Wikileaks' Founder Speaks

[kpete]

Source: Daily Beast

Julian Assange, who the feds fear may publish State Dept. secrets, talked to Philip Shenon about his outreach to the Washington, his fear of criminal charges—and why Bradley Manning is a “national hero.”

The elusive founder of WikiLeaks came out of hiding in Europe Monday.

Julian Assange told The Daily Beast in an interview that while he will remain outside the U.S. indefinitely, his lawyers have opened a line of communication in Washington with the Obama administration in recent days about the website’s plans to release a leaked Pentagon video of the “carnage” of an American airstrike in Afghanistan last year.

The lawyers reached out, Assange said, in the wake of statements from American officials and news reports that the U.S. was desperate to track him down and prevent WikiLeaks from posting the video and other classified material reportedly leaked to the site by a 22-year-old American intelligence analyst now in custody in Kuwait.

"The law can be used in a number of ways if there is the political will to,” Assange said. “There is a history of abusing the legal process."



Read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-21/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-speaks-his-outreach-to-the-pentagon/?cid=hp:mainpromo1

[pmorlan1]

1. K & R

THanks for posting this.

[sasquuatch55]

2. We need more heroes like this. Truth is the only way!

nt

[bvar22]

3. Repeat:

Bradley Manning is a “national hero.”
:patriot:

Those trying to stop him are not.
:thumbsdown:


K&R

[kgnu_fan]

4. thanks... kick!

[Proletariatprincess]

5. What an amazing young man.

This is true courage. To take on the USA propaganda machine is a frightening proposition. I hope he stays healthy and safe. I wish him well and may he reveal to the world the hidden truths about the wars in a way that that cannot be refuted by the enemies of peace and humanity.

[UpInArms]

6. the truth will set us all free -

thanks to Julian Assange - and his courage - may he not falter.

[alp227]

7. "publishing state secrets"?

Erhm, isn't "state secret" sometimes code word for "the awful truth that the American people shouldn't know"?

Oh yeah, what about those Pentagon Papers?

[mbperrin]

8. Pretty sure that's way more often the case than a real need for any kind

of secrecy.

I admire these young men and hope for the best.

[davidwparker]

32. +1

[JDPriestly]

9. Revealing military secrets about past wrongdoing by our side

is one thing. But it's very hard for someone who is not in the military to judge what might be valuable to a foreign or hostile interest, what can safely be released to the public and to, let's say terrorists or others who might harm us or our children when they are serving in the military.

While it is true that too much information is probably withheld and characterized as "secret," it is also true that in the past, people like John Walker and his family have caused the deaths of many people and harmed our country by revealing secrets.

I don't know what to say about Wikileaks. In general, if I am entrusted with a secret, I think I should keep the confidence. I know on the other hand that the authority to label terrible things as "secret" is abused by our government. What to say?

[liberation]

10. There is a big deal of difference between spying and whistle blowing...

Pretending there is no difference between the motives of a spy and those of a whistle blower establishes a false dichotomy.

[JDPriestly]

17. It is that difference that is hard to recognize sometimes, but I do agree

that it exists.

[liberation]

43. IMHO It is not hard to recognize at all...

The difference in intent is pretty clear...

[gorfle]

14. Here's the thing.

Most of us are in agreement that the war in the Middle East is an imperialistic farce. There is no moral high ground to be held in it. We are there to secure the energy needs of our empire and nothing more. 9/11 provided a convenient means to whip up the masses into a blood frenzy, and here we are.

Given that, I don't see how any state secret regarding what we are doing there is a valid secret. It's all part of keeping the masses in the dark about our real reasons for involvement, and keeping the masses in the dark about the atrocities we are committing while furthering our reasons for involvement.

[jeff47]

18. Because it's not just about what we're doing

You have to keep in mind that there may be several things in a video/picture/document that should remain secret despite the activity taking place.

For example, thanks to an earlier leak, the world now knows a great deal about the optics in Apache helicopters (you can hear the gun go "bang" long before the bullets hut, so you now know how far the Apache was looking. From that, you can calculate all sorts of interesting data)

Just because they describe some bad behavior doesn't mean it's a good idea to release the tape.

[gorfle]

24. So what's more important?

So when secret military equipment is used to commit crimes what is more important, protecting the military secrets or outing the crime?

You shouldn't have to think long about your answer.

[jeff47]

37. There isn't a blanket answer

Life is never black and white.

The Apache leak I mentioned didn't actually reveal anything new about the incident. It was more spectacular, but nothing factual was added by the leak - The military already had completed a report that stated everything that was in the video. Sure, all sorts of arm-chair analysts are claiming the video shows a cover-up, but the incident was already covered - Without the video, it wasn't flashy enough for said "analysts" to pay attention to.

