a pretty small manufacturer with a fairly niche product, but I imagine others are thinking the same way.
[deleted]
But the western markets rely on china.
Basically, if we "built the wall", they'd still have all the stuff, and we'd have increasingly more worthless numbers in our bank accounts.
Relying on one country for most of our production needs is stupid.
Basically, if we "built the wall", they'd still have all the stuff, and we'd have increasingly more worthless numbers in our bank accounts.
Relying on one country for most of our production needs is stupid.
[deleted]
Now it is. But their population alone is larger than all the western markets combined, so it probably won’t remain so indefinitely.
That's far from a settled position in Taiwan itself, though.
By your definition that would be committing to an untenable position.
The political dynamics are very different if China invades after US recognition of Taiwan rather than before. (Especially if they station a tripwire force there like in Estonia).
As of right now, TSMC is the same as a tripwire force, and IMO the Chinese leadership knows that. But hopefully that will stop being true as this Arizona facility comes online and we regain top-tier capabilities.
If it stops being a critical national security issue for us? I don't really care. Like, I'm for self-determination and all that but I don't care more about Taiwan than I do about Yemen, and I and the rest of America definitely do not care about Yemen.
If it stops being a critical national security issue for us? I don't really care. Like, I'm for self-determination and all that but I don't care more about Taiwan than I do about Yemen, and I and the rest of America definitely do not care about Yemen.
> As of right now, TSMC is the same as a tripwire force
No it isn't. China can occupy Taiwan without killing thousands of US soldiers. That matters, politically.
> If it stops being a critical national security issue for us? I don't really care. Like, I'm for self-determination and all that but I don't care more about Taiwan than I do about Yemen
It's not about Taiwan, it's about China. If they successfully annex Taiwan they'll eat the rest of the world too, one bite at a time, and drawing the line in the sand will get harder and harder.
No it isn't. China can occupy Taiwan without killing thousands of US soldiers. That matters, politically.
> If it stops being a critical national security issue for us? I don't really care. Like, I'm for self-determination and all that but I don't care more about Taiwan than I do about Yemen
It's not about Taiwan, it's about China. If they successfully annex Taiwan they'll eat the rest of the world too, one bite at a time, and drawing the line in the sand will get harder and harder.
ASML will be happy to ship your steppers to wherever you order them. Chip fabrication is so critical that a facility should be created on each continent.
I am not up to speed on semiconductor manufacturing national security efforts, but it seems like the US is behind in subsidizing renewed semiconductor manufacturing and supply chains on US soil, and time is running out.
> If China invades Taiwan they'll be able to hold the rest of the world hostage because of TSMC. It's still a lose-lose situation.
No, this is not true. China depends on foreign technology much, much more than anyone depends on TSMC. Just look at the Huawei and ZTE sanctions.
Not to mention if China had that much leverage in the game they could easily sanction Taiwan and cut off probably a majority of its business dealings before resorting to invasion by force.
Did you know that Taiwan and China (pre-covid) could freely travel between the countries more or less, and even setup business like Foxconn that profit off Chinese labor? There's literally more cooperation between Taiwan and China than US and Cuba.
No, this is not true. China depends on foreign technology much, much more than anyone depends on TSMC. Just look at the Huawei and ZTE sanctions.
Not to mention if China had that much leverage in the game they could easily sanction Taiwan and cut off probably a majority of its business dealings before resorting to invasion by force.
Did you know that Taiwan and China (pre-covid) could freely travel between the countries more or less, and even setup business like Foxconn that profit off Chinese labor? There's literally more cooperation between Taiwan and China than US and Cuba.
>> Did you know that Taiwan and China (pre-covid) could freely travel between the countries more or less, and even setup business like Foxconn that profit off Chinese labor? There's literally more cooperation between Taiwan and China than US and Cuba.
This is because China had been attempting a policy of economic (and cultural) engagement with Taiwan for the best part of 20 years, up until the election of Tsai Ing-Wen in 2016. China had pursued this policy while the KMT were in power in Taiwan; the KMT are generally considered to favor closer ties between China and Taiwan. Things have changed a bit since the DPP (the more "anti-China" of Taiwan's two major political parties) won the 2016 and 2020 elections. I certainly don't know what the future holds, but I think China has now concluded that reunification through cultural/economic links is unlikely to succeed, not least because the idea of "one country, two systems" looks even less attractive after the events in Hong Kong.
This is because China had been attempting a policy of economic (and cultural) engagement with Taiwan for the best part of 20 years, up until the election of Tsai Ing-Wen in 2016. China had pursued this policy while the KMT were in power in Taiwan; the KMT are generally considered to favor closer ties between China and Taiwan. Things have changed a bit since the DPP (the more "anti-China" of Taiwan's two major political parties) won the 2016 and 2020 elections. I certainly don't know what the future holds, but I think China has now concluded that reunification through cultural/economic links is unlikely to succeed, not least because the idea of "one country, two systems" looks even less attractive after the events in Hong Kong.
