Actually the only 'real' difference is that Julian has pissed off the 'powers-that-be'
IJC that was a fucking terrible answer. I mean BAD.
October 2006
"The outcry over decisions by major newspapers to disclose the Bush administration's secret monitoring of international banking transactions was fast and furious.
Although the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post also published articles describing efforts to trace the financial records of suspected terrorists, the New York Times broke the story on the Web and bore the brunt of the outrage. The administration had asked the New York Times and L.A. Times not to publish. But both papers ultimately decided to anyway, posting their pieces the evening of June 22 and publishing them on page one the following day.
The clash between the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press and the patriotic duty to protect American lives and uphold national security puts the media in an uncomfortable position. For the second time in six months, the New York Times had infuriated the administration by exposing a secret program in the war on terror. The piece followed a December 16 story disclosing the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States. In that instance, too, the administration had pleaded with the Times to withhold publication. But after delaying for more than a year to conduct additional reporting, the Times published the article--and won a Pulitzer Prize for it. "
Why didnt they go full nut-sack on the new york times then? Where's the witch hunt? Come On.
"On June 26, President Bush condemned the global banking records story. "Congress was briefed," he said, answering questions from reporters. "And what we did was fully authorized under the law. And the disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it, does great harm to the United States of America."
Now, substitue wikileaks for the New York Times
and understand the statement you made, which was over-broad, over-general, sweeping, AND INACCURATE, man.
Here-
"In all likelihood, the most biting media retort to the sorts of accusations leveled by Morgan and others came 11 years earlier, in the 1995 autobiography of Ben Bradlee. In "A Good Life," the former Washington Post executive editor wryly observed: "Editors--and reporters, and especially owners--don't like to be accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, even when they know it not to be true. It riles the kooks and the woolly hats of this world, and results in a great deal of ill-tempered and unnecessary correspondence."
In his inimitable style, Bradlee fired back at his critics. "Dear Asshole," he began in response to a letter labeling him "UnAmerican."
And THIS is the tack Assange' should take with everyone calling what he does 'illegal'
