Slashdot Mirror
Interview With the Man Behind WikiLeaks
An anonymous reader writes "Julian Assange, the man behind WikiLeaks, explains why he feels it is right to encourage the leaking of secret information. He maintains that the more money an organisation spends on trying to conceal information, the more good it is likely to do if leaked. For Assange, leaked intelligence reveals the true state of governments, their human rights abuses, and their activities, it's what the 'history of journalism is.' On the media's role in making information available to the public, Assange maintains that 'the rest of the world's media is doing such a bad job that a little group of activists is able to release more of that type of information [classified documents] than the rest of the world press combined.'"
Wikileaks and the Daily Show are some of the very few examples of real journalism we can find today, I hope they team up and become a hilarious force of journalistic good.
You can't take the sky from me...
Information longs to be free. Blah blah blah. You're a hero, Mr. Assange...give yourself a pat on the back.
I admire whistleblowers. But there is sometimes a fine line between heroism and stupidity. And whistleblowers almost always pay a hefty price for what they do. Best case scenario they either lose their job outright or are shuffled off into a corner somewhere, never to be trusted or promoted again. Worst case scenario, they end up in jail or dead. The "thanks" are usually short-lived, the stain of being an employee/contractor/soldier who can't be trusted lasts forever.
I hope this guy and his whistleblowers continue to keep fighting and that Wikileaks is around for a long time. But, make no mistake about it, the powers-that-be will fight it. And the more Wikileaks releases, the farther those powers will be willing to go to silence the site.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The press does a bad job specifically because it is not just a group of volunteers; the press ultimately needs to make enough money to pay reporters, journalists, editors, etc. In countries where news is a business, getting on the government's bad side can mean losing access to news sources (the ability to speak with powerful people); in countries where news is sponsored by the government, getting on the government's bad side could mean getting fired or receiving less funding. There are a few exceptional cases, such as the New York Times leaking the illegal wiretapping program, but more often than not it seems that news organizations avoid creating controversies.
Palm trees and 8
Organizations like Wikileaks are essential to having a democratic country. Such a thing like the Afghan War Diary is very much needed to evaluate which leaders to elect. Remember these are our tax dollars being used/wasted to fight this war. We have a right to know the body count and the details about past missions. Without that how am I supposed to know who to vote for? If I don't have the facts, how can I make an educated decision? My only choice is through the mainstream media which doesn't have the facts.
I need -facts- to back up my election choices. I need to know stuff like the Afghan War Diary, otherwise how will I know if its worth continuing the Afghan war? It seems my only two options in the mainstream media is either DESTROY ALL TERRORISTS WITH NUKES!!!!! and EVERY SOLDIER WHO GOES TO AFGHANISTAN KILLS 324234 CHILDREN!!!! and none of them deal with the facts.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
"Assange maintains that 'the rest of the world's media is doing such a bad job that a little group of activists is able to release more of that type of information [classified documents] than the rest of the world press combined.'"
In some specific regards he's right. He and his staff take on some personal risks of reprisals, but I think the reason he is doing what other sources of Journalism aren't, is that he *can*. Unfortunately, most of the world media is either State-controlled, or owned by for-profit corporations, which means in the first case that they aren't allowed to report such things, by the government which controls them, or in the second case, aren't as willing to take the risks, because it might hurt profits.
I think only a a relatively small, non-profit, or possibly, privately owned, organization can actually engage in such risky journalism, because they have basically nothing to lose (well, some of the staff could lose their personal property and/or go to jail).
The drawback to wholesale leaks like this is that sometimes innocent people can be harmed. As an example, when Valerie Plame's identity was divulged, the CIA downplayed her official capacity as being that of a desk jockey. That's what they'll say whether she really is a desk jockey, or an elite 007 killing machine. Anyway, the problem with exposing Valerie Plame is that she had contacts in the field who were then exposed to have been meeting with a CIA agent. Kinda puts those people at risk within their own organizations.