>No, this is not true. China depends on foreign technology much, much more than anyone depends on TSMC.Just look at the Huawei and ZTE sanctions.
Maybe this is still true for now, but that too is changing. China was already wary of that dependency and put efforts underway to rid itself of this dependency. The Huawei and ZTE sanctions only had the effect of putting these efforts into hyperdrive. [1] gives an overview of historic and current efforts. tl;dr China is not yet close to self-sufficient but they are spending like crazy and making major progress.
Give it another 10, 15 years and the picture might look quite different, if it even takes them that long. And China is playing the long game anyway.
[1] https://semiengineering.com/china-speeds-up-advanced-chip-de...
Maybe this is still true for now, but that too is changing. China was already wary of that dependency and put efforts underway to rid itself of this dependency. The Huawei and ZTE sanctions only had the effect of putting these efforts into hyperdrive. [1] gives an overview of historic and current efforts. tl;dr China is not yet close to self-sufficient but they are spending like crazy and making major progress.
Give it another 10, 15 years and the picture might look quite different, if it even takes them that long. And China is playing the long game anyway.
[1] https://semiengineering.com/china-speeds-up-advanced-chip-de...
The positive outcome is avoiding a nuclear war and hundreds of millions dead. If we don't want to be held hostage because of TSMC the answer is to build up our own industry domestically, not destroy human civilization.
The article concerns the year 1958, I'm pretty sure we were still using vacuum tubes at that time.
Pneumatic tube systems still are in operation, and popular especially in hospitals. Turns out it is far quicker than having to carry around medicine from the central apothecary.
GP is likely referring to the use of electron tubes [1] perhaps juxtaposing (hypothetical Taiwanese) tubes in 1958 with TSMC today(?). A decade earlier, however, the transistor was invented and would replace the use of tubes, at least for computers.
Tubes, aka valves, are still popular in professional and consumer audio equipment, vintage and contemporary microphones, amplifiers and compressors.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube
Tubes, aka valves, are still popular in professional and consumer audio equipment, vintage and contemporary microphones, amplifiers and compressors.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube
Ellsberg's job, at the time he copied the Pentagon Papers, was nuclear strategy. His recent book The Doomsday Machine is a sobering account of early US strategy, which he can write about now because a lot has been declassified.
It turns out the Pentagon Papers were supposed to be just a sideline. He also copied documents on US nuclear strategy, which was horrific. He released the Vietnam documents first because he figured if he started with the nuclear docs, nobody would care about the Vietnam stuff.
He gave the nuclear papers to his brother to hide. His brother hid them first in his compost pile, then got worried and moved them to a garbage bag on the edge of the town dump. The next day, men in suits were seen poking metal rods in his compost pile.
Unfortunately, a freak storm washed away that section of the dump. Ellsberg and his brother spent a year opening garbage bags in the area where it all ended up, to no avail. Ellsberg said his wife considered the storm a gift from God, because if the nuclear papers had hit the light of day, he surely would have spent the rest of his life in prison.
It turns out the Pentagon Papers were supposed to be just a sideline. He also copied documents on US nuclear strategy, which was horrific. He released the Vietnam documents first because he figured if he started with the nuclear docs, nobody would care about the Vietnam stuff.
He gave the nuclear papers to his brother to hide. His brother hid them first in his compost pile, then got worried and moved them to a garbage bag on the edge of the town dump. The next day, men in suits were seen poking metal rods in his compost pile.
Unfortunately, a freak storm washed away that section of the dump. Ellsberg and his brother spent a year opening garbage bags in the area where it all ended up, to no avail. Ellsberg said his wife considered the storm a gift from God, because if the nuclear papers had hit the light of day, he surely would have spent the rest of his life in prison.
The recent revelations are not at all surprising.
Truman relieved General MacArthur of his command over coalition forces in Korea in large part because he planned and aggressively advocated the use of nuclear weapons against the Chinese.
If you visit the Princeton stacks, you can unearth many Woodrow Wilson School theses advocating the aggressive use of nuclear weapons during Vietnam. Some of the people who authored these papers went on to craft US trade policy from the 1980s through the present. A truly remarkable change of heart.
Truman relieved General MacArthur of his command over coalition forces in Korea in large part because he planned and aggressively advocated the use of nuclear weapons against the Chinese.
If you visit the Princeton stacks, you can unearth many Woodrow Wilson School theses advocating the aggressive use of nuclear weapons during Vietnam. Some of the people who authored these papers went on to craft US trade policy from the 1980s through the present. A truly remarkable change of heart.
