Ex-WikiLeaks spokesman criticises Assange's gagging order for staff

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

A former WikiLeaks spokesman has condemned Julian Assange for demanding that staff for the whistleblowing website sign a gagging order that imposes a penalty of up to £12m on anyone who breaks it.

German activist Daniel Domscheit-Berg said that in imposing the draconian confidentiality agreement on its employees WikiLeaks was behaving too much like the governments and businesses it purports to expose.

"WikiLeaks has become what it despises: a repressive organisation, using restrictive contracts to gag its staffers, cultivating intransparency and unaccountability," Domscheit-Berg said in an email to Reuters.

Domscheit-Berg, who was once one of Assange's closest associates, said he felt "sorry ... for all those new staffers that had no idea what they were getting into" in working for WikiLeaks.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/13/wikileaks-spokesman-assange-gagging-order

[ZombieHorde]

1. "behaving too much like the governments and businesses it purports to expose"

I don't think Wikileaks is starting wars or fucking over the poor.

[msanthrope]

8. Wikileaks/Assange took in 3.4 million in 2010. Manning got 15k of that. I'd call that fucking over

someone....perhaps a great many.

1.9 donated to Wikileaks--in 2010 alone.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4828529

1.5 million dollar book deal for Assange:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/26/assange-signed-15-millionworth-book-deals/

15k to Bradley Manning.
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/437513/wikileaks_donates_$15k_to_manning%27s_defense_fund/

[JDPriestly]

13. I'm grateful that Wikileaks put corrupt governments all over the world

on notice that they too can be outed.

[CJvR]

34. I wonder how much...

...of that $$$ has gone into stupid, and doomed, efforts not to go to Sweden and answer a few questions. I think it is a bit more than 15k.

[MineralMan]

2. Hmm...the thot plickens.

It seems the bloom is off that rose.

[Hissyspit]

39. Not really. "What’s Really in the Leaked WikiLeaks Confidentiality Agreement?"

http://my.firedoglake.com/kgosztola/2011/05/12/whats-really-in-the-leaked-wikileaks-confidentiality-agreement/

[Demeter]

3. Since It's for Their Own Safety, Literally, and No Exaggeration

but maybe this German activist would like to spend his days and nights like Corporal Manning....

[Bodhi BloodWave]

4. so one set of rules for wikileaks and another set for the rest? n/t

[cstanleytech]

5. There are some differences though

and its like comparing apples to oranges since wikileaks isnt a government nor is it a for profit corporation.

[msanthrope]

10. Wikileaks isn't a for-profit corporation? Can you prove that? n/t

[Hissyspit]

45. ???

[ohbill]

6. Assange didn't protect Manning before.

And he isn't protecting him now.

[JDPriestly]

7. How could he have protected Assange. He claims he didn't really

know just who gave him the material.

It's some other guy who claimed Manning claimed to have been in touch with Wikileaks.

[msanthrope]

9. See post 8 above. n/t

[ohbill]

11. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

In Assange's mind, the argument that the leaks are good journalism, and that he is a dick for using them like his personal baseball card collection, doesn't exist.

Don't like Assange? You must hate Manning.
Want money for Manning's defense fund? You must not want any for Assange, and therefore you must hate Manning.

It's a Catch-22.

[NavyDem]

22. Private First Class, NOT Corporal.

Manning was busted down for a previous offense. Assaulting one of his seniors if I remember correctly.

[msanthrope]

35. A female officer. Hit her in the face. nt

[NavyDem]

38. I knew it was a senior

But I wasn't sure whether it was a NCO or an Officer, nor did I know whether male or female.

[zalinda]

12. When you are dealing with such sensitive information

you must have some sort of control over who gets it. Assange tried to make sure that whatever information that was disclosed, would not endanger anyone's life.

The Pentagon has said that nothing Assange released put anyone's life at risk, unlike the outing of Valerie Plame.

zalinda

[Tarheel_Dem]

24. "The Pentagon has said that nothing Assange released put anyone's life at risk "

Is it okay to trust the big bad Pentagon? I mean the Pentagon is a government agency, right? And who determines when we can believe the Pentagon? You? Assange? And do we believe them only when it issues a statement that appears to exculpate someone we like? Should everything else be suspect?

I mean, can we get some consistency here? Is there an anarchist handbook somewhere that tells me when I can, and when I can't trust the government? :shrug:

[Hissyspit]

37. No one has come up with any evidence that anyone has been killed because of WikiLeaks.

You just can't stand that, can you?

