what the lawmakers think not what's actually going on on the ground and it does have strains of daniel ellsbergand the shiny lawyer that was told from vietnam i think there's a lot of aspects of it now we're seeing what's wrong with this which is more wrong than just a simple p.r. campaign is that you're taking active measures and this is the key active measures you're actually trying to manipulate people now i'm i'm a case officer has been publicly disclosed your viewers should google case officer figure oh we do we manipulate people and that's different that's different than saying these are the facts these are the things i want you to look at this is what i think you ought to think about doing this is where you're trying to get deeper into someone's psyche and figure out how to manipulate that's that's where you cross the line and that's why it's the legal so when you look at the larger picture and you try to figure out what's best for a situation as soldiers do the really in my judgment is to tell the truth try to show what's going on and the lieutenant colonel you mentioned this case tried

the difference between daniel ellsberg who leaked the pentagon papers at wikileaks is that daniel ellsburgally needed something like "the new york times" hamas he wanted to spend the rest of his life in -- >> but bear in mind daniel ellsberg took the pentagon papers and went first to congress to try to get legal action against the war. he went into harvard university, i don't know why -- then he went to the times. >> we certainly gave a lot more attention and currency along with the other news organizations that published and wrote about it. but i think it also came out in a much more, you know, publicly soluble way. disconnect not arguing that point at all. i totally agree with you. the question i am getting is this if "the new york times" had published all of those stories and it had been left to the guardian in england and a couple of other newspapers around the world, it would have been reported in the united states on page 16 of the times -- >> you are so wrong. it would have been on the front page the day after the guardian published the story, the versions of the story would have be

. >> you have to go back to what we wrote about daniel ellsberg at the time of the pentagon papers, andaven't done that. it felt -- it certainly felt routine at the time, given that we're hearing from a number of people within wikileaks, the surprise in distress about the way of assange was handling himself. that seems to be something that should be included in a profile of this manhood acquired a large profile. profile. the unhappiness of some wikileaks members over their refusal, initial refusal to redact, their comments about his management style and so on. you know, i mean, he's called it a smear and a hatchet job. i don't think it was those things at all. we didn't say, well, he's our source, we will go easy on him. >> the fact that you have a slightly sort of if you like in a mediated relationship with him through alan, without action is something of a relief, was it a frustration? >> at times it was both. i mean, different times it was a relief and a problem. and particularly when he started to become sort of visibly agitated at the times, the first over our decision not to link.