> Truman relieved General MacArthur of his command over coalition forces in Korea in large part because he planned and aggressively advocated the use of nuclear weapons against the Chinese.
This is still debated, and MacArthur later denied it in his testimony to the Senate Inquiry. His removal has a clearer and simpler reason: Truman felt MacArther's communication with the Chinese violated his December directive and preempted the President, while the Joint Chiefs' concern was that "if MacArthur were not relieved, a large segment of our people would charge that civil authorities no longer controlled the military." [1]
The simplest explanation for the removal is that MacArthur tacitly disobeyed the Commander-in-Chief (enraging President Truman).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief_of_Douglas_MacArthur#Re...
This is still debated, and MacArthur later denied it in his testimony to the Senate Inquiry. His removal has a clearer and simpler reason: Truman felt MacArther's communication with the Chinese violated his December directive and preempted the President, while the Joint Chiefs' concern was that "if MacArthur were not relieved, a large segment of our people would charge that civil authorities no longer controlled the military." [1]
The simplest explanation for the removal is that MacArthur tacitly disobeyed the Commander-in-Chief (enraging President Truman).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief_of_Douglas_MacArthur#Re...
> The recent revelations are not at all surprising.
You have to be careful with sentences like that. It removes all of the urgency and action from a discussion.
You have to be careful with sentences like that. It removes all of the urgency and action from a discussion.
It also adds information. Specifically, that it wasn’t the lack of awareness that led to this situation repeating. This, we should focus our efforts not just on whistleblowing, but on figuring out the gap between the whistle and effective action.
[deleted]
MacArthur was the wack job who, along with Patton and Eisenhower, attacked the poor Bonus Army protestors during the Great Depression. It's pretty much analogous to Occupy Wall Street but with a specific goal.
The Bonus Army was seen as a major threat at the time (imagine the Capital Building protests, but large enough to occupy a large part of the capital). FDR's commencement speech, which took place while they were going on, makes anything said by recent US presidents look tame.
I threat to whom? Hoover sent in the troops and the generals rolled tanks through DC and their encampment. It cost Hoover his reelection and his reputation which was otherwise stellar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
[deleted]
[deleted]
If you want to learn more, just watch the movie Dr. Strangelove. It was marketed as a comedy, but people in the know consider it to be non-fiction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove
General MacArthur was dismissed during the Korean War because the White House weren't sure if he was going to use nukes or not (like the movie.) The policy was that the US was ready (bombers with nukes were positioned in Japan), but President Truman wanted to give final advance approval to commanders, yet MacArthur was issuing his own policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur
(It turns out that MacArthur was right about basically everything he ever said, and continued to advise Presidents.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove
General MacArthur was dismissed during the Korean War because the White House weren't sure if he was going to use nukes or not (like the movie.) The policy was that the US was ready (bombers with nukes were positioned in Japan), but President Truman wanted to give final advance approval to commanders, yet MacArthur was issuing his own policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur
(It turns out that MacArthur was right about basically everything he ever said, and continued to advise Presidents.)
Dr. Strangelove ends in a total nuclear war with humanity retreating to underground bunkers, so surely some of it must have been fictional.
Not exactly, it finish with the guys that started the war (not humanity en masse) retreating to underground bunkers with an harem. Sounds pretty realistic to me.
Eh, so far.
It was based on a non comedy book, ‘Red alert’. There is another film from the time as well , same premise, ‘fail safe’ that is also a serious take on it.
makes me wonder what Rhee knew. for those of you who don't know, he was trained by americans and later smuggled out of the u.s. by someone high up in the army. he then received dictatorship of southern korea from the u.s. army, then went on to kill several hundred thousand political prisoners.
> At his trial, Mr Ellsberg was not able to argue that he leaked the Pentagon Papers in the public interest. This argument was irrelevant, the judge ruled, because the act provides no such defence, which is often invoked by journalists.
Interestingly, Snowden has said he would return to the US for a fair trial, i.e., one in which he could make a public interest defence.[0] Among his supporters is Ellsberg:
> Ellsberg said, “Ed would be crazy to come back for a trial.”
> “Without amending the Espionage Act or rescinding it you cannot get a fair trial for a whistleblower in this case,” he said.[1]
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/21/edward-snowd...
[1]: https://www.salemnews.com/news/local_news/ellsberg-snowden-d...
Interestingly, Snowden has said he would return to the US for a fair trial, i.e., one in which he could make a public interest defence.[0] Among his supporters is Ellsberg:
> Ellsberg said, “Ed would be crazy to come back for a trial.”
> “Without amending the Espionage Act or rescinding it you cannot get a fair trial for a whistleblower in this case,” he said.[1]
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/21/edward-snowd...