Same with these documents. Even a casual remark in a report about a helpful shop owner can put that person on a Taliban hit list.
The perspective espoused by WikiLeaks is irresponsible and naive.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Someone recently linked an image comparing the CNN homepage with Al Jazeera Home page. The difference is extreme. One is a gossip rag, the other a, highly biased, news source.
But CNN probably makes more money, or used to anyway.
Remember the story about Ballmer being a bad CEO despite raising revenue and profits? That is because in the United Corporations of America, making a profit isn't enough you always go to be growing your profits and growing the amount by which your profits grow. Raise your profits for 10 years in a row by 25% and you are doing badly, it should be year 1: 25%, year 2: 40%, year 3: 60% etc etc. Impossible? Yes it is, but is what the stock market wants, what employees payed in stock options want.
So everything in the UCA is constantly squeezed, cost cutting here, cost cutting there. Spend a little less, earn a little more until you are left with... well it the iPhone 4. Made with slave labour, broken by design. And no this isn't just about Apple. Dell is even better at it. Sold broken PC's, broke anti-trust laws everything to increase the bottom line year after year.
And then you apply it to news. And news isn't cheap or efficient or effective. And you won't notice when it is gone until it is far to late. Until you get to a state that "politicians" refuse to speak to journalists and have them barred from events and only ask questions submitted in advance and then only those they like. Sarah Palin anyone? If you think she is bad, the exact same thing has been going on for a long time. Ask the wrong questions and forget about getting invited to the special events. So no reporter at a white house press briefing asks hard questions, at least not without prior approval.
Think about it, if journalists asked real questions, guys like Bush and Blair would have been as embarrased as when they meet a private citizen who manages to corner them. Brits might remember Blair being totally unable to counter woman questioning him on public health care. Brown the same. What NO report mentioned is that not a SINGLE ONE OF THE PRESS CORE asked those questions. If you are reporter and you haven't had a poltician cry, then suck. And this is the same around the world.
In Holland we have tv news for children. If you compare that show from ten years ago with the adult news, you will find that the adult news now is softer then the children news from way back.
But who is to blame? Big business intrests? Perhaps, but we the public let them. We let the likes of Murdoch own every newssource. We don't refuse to watch fluf pieces on the news and now the fluff has become the news.
And don't blame it on the right either. The left is just as guilty of it. The right has fluff pieces that ignore global warming and corporate corruption. The left has fluff pieces that ignore problems with immigration and culture clashes.
Fluff is not just Idols, it is news that doesn't upset you.
If you read a news source and you agree with it, then you are reading fluff. And we like it. See how quickly people resort to flamebait and troll to silence troubling thoughts on slashdot.
There was another piece, that people seek communities in games that give them the least amount of stress. Well, that is also how we seek out news. Be REALLY honest with yourself, how often do you purposefully seek out news from a source critical to your own world views?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The fact this guy is the man of the hour over the Afghan leaks that caused such a hubbub two days ago does not mean he isn't flawed despite unduly positive portrayals on Slashdot and elsewhere.
A big criticism of Julian Assange is his constant courting of the media to the point of being a prolific PR man - Slashdot did a post on him some months ago with the grandoise assertion that he was an 'Interational Man of Mystery'.
Truth is that his past, which is hardly whiter than white given all the suspected hacking he has done, makes him out to be much less of a virtuous crusader and more an occasionally maverick human being like quite a few people who once embarked on black hat attempts are. I agree with Wikileaks and enjoy the prospect that authority will be questioned a lot more as a result...but Assange isn't angel or particularly 'moral' .
The only thing which seperates him from older, more seasoned leaking website owners is that he is talented at courting PR and media, is decent at public speaking, and functions well as the recognisable 'face' of Wikileaks - nobody else in the leaking business has talent in the important matter of image, promotion and driving attention to his site. Were Assange lacking in that, Wikileaks would be nowhere near as famous/infamous as it is at the moment.