In that case, it's probably better to keep the secret(s) (Since I'm not familiar with all the details about the Apache, I don't know how much was revealed by the video).

OTOH, it's also quite easy to come up with a scenario where something was improperly classified (by law, criminal acts can't be classified.). Which means each situation would have to be evaluated on it's individual merits.

IMO, there's never a reason to leak something classified, because there's multiple legal venues to expose classified wrongdoing. They just don't serve the ego as well as leaking to a reporter, since the IG isn't going to make you feel important.

[liberation]

44. Everything is "gray" to the person with the bucket of black paint trying to cover the white wall..

Indeed, governments never ever lie or do anything wrong, and thus they should always get the benefit of the doubt no matter what, it is what it is because otherwise it would not be. Right?


Good grief, some of you would make the mythical "Good Germans" look downright non-compliant anarchists in comparison.

[superconnected]

33. So what are you saying - we need to protect the gov so they can kill people and the people

they want to kill shouldn't know the range?

I'm going to disagree.

[jeff47]

38. Not even close

But was your baseless attack at least cathartic?

[superconnected]

41. So then what are you saying here:

"thanks to an earlier leak, the world now knows a great deal about the optics in Apache helicopters (you can hear the gun go "bang" long before the bullets hut, so you now know how far the Apache was looking. From that, you can calculate all sorts of interesting data)"

[jeff47]

42. Exactly the same thing as the rest of the post.

A blanket "Always release" is wrong because often there is other information contained in the video/pictures/documents/recordings/whatever that is still worth protecting.

That also doesn't mean "always withhold". Aren't we the people who are supposed to understand "nuance"?

[superconnected]

46. no.

For social reasons most people understand that clear communication is best. I'm not going to go off "nuances" and especially yours.

That said. I understand that you feel that some things do not need to be released but your example struck me as a poor one. Protecting information about their equipment while they're out there killing innocent people sounds pretty lame.

Plus the "protect our soldiers" card (The only nuance I can guess that you mean from the Apache-sights information being guessable) is a right wing talking point that I'm not buying anymore. If the US Military wants to be safe, they can quit killing civilians - then they won't have to feel that people finding out, puts them in danger.

[jeff47]

49. Still trying to read too much evil into it

So, just like the wingers, you're either with us or against us?

The world is complicated. Nothing is purely good nor purely evil. That's the kind of nuance I'm talking about.

I also find it fascinating that both the anti-war and pro-war camps share the same delusion that war can be fought without killing innocents. It never has been, and never will be. That's the main reason to oppose war - innocents WILL die.

My example is admittedly limited. It's just an example of how a leak can reveal substantially more than intended. And the reason to protect the information is the same reason it was classified in the first place - to make it much more difficult to counter the technology. Indirectly, that can save lives two ways: the first is the obvious "protect the troops" you mentioned. The second is to help prevent wars in the first place. Countries who know they will be annihilated don't start wars. The technology edge can be used to help that. Of course, it doesn't work in a world where idiotic neocons are starting wars for fun, and hopefully we'll keep moving away from that particular lunacy.

[Fumesucker]

16. People in the military don't make the ultimate determination on what is classified..

Recall that the military is under civilian control by the politicians, so it is the politicians who make the determination in the end of what is classified and what is not.

[chrisa]

22. Here's the thing.

That argument can be used for anything, because the government can just use the "The enemy will use this as propaganda!" card.

[superconnected]

25. It will cost more lives to allow the gov to kill people and those people they killed

are not worth less than people over here, including people from here wearing a uniform.

If you want a government of secrecy that doesn't answer to murder it carries out, then don't change a thing about what you think. The rest of us however are going to try to defeat that harmful mentality.

[JackRiddler]

35. The crimes of the US war of aggression are secret to no one except those in denial here...

Many, many more people have died in the past because of the obedience of the military and the media in suppressing pictures that show the murder committed with our tax money, in our name. The truth hurts but the victims pay a much higher price from its suppression.

The organizations carrying out these crimes should have no right whatsoever to determine what information is released. Anyone releasing their documents to the public is not a threat, more likely a hero. What is John Walker compared to Bush, Wolfowitz, Bremer, Petraeus? Do the hundreds of thousands of lives of foreign people's lives they have ended not count to you?

If you care concerned about American lives, then your concern should be ending the wars, not protecting the secrets of the commandants.

If you're interesting in "saving lives" then you can end the invasions, withdraw the empire of bases and put the architects of these war crimes on trial.