[1]: https://www.salemnews.com/news/local_news/ellsberg-snowden-d...
Nothing screams "justice" like a judge instructing a defendant on what defense they are allowed to present.
The jury acquitted anyway, but do you think Emmett Till's killers should have been able to present a "he was black so it wasn't murder for me to lynch him" defense?
We ask juries to render a verdict based on the law.
We ask juries to render a verdict based on the law.
The law can be changed, and in this case it should.
Snowden's detractors have claimed he has given US intelligence to Russia. I am not aware of any publicly available evidence of this, but very well, let us assume that this is true. In that case, grant him his request for a public interest defence, and convict him on those grounds instead.
Snowden's detractors have claimed he has given US intelligence to Russia. I am not aware of any publicly available evidence of this, but very well, let us assume that this is true. In that case, grant him his request for a public interest defence, and convict him on those grounds instead.
> The law can be changed, and in this case it should.
I agree (my limited knowledge of how the law actually works notwithstanding), but I don’t think the jury should be the ones to change it.
I agree (my limited knowledge of how the law actually works notwithstanding), but I don’t think the jury should be the ones to change it.
It happens nonetheless. Jury nullification is a feature of the legal system, not a bug.
> The jury acquitted anyway, but do you think Emmett Till's killers should have been able to present a "he was black so it wasn't murder for me to lynch him" defense?
I guess? The jury's going to be thinking it anyway, so it might as well be addressed by defense and prosecution.
> We ask juries to render a verdict based on the law.
A guilty verdict needs to be based on the law. For not guilty it's probably best if it's almost always based on the law.
I guess? The jury's going to be thinking it anyway, so it might as well be addressed by defense and prosecution.
> We ask juries to render a verdict based on the law.
A guilty verdict needs to be based on the law. For not guilty it's probably best if it's almost always based on the law.
Call me naive but when you are accused by the state of wrongdoing I think that you should be able to say whatever you want in your own defense. Its fine for the judge to instruct the jury on the law, but it doesn't seem fine to me for the judge to prevent you from presenting whatever defense you see fit.
Jury nullification exists for a reason.
If Assange ends up back in the US facing trial, does he have the same option as Ellsberg mentioned of triggering a Supreme Court action? Or is that only for US citizens?
I guess that would be good plea bargain leverage if it were possible.
I guess that would be good plea bargain leverage if it were possible.
The case would still go to the Supreme Court eventually; SCOTUS is relevant here as the court of final appeal for all federal cases.
The facts of the case, as well as Assange's personal obnoxiousness, would probably not be the best choice of a test case if you're looking to protect whistleblowers. Ellsberg is a much more sympathetic defendant.
The facts of the case, as well as Assange's personal obnoxiousness, would probably not be the best choice of a test case if you're looking to protect whistleblowers. Ellsberg is a much more sympathetic defendant.
I was thinking more of Assange's options for not being confined for the rest of his life. Honestly I think the odds are low of the UK government releasing him/declining the extradition, and less than even of the US government dropping the charges. He has already been practically imprisoned for years, plus actual imprisonment recently. Leveraging the threat of a Supreme Court fight against a face-saving US govt. approved light sentence might be a valid strategy at this point.
[deleted]
Interesting fact about Ellsberg: he's also the author of a famous paradox in economics, which has motivated a lot of work on the theory of choice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellsberg_paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellsberg_paradox
There's a graph, 2/3 down the article. It shows how the Obama admin went after whistleblowers, charging more with espionage than every previous PotUS.
Having that acknowledged (if not really addressed) in the article, feels like a tiny bit of press-progress. It's some improvement over 2009-2016, where Obama's War On Whistleblowers was covered as minimally as possible (eg: almost entirely ignored).
The principle in play here: If voters and news orgs fail to hold a reasonable PotUS accountable, it's a gift of power to the unreasonable ones that follow.
disclaimer: this isn't an 'Obama sucks' post. It's an 'Obama was awful about accountability' and the press sucked for giving that a pass - post.
Having that acknowledged (if not really addressed) in the article, feels like a tiny bit of press-progress. It's some improvement over 2009-2016, where Obama's War On Whistleblowers was covered as minimally as possible (eg: almost entirely ignored).
The principle in play here: If voters and news orgs fail to hold a reasonable PotUS accountable, it's a gift of power to the unreasonable ones that follow.
disclaimer: this isn't an 'Obama sucks' post. It's an 'Obama was awful about accountability' and the press sucked for giving that a pass - post.
.
such
Ellsberg apparently made contributions to decision theory, I forgot where I read this but this guy has notable qualities other than being a whistleblower.
While I like to see the press remind the public that whistleblowers are often not given the pretense of a fair trial, I don't see anything supporting the headline's claim that he's tempting prosecution.