dagblog - Comments for "Floyd Abrams: Why WikiLeaks Is Unlike the Pentagon Papers " http://dagblog.com/link/floyd-abrams-why-wikileaks-unlike-pentagon-papers-8386 Comments for "Floyd Abrams: Why WikiLeaks Is Unlike the Pentagon Papers " en Meanwhile, the publication of http://dagblog.com/comment/100463#comment-100463 <a id="comment-100463"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/floyd-abrams-why-wikileaks-unlike-pentagon-papers-8386">Floyd Abrams: Why WikiLeaks Is Unlike the Pentagon Papers </a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Meanwhile, the publication of documents from the diplomatic cache on<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/us-embassy-cables-the-documents"> The Guardian feed </a>slowed considerably around Dec. 20 and stopped on December 22.</p><p>I am wondering if the reason for that has something to do with bad blood between Assange and The Guardian stemming from The Guardian's publication from leaked docs on the sex case against him in Sweden.</p><p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/21/julian-assange-defends-decision-sweden">In this Dec. 21  Guardian article on Assange by Adam Gabbatt,</a> some anomosity between the two is clear--even to the point that the Guardian is basically calling Assange a liar on several points, about the timeline of their publication and his bail hearings and that his defence team knew of them. (In addition, note that the article clearly states they were not leaked by the Swedish government in response to Assange's allegation on that.)</p></div></div></div> Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:34:53 +0000 artappraiser comment 100463 at http://dagblog.com