Yeah, because I really want a country based on democracy to hide all the essential facts from their citizens. Look without facts how is it possible to make an informed decision on election day? The mainstream media is terrible, and things like Wikileaks is the only possible way to get solid facts to base your decision on election day on.
Without solid facts like this we end up having the Afghan War debated on two sides, the leftist side of EVERY SOLDIER KILLS CHILDREN and the right-wing side of LETS NUKE ALL OF AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, KOREA, AND CANADA!!! Rather than a sane cost-to-benefit ratio.
Why is it that the mainstream media doesn't use -facts- to prove their points. Things like "For every day of war we spend XXXXX dollars, we kill XX civilians, XX terrorists, and destroy XXXX worth of infrastructure" would be a great way for people to know if they want to continue this war. Without that though we have the two extremes, extreme pacifism and extreme militarism.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I was wondering what happened to that.
I guess some people harbour angry feelings towards him for releasing that military video - something along the lines of loose lips might sink ships. I think more good than harm came from releasing the video, but I can see where it strikes a nerve with some people.
I mean if your kid happened to be in the military - and it would appear that the military is hiding something your kids may or may not be doing - it would make you feel uneasy, to say the least. Most parents would still side with their kids though.
We know, for a fact, that there's a *lot* of material being classified that has *ZERO* relation to national security, and every relation to embarrassing or revealing criminal malfeasance by those doing the classifying.
Let's see the documents that Cheney and Bush used to justify invading and conquering Iraq. Let's see the ones explaining the real reasons that the US did *not* use our troops to take Tora Bora.
mark "and where's the war crimes tribunals?"
Some things simply have to be kept private, if national defense is to function in our best interests. It's simply impossible for anyone outside of the government to second guess what must be kept secret, and what must not. Julian Assange is not in a position to make these judgments. He simply does not have the complete picture. All leaking bits and pieces can do is create a less than complete picture. He is not doing U.S. citizens a service. Conversely, if we cannot trust our government to make this decision, we need to do something about our government.
So I wonder why members of their organizations never send anything to WikiLeaks? Makes the playing field somewhat uneven don't you think?
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
A democratic elected government -cannot- be secret otherwise it fails to elect good leaders. If I'm paying for a war, I better know damn well where every chunk of lead paid for by me, the taxpayer, went. I better be able to know if it hit a civilian, a terrorist, one of our own soldiers, etc. I better know how much the war is costing, both in lives, loss of freedom, and in terms of dollars.
And before you say this guy doesn't leak anything of importance from other regimes, there has been many leaks of censorship lists and other nasty documents from China and other dictatorships, its just that things like that don't make headlines here in the west.
How do you expect us to elect good leaders if we don't know what they do? By the media which ignores facts? By some magical-ness that lets you look at a candidate and see if hes a good choice? By commercials which lie?
The knowledge of just about everything the government does is essential to maintaining a free country. Otherwise how the hell do I know who to vote for?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The trap we can fall into with WikiLeaks in my opinion is that they themselves can craft a leak to suit their own political agenda. If they are the ones responsible for redacting certain information in information they are going to post, it wouldn't be very hard to redact or edit certain parts to make documents sound very different than the original.
What they are doing is great in principle but they are in a position of "power" that is easy to abuse. I'm not suggesting they should stop but we as readers need to take what they post with a grain of salt and do as much fact checking as we can.
There's some context to think about. The US entered WWII as a direct result of American soil being attacked. It was pretty clear that fighting back was a matter of national security. In that context it would be easy to make the case that a leaker of battlefield secrets was treasonous.
Since then we've only waged elective wars, generally for purposes that leave many of us scratching our heads in confusion. Who knows what the hell we invaded Iraq for. Our strategy there and in Afghanistan seems to be to drive around in Hummers until somebody shoots us, then chase 'em down and shoot 'em back. How that benefits our national security is a mystery to me. Maybe some of these leaked documents can clarify it.
he's a media whore with shady beginnings
Anyone would become a "media whore" in a situation where being one could make the difference between staying alive or getting shot in a dark alley with noone caring about it...
