HOW do they compare? That was the question raised when Daniel Ellsberg sat down with Julian Assange on October 25th, at the Frontline Club in London. Mr Ellsberg, who released secret documents in 1971 known as the “Pentagon Papers”, met the editor in chief of WikiLeaks to discuss the website's latest publication—nearly 400,000 secret documents about the Iraq war. The comparison is valid, and it is not flattering to WikiLeaks.

The release of the Pentagon Papers proved highly embarrassing for those responsible for the Vietnam war, showing that they had lied, among other things, about expected casualties. Similarly, contrary to claims that America's military kept no records of civilian deaths, WikiLeaks' “Iraq War Logs” show the figure to have exceeded 66,000 between 2004 and 2009 (see chart). The documents also reveal, among other things, many cases of coalition forces killing civilians and show that American authorities routinely ignored reports of torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi policemen and soldiers.

The two leakers also have things in common. Both had a less than happy youth. Both are formidably bright. Mr Ellsberg earned a doctorate from Harvard University. Mr Assange, who is from Australia, was a noted hacker and programmer before co-founding WikiLeaks in 2006. And both are absolutists when it comes to disclosing secrets. “The truth does not need a policy objective,” proclaimed Mr Assange to a nodding Mr Ellsberg.

Yet this is where the parallels end. Mr Ellsberg turned himself in, willing to be held accountable for what he has done. He faced charges—eventually dismissed—under America's Espionage Act. In contrast, WikiLeaks distributes its servers to take advantage of whistle-blower laws in Sweden, Belgium, Iceland and America. Mr Assange enjoys the protection of several liberal democracies, but is not really accountable to any of them.

What is more, Mr Assange seems unwilling to reflect on the risks of what he is doing. Amnesty International has complained that documents in WikiLeaks' release on Afghanistan were not sufficiently edited, and thus likely to endanger Afghans who had worked for the coalition. Even such supporters as Birgitta Jonsdottir, an Icelandic member of parliament, has expressed disappointment over how the documents were released. Mr Assange disagrees, saying that nobody needed protection as a result of the release—citing, of all sources, NATO in Kabul. In contrast, Mr Ellsberg is more self-critical and concedes, for instance, that the publication of the Pentagon Papers actually had no effect on the war in Vietnam.

After the release of the Pentagon Papers, Mr Ellsberg lost many friends and had to start a new life. Some employees have left WikiLeaks, too—not, says Mr Assange, because of his imperious style, but because “especially in a tense situation like ours, employees can do bad things and then get suspended by leadership”.

After his personal legal troubles in Sweden, some have called for him to step aside as WikiLeaks' spokesman. It is unlikely that he will heed such calls—just as he has rejected suggestions that WikiLeaks become more transparent and less dominated by himself. Much as Mr Ellsberg did, Mr Assange expects to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act and may soon need a safe haven. “What the hell are we saying in the West,” he asked at the event in London, “if journalists are forced to take refuge in Cuba or Moscow?”