[JackRiddler]

36. The crimes of the US war of aggression are secret to no one except those in denial here...

Many, many more people have died in the past because of the obedience of the military and the media in suppressing pictures that show the murder committed with our tax money, in our name. The truth hurts but the victims pay a much higher price from its suppression.

The organizations carrying out these crimes should have no right whatsoever to determine what information is released. Anyone releasing their documents to the public is not a threat, more likely a hero. What is John Walker compared to Bush, Wolfowitz, Bremer, Petraeus? Do the hundreds of thousands of lives of foreign people's lives they have ended not count to you?

If you care concerned about American lives, then your concern should be ending the wars, not protecting the secrets of the commandants.

If you're interesting in "saving lives" then you can end the invasions, withdraw the empire of bases and put the architects of these war crimes on trial.

[Hulk]

11. God, imagine .....a nation that is honest with it's citizens.....

We can't have that in "the land of the free"....cough, cough. What a fucking joke.

Hey you!!....where is your flag pin? Idiots!! Fucking idiots...all of us.

[earcandle]

12. Julian, thank you for your courage. Be safe.

[Amonester]

13. Will the campaign promise of transparency end up under the bus?

Hope not...

[Divine Discontent]

21. True! So very very true. :(

[superconnected]

27. Like the rest of Obamas promises? Most likely.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/19-5

gotta love how the Obama Administration is even infiltrated by Monsanto.

[NorthCarolina]

34. Didn't that "transparency" officially end during the Health insurance reform debate

in which Health Insurers met with the administration behind closed doors to hammer out a palatable agreement that did not include single payer OR a public option?

[Overseas]

15. K&R.

Hope he remains safely outside the USA. Until we more thoroughly dismantle Bush Gang Rules and restore habeas corpus and renounce rendition.

[Arrowhead2k1]

19. America, the truth shall set you free! nt

[HEyHEY]

20. And there's also a history of abusing the system that deems material "classified"

Fucking worms

[newtothegame]

23. I did find it ironic that his website was all about exposing other people, but he hid himself. nt

[superconnected]

26. Because governments may kill him. It would be stupid not to hide himself.

[LanternWaste]

28. Exposing people or exposing policy & agenda?

Exposing people or exposing policy, & agenda?

I happen to see precise and relevant difference.

[KansDem]

30. He may end up a "suicide" in an Arkansas motel room...

J. H. Hatfield

[arikara]

39. With the government after him

how could you blame him. He at least is intelligent enough to know that he wouldn't last long otherwise. Sheesh.

[liberation]

45. Irony, like many other things given your track record, does not mean what you think it means...

Nice bait, BTW.

You're one of the "best" ones in this site.

[newtothegame]

47. Good luck in your desperate search for trolls, sweetheart :)

Warm hugs and kisses,
newtothegame

[JackRiddler]

50. Yeah, and they should have shot that Ellsberg traitor, too.

[Soylent Brice]

29. K&R

[davidwparker]

31. "he will remain outside the U.S. indefinitely" - sounds like

a plan and good for him

[Uncle Joe]

40. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[Esra Star]

48. Interesting documentary on Wikileaks

Beware brutalising video is covered.

http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/588635

[superconnected]

52. Too bad it says it's ONLY viewable by people living in Australia.

What's that about.

[Esra Star]

53. Sorry about that.

I was unaware.
The program investigates "Wikileaks".
Sorry it is unavailable.
Cheers

[superconnected]

54. No problem. I just wanted to watch it.

Here's a very good one that you can watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smMBZvBQXfc

In it WL speaks about things like private companies being behind censorship - ie getting gag orders to prevent people even talking about having gag orders, on articles the press has gag orders not to publish. The example in this video is over a giant oil spill off the Ivory coast that sent over 100 thousand to the hospital - that oil company prevented all of the UK press from covering the story at all and it prevented them from talking about how they were gagged so couldn't talk about it.

[PacerLJ35]

51. I do not like Wikileaks and here's why...

Aside from "controversial" videos, that web site also openly posts information about military TTPs (Tactics, Techniques and Procedures). This gives the bad guys an upper hand because they can predict how a military unit will respond. Additionally, Wikileaks has information about nearly every unit in the military...manning, equipment and such. While this might not openly help insurgents in Afghanistan, I'm quite sure the Chinese, Iranians and others that don't like the US pour through that website to glean important information about US military organizations and tactics.

Posting controversial videos is one thing, but that site openly puts classified information that isn't controversial and is merely informational to our enemies in an open spotlight. Stuff I had to protect as classified is currently available for open viewing on there...that makes me mad, because that stuff wasn't controversial at all. It only provides the enemy with intelligence on our units.