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Anybody who has been paying attention to the Afghanistan war should not have been surprised or shock over the wikileaks documents.
Really, what great new detail have you learned in those documents that you couldn't have read in a newspaper or article in the last 4 years? Civilians sometimes gets killed? Drones sometimes crash? Pakistan may be helping the Taliban? Big whoop. Anybody with a clue knew or suspected this long go.
So if you need wikileaks as your primary source of information and facts, then you really have a problem.
Of course! Because we all know how well democracy works when people can't get facts. Facts are -essential- to any sort of democracy without facts democracy falls apart.
These things were all pre-Obama all quite old. It is -essential- that people get the facts without them being obscured. Without it, democracy can no longer work.
Without facts, explain to me how democracy can work?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Secrecy is entrusted to the government on the assumption that it will only be used when truly needed.
However the same power can be and is abused to subvert the freedom of its own people, as misappropriation for personal gain by powerful people and used to cover up ineffective, improper, illegal or immoral activity.
Whistle blowers object to these abuses and fight against it in the only way possible, by removing the shroud of secrecy and revealing these violations of trust to the public.
Mistakes may be made, but revealing the abuse of trust by the government is vital to the continuation of freedom and democracy.
I suspect that, if he had them, he'd release them. For reasons that should be obvious, American news stories about wikileaks tend to focus on wikileaking of American documents; but if you head over to wikileaks directly, and trawl through the archvies, there is all kinds of stuff, pertaining to a wide variety of institutions and governments and issues. Shockingly, leaks of grindingly technical minutes of some obscure EU trade negotiation just don't have the media impact of videos of helicopters shooting stuff.
Further, I'm guessing that wikileaks has a much, much easier time in places where it has embedded sympathizers, and in places with languages that they have people who speak. There is no evidence that wikileaks has any spies of its own, just that they operate a convenient system for whistleblowers to make drops. How many whistleblowers with big caches of digital documents(and internet connections) do you fancy there are in North Korea?
I think Wikileaks plays an important role in information being free (as in information)
My concern is that with the things that he releases, and especially what he chooses to focus on, that he has an agenda and that he is using what is otherwise noble to press that agenda.
benefits open societies and hurts closed ones
i jut wish that there were a way wikileaks could get more secrets from closed societies in a way that was less deadly
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Who the hell is this guy to decide for a democratically elected government what should remain secret or not?"
Someone who values freedom of information and accountability over murky special interests and the protection of political elites?
"Who the hell is this guy to decide for a democratically elected government what should remain secret or not?"
Someone who has obviously spent a little more time than you have on thinking about the implications of his points of view. Democracy depends crucially on the availabilty of information that makes it possible for the voters to hold their elected leaders accountable. No accountability means no democracy. In a world where more and more of the big media corporations have become extremely fixated on profit and are being more and more limited in their role by various laws and other means (secret gag orders in the UK, libel shopping, exclusion from important events if you are overly critical, embedding of journalists with troups on strict rules about what they can and cannot report on, etc) we have a desperate need for organizations that find ways to get past those limitations of traditional journalism and get people the information they need.
Your argument regarding North Korea, Zimbabwe and Congo is fatally flawed since a whisleblower site depends on people providing them with info and they have no control over those sources. Furthermore if you type any of those country names in the Wikileaks search box you will find loads of documents as well as links to news articles regarding those countries.
I suspect Wikileaks leaks what whistleblowers provide them. How would they be able to leak embarassing documents from places where there are no whistleblowers submitting things to Wikileaks? Also, are you saying that as long as the USA isn't as bad as North Korea or China its good enough? I thought the USA was a democracy with free speech that was a beacon for all of the world to admire, was I wrong? Is the USA really just trying to stay above the bottom 5% of the world? Regarding Assange's personality, I think that only someone with a huge ego, big balls, and a desire for publicity would be able to lead Wikileaks. A meaker man wouldn't hold up under the constant scrutiny and criticism. What does it matter whether you like the guy or not? How is the guy's demeanor significant? Who cares if the guy enjoys international attention, if Wikileaks is helping to uncover lies that allow organizations to exploit the masses isn't it doing a public service?