[Tarheel_Dem]

42. Careful. Charles Manson has a cult following too. How do we know...

there's no evidence? I mean it's the government. Can we trust them to tell us the truth? Do we really know what happened at Roswell? Did we fake the moon landing? Is JFK really dead? These are the things that keep you, Julian & Donald Trump awake at night, right? :rofl:

[Hissyspit]

44. You are embarrassing yourself.

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. Thank you Cenk. Right back atcha!

;)

[Bodhi BloodWave]

40. sooo pretty much what the us government was doing with their information before it was stolen

I find it quite amusing how people attack and complain about the US keeping some information classified and at the same time compliment and support a organization doing the exact same thing(with information they shouldn't have in the first place)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

14. to his dis-credit, the only way Domscheit-Berg can get attention is to attack Assange.

Domscheit-Berg is trying so hard to demand credit and attention.

To his DIS credit, the only way he can get attention is to attack Julian Assange.

Those that know Assange do not envy him living under constant threat to his life and constant legal battles.

Until recently, he's lived out of a backpack and gone from home to home.

[reorg]

15. Mr Domschit has become what I despise

The confidentiality agreement is a direct result of what he did. When Assange kicked him out due to internal disagreements over what, how and when the cablegate files should be leaked and concurrent disloyal statements in public, he took everything he could get his hands on, stole hardware and files and finally outed himself - to start a competing enterprise based on the same "business model" as he likes to call it, with the stolen goods. He already has published a book and gave several interviews, always lambasting Wikileaks and Assange with the incredibly stupid allegations cited in the OP.

As to who is secretive and who isn't, Israel Shamir has occasionally pointed out The Guardian's role:

"... Domscheit-Berg made a deal with David Leigh of the Guardian which then cold-shouldered Assange, declared the deal 'void', and shared the data with Bill Keller, editor of the NY Times. They published the cables after redacting them, or should we say "censoring" – removing everything the secret services demanded to remove. We wrote about it at length here in CounterPunch.

Julian Assange succeeded in regaining some lost ground: he established new partnerships, with the Daily Telegraph and others. The cables were being published all the time. And then Assange learned that the Guardian and the New York Times planned to publish the Guantanamo files. There was no time to lose: in a few days, the Wikileaks team prepared the files and began to upload. So did the competitors, possessing the Domscheit-Berg appropriated copy. This was the double-cross per Leigh.

The Guardian and the New York Times have a big and skilful staff, a lot of research, rich archives. But they decided to play ball with the secret services of their countries, redacting information which might identify informants. What a hutzpah! Sometimes, the identity of “informants” is more important than the information. ..."

http://counterpunch.com/shamir05042011.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir01112011.html

[Tarheel_Dem]

16. Oh, this is just too delicious. You mean Assange has "secrets" he doesn't want exposed?

:rofl:

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

[Hissyspit]

17. Assange is not a government.

No hypocrisy.

But anything at all is fair to trash anyone who remotely possibly could be seen as damaging to the Obama administration, whether they are or not. Want to talk about hypocrisy?

[Tarheel_Dem]

18. So, some secrets are sacred?

:shrug:

[Hissyspit]

19. Nothing is sacred.

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. "Nothing is sacred"?

Tell that to Julian. You guys are gonna have to decide how far you're willing to stretch the bounds of credulity in defense of a cyber terrorist, whose own life is shrouded in secrecy. His defense, I suppose, is that his life would be endangered were he lift his own veil. Gag order indeed. :eyes:

[Hissyspit]

21. Your word.

Also your word: "cyber terrorist."
Neither word applies.

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. Whatever you say. Does anyone know where Julians' funds come from?

I have a feeling he has lots of secrets. How do you know he hasn't put lives at risk?

[reorg]

26. the Wau Holland foundation recently published their financial report

and how do I know that you haven't put lives at risk?

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. You don't, but then I'm not suspected of stealing government secrets either.

For all I know, you could be Julian. Where's does your money come from Julian? And can you convince us that it's all "on the books"? Or does the "gag order" cover that too? :rofl:

[reorg]

29. Wikileaks didn't steal anything

but you still find time to slander them and possibly put their lives at risk.

Assange gets a salary from the tax-exempt non-profit Wau Holland foundation. The Kassel district president has recently approved their financial report.

[Tarheel_Dem]

31. Thank you Julian...

I hope all goes well when you're incarcerated. Let's hope you don't receive the same treatment of that poor young woman you ...Well, you know. :hi:

[reorg]

32. Ugh

the sexual fantasies of law-and-order zealots are pathetic.