As a US taxpayer, I have blood on my hands and I'm not proud of it.
I remember elementary school, and as I recall it there weren't that many innocent people being murdered. Comparing tattling in the schoolyard to uncovering potential war crimes is just ridiculous. When serious wrongs are being done then yes I do like tattle tails, narcs, informants, snitches, or whatever you would call them. What I don't like are complicit cowards.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Why is it that the mainstream media doesn't use -facts- to prove their points. Things like "For every day of war we spend XXXXX dollars, we kill XX civilians, XX terrorists, and destroy XXXX worth of infrastructure" would be a great way for people to know if they want to continue this war. Without that though we have the two extremes, extreme pacifism and extreme militarism.
What about how much we spend building infrastructure and how many civilians we liberate from oppressive regimes?
Or are those facts too biased to be mentioned?
It could just be oversight on your part :) But it seems that the prevailing view about the war is that the only stats that really count are deaths and destruction... nothing about the entire military engineers that are building ... say ... roads. Girls' schools that were not allowed previously. Some people view those facts as propaganda for "excusing" the war in some way. I say that leaving out those facts is propaganda for dismissing the war as entirely bad and thus should not be continued.
Unfortunately, as soon as someone SUPPORTS a war, people automatically assume that they support killing innocent civilians ... and as soon as someone DOES NOT SUPPORT the war, people assume they do not support the "troops" or think they agree with the oppressive regimes/governments.
In other words, everybody seems to think everybody else either supports everything that goes on or does not support everything that goes on, and misrepresents facts in order to "prove" that the other person does this.
Citing only death and destruction as figures to decide on the war is biased towards ending the war. Citing only good things that happen (rebuilding or even building things that weren't there to begin with, for example) and hiding the other is biased towards continuing the war.
"Truth is that his past, which is hardly whiter than white given all the suspected hacking he has done, makes him out to be much less of a virtuous crusader and more an occasionally maverick human being like quite a few people who once embarked on black hat attempts are. I agree with Wikileaks and enjoy the prospect that authority will be questioned a lot more as a result...but Assange isn't angel or particularly 'moral' ."
So... if I get this straight... his past is definitevely not whiter than white because he's suspected of maybe possibly ocasionally being like others who once did some hacking which makes him definitely not particularly moral?
To cut it down, suspicion of what he once did means he's definitely not moral?
And then, top it off, you started with "Truth is" to make sure that your running stream of condemnation and conjecture is not to be questioned.
That's some quality nonsense right there. Well done.
" Where are his efforts to find the Taliban documents showing their human rights violations?"
Where are his efforts to find proof that water is wet?
"And where are the documents showing the amount of effort the US soldiers put in distributing contributions from US citizens, including medical, school, and sport supplies? Putting themselves in harms way to protect civilians during firefights? Or the extrodinary efforts they take to try to limit civilian casualties."
Front and centre at every press conference and event where the military want to make themselves look good.
They're already making every effort to get that information front and centre.
Wikileaks job is to show the other half of the story.
"And where are the documents showing the Taliban's indiscriminate placing of IEDs and the number innocent lives they have taken?? Hmmm??? "
Actually the recent leak had quite a lot of info about the civilian deaths caused by IED's.
Nice to know you've been too lazy to actually read anything before posting.
A journalist uncovers information which needs to be heard.
if a journalist discovers a company selling hotdogs made of rat meat they shouldn't have to spend an equal portion of their time talking about how really the companies products are quite good and affordable in some parody of being "unbiased".
"it's a data dump that any 12 year old with access to the Internet could do if they got the data."
get back to me when you find some 12 year olds who regularly get their hands on data which makes front pages worldwide.
Your tattle tail analogy is just flat out wrong. Here's a better one: imagine that a teacher is secretly giving undeserved bad grades and detentions to kids she doesn't like. Now imagine one kid finds out, exposes it, and gets the teacher fired. That kid would be a fucking hero to all the other kids, and rightly so.
Summary: giving THE MAN dirt on your comrades makes you a rat; giving your comrades dirt on THE MAN makes you robin hood.
I believe you are mistaken. Journalists have agendas just like all other people on the planet; Assange is at least not pretending to be uninterested.
This whole "journalists should be unbiased" bullshit is something the mainstream media came up with in order to not have to do anything but report soundbites from both sides of the story, as if they were somehow equal.
Further, it's not Assange's duty to provide positive PR for the US Government. They should really be doing that job themselves, and honestly it seems like that's just one more thing they're failing to do.
If he wants to set up an organization whose goal is to smear the USG, then that's his choice. It's not his fault that doing so is incredibly easy.
I think Wikileaks is a great idea in theory, but just like the USA, EU, and everyone else... Wikileaks also has a political agenda.
Lets says Pres Obama said, "I'm going to release 70,000 war documents about Afghanistan." And such documents detailed mostly happy things about the war in Afghanistan. We'd have CNN, Foxnews etc saying how the documents were released strategically to paint a light picture of a grim war.
Yet somehow, when a third party receives documents and ADMITTEDLY filters through them, absolutely no one is questioning the political motivation of such third party.
I'd like to believe in Wikileaks, but I don't trust the man's agenda, and neither should you. It's merely business as usual, and should be taken as 'another piece of the whole truth'.
I can't believe I'm having to explain this, but the UNHRC is not 'human rights'. I said human rights are not a monolith, which refers to human rights as an abstraction. The UNHRC is not an abstraction, it is a concrete organization established to serve a purpose based on the perspectives of its operators. Just because this organization has opinions on human rights, and a measure of authority (where it is given latitude by governments who are hopefully extensions of the general will of their constituents) to act on these opinions, by no stretch of the imagination does this make the organization equivalent to the concept of human rights itself. You, sir, are a moron.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Where are his efforts to find the Taliban documents showing their human rights violations?
His efforts aren't needed. Those documents aren't secret.
Or clear violations of the Geneva Convention?
His efforts aren't needed. Those documents aren't secret.
And how they are the ones putting civilians in danger by not following the Geneva Convention .. they don't wearing uniforms and they quarter with civilian! Hmmm???
His efforts aren't needed. Those documents aren't secret.
And where are the documents showing the amount of effort the US soldiers put in distributing contributions from US citizens, including medical, school, and sport supplies?
His efforts aren't needed. Those documents aren't secret.
Putting themselves in harms way to protect civilians during firefights?
His efforts aren't needed. Those documents aren't secret.
Or the extrodinary efforts they take to try to limit civilian casualties. And where are the documents showing the Taliban's indiscriminate placing of IEDs and the number innocent lives they have taken?? Hmmm??? Where are those docuements Assange?? Or do they not have the impact you are looking for when advancing your agenda??
His efforts aren't needed. Those documents aren't secret.
He is nothing more than a hack with an agenda and deserves zero media attention.
His agenda is to reveal secrets. That's an inherent agenda against secretive organizations. I don't think he's ever claimed to be unbiased, and he's always claimed to favor openness over secrecy.
Yeah he really gets off on drawing attention to militaries killing innocent civilians. What a self-centered jerk.
The taliban still need to be destroyed. Afghanistan still needs massive amounts of reconstruction. For all the resources that have been applied, more still need to be applied. We are not in Afghanistan to prop up a fledgling democracy, we are not there to promote human rights. We are there to destroy a fundamentalist movement, and more effort needs to be spent in order to succeed.