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. "Law & Order zealots"? Hardly, but I sure wanna see this mofo's ass fried.

And on the topic of "zealotry", perhaps you & Mr. (I Have A Government Secret) Assange could pool your resources and buy a mirror? Have a nice day. :hi:

[Hissyspit]

36. Wow

We can all tell when you've lost the argument.

Prison rape fantasies in defense of the Obama administration. That's some ugly stuff.

[Tarheel_Dem]

41. There was never an argument to lose. He's a perv, plain & simple.

I know you're willing to believe the worst about our government, that's just the way you roll. However, I take exception to assholes like Assange being hailed as a hero, by the "principled" PL. You can discount his alledged proclivities because he serves a much higher purpose in attacking the evil government. One has to have principles to recognize the absence in others. I don't think Assange qualifies as a principled man.

You guys have elevated this asshole to Jim Jones/Guyana status, and that says quite a bit about you. Anarchists of the world Unite! Our sainted leader is a pervert! :eyes:

[Hissyspit]

43. Stupidest post ever on DU.

[Hissyspit]

48. By the way, you don't know shit about me or my principles.

Or a whole lot of other stuff and facts, obvious to anyone reading. So your misrepresentations of me are failure.

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. Testy! Testy!

:rofl:

[Hissyspit]

51. Amnesty International, famous for their cult-iness and defense of Jim Jones figures

and disdain for due process for "pervs," on the impact of WikiLeaks: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4850554

[reorg]

25. whose own life is "shrouded in secrecy"? LOL!

What else do you want to know? Hasn't his life been under public scrutiny for months, including the most intimate details? Everything pertaining to Wikileaks has been reported on, internal communications have been published from the start, even the transcripts of the discussion that led to the dismissal of that renegade snitch have been leaked, supposedly by himself.

The same newspapers that have financially profited from getting access to leaked information through Wikileaks have engaged in public smears against them. But that's not even the main point here. These newspapers (NYT, TG) have violated agreements they had with Wikileaks by censoring the information they published, in cahoots with the government agencies they had agreed to expose instead of protecting them. A few renegades or possibly just Domscheit helped these newspapers protecting the government agencies. With the material he stole from Wikileaks he could provide the same information but without any agreement not to censor it.

This is what Assange set out to prevent in the future. I don't think he really cares if you fancy stories about his personal life.

[Tarheel_Dem]

28. Oh that's right. He's the suspected rape artist. That the one you mean?

:shrug:

[reorg]

30. somehow I knew that this is where you wanted to go

but I can see how all that real stuff going on is kind of hard to grasp and swallow.

[Hissyspit]

47. "What’s Really in the Leaked WikiLeaks Confidentiality Agreement?"

http://my.firedoglake.com/kgosztola/2011/05/12/whats-really-in-the-leaked-wikileaks-confidentiality-agreement

What’s Really in the Leaked WikiLeaks Confidentiality Agreement?
By: Kevin Gosztola Thursday

The New Statesman and others consider the use of the word “owner” to be proof that the organization finds it has “commercial ownership over the information that has been leaked to it.” But, the word “owner” is the term that is used in these agreements. It is standard and may not be proof the organization sees itself as literally owning the information.

Clause by clause

- snip -

Again, news organizations fixate on this term “property.” But, that is how it must be characterized in order for WikiLeaks to protect itself and ensure it can be safe in the event of breaching or sabotage. The agreement must treat the documents as “property,” whether it is something WikiLeaks truly owns or not.

- snip -

Coverage of this agreement is just the latest in a long line of attempts to delegitimize and further isolate the organization. They have been accused of endangering lives yet nobody has quantified or provided exact evidence that any persons have been endangered. In many cases, they have been told what they are doing is not journalism. The organization, instead, has had its staff members categorized by the media as a group of “sources,” which means Assange is “a source” and Assange and all those linked to WikiLeaks are much more vulnerable to prosecution from governments especially the US government.

- snip -

WikiLeaks is an organization that makes a promise to whistleblowers that if they have the courage to act as a “hero” WikiLeaks will have the courage to be “merely decent human beings.” For WikiLeaks, this agreement is part of being a decent human being. It is about going to the nth degree to protect the “sources” it fights to keep anonymous and unknown to governments that could strike at them for providing the organization information.

[Kaleko]

50. Finally, an author who understands the legal jargon

that was used to protect WikiLeak's sources! Reading it is like a breath of fresh of air.

But the slime-squad here on DU and elsewhere remains impervious to the facts. What else is new?