Or we can let Afghanistan fall, again. They'll harbour enemies of the west, again.
When Afghanistan was a part of the Cold War, we were involved in a war-by-proxy with the Soviets. But as soon as that was over, we sort of forgot all about Afghanistan and left them to their own devices. So a group of fundamentalists from Pakistan invaded and took over. Eventually they became the last haven for a particular group of extremists who went on to finally succeed in an attack on US soil. If we had paid a bit more attention to propping up a fledgling democracy and human rights earlier, we would be less concerned about destroying a fundamentalist movement today.
He deserves our thanks for what he and other at Wikileaks are doing.
'Because its embarrassing' should never be justification to hide atrocities
behind 'National Security'.
Assange maintains that 'the rest of the world's media is doing such a bad job
More and more of the world's media is owned by an increasingly small group of people.
They bury this information to help their current political ally and the politicians
allow them to do whatever they want.
I'm going to say, before any of those, "embattled news source."
If you are someone who hates Wikileaks and has a lot of media time, it's fairly easy to plant seeds of destruction.
"Our question today: did Wikileaks deliberately publish false evidence about [such and such]? Now, I'm not saying they did, but why is no one else asking these questions?"
"What, if any, are Wikileaks' ties to the Taliban? They have a lot of informants on that side of the world. You wonder where they get their donations, their stories from. You wonder if maybe they're getting too close to the wrong people."
"You know, I don't think it was appropriate for them to publish classified military information. There are brave men and women out their have given their lives protecting us from the terrorists. And Wikileaks is releasing these documents, putting them in danger...for what? To get a few extra hits to their website?"
I'm making these up as I go along, but I'm sure the Fox News copywriters already have them written down.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
The difference between the countries you name and the US, as human rights violators, is that the US is clearly the biggest violator of human rights all the while claiming to be the enforcer of human rights laws globally.
We covertly support war criminals and dictators when politically advantageous, Saddam was one such person that comes to mind. We've also supported and sold weapons to the islamic leadership of Iran even though publicly we recognize them as adversaries.
We've started wars and invaded countries promoting ourselves as heroes and saviors and then kill civilians using depleted uranium weapons before pillaging all wealth from those countries.
The headlines today state that our pentagon has misplaced and cannot account for $8.7B of Iraq's reconstruction money. I wonder who's pockets were lined with that.
It's good there is something like WikiLeaks out there that is willing to risk themselves and their lives to expose just what hypocrites, liars and assholes the American leadership really is. Every American should hang their heads in shame over what we've allowed ourselves to become. Global assholes!
Here at home, we've had political leadership for at least 30 years now, that no longer fear the people. We are being ass-raped by our government and are unwilling to do anything about it, like go to DC and kill everyone there.
We now have the government we deserve
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Countries
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russia
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Cuba
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Venezuela
Wow, you really did your homework on that one. I mean, I've never even visited Wikileaks before today, and I found these links in less than 30 seconds. The only people "locked in on the US" here are the US media, who have another circus when new US government documents are posted in Wikileaks. So basically you blame this guy for the US media's reaction to some US whistle-blower publishing something on his web site, which strikes me as more than a little sheep-ish.
If there really are fewer documents from these countries, it's because being a whistle-blower in one of those countries is a good way to commit suicide. Actually, it may be an excruciatingly painful way to do it, but I think you get the picture.
I don't think the guy in charge of Wikileaks is a journalist, either. I think he's in it for the fame, and for the money that generally comes with it. But that doesn't make your statements any less ridiculous.
We already *know* that the Chinese government abuses human rights. China abuses human rights. Teenage boys wear hoods. Bears shit in the woods.
On the other hand, the United States claims to be whiter than white, and claims to value freedom and all the rest. Therefore, it is much more significant when you can prove the US government is saying one thing, but in reality is sending people for torture, lying to the electorate, doing things at the behest of energy company executives etcetera.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
'A media whore with shady beginnings' ? Hardly..
He's got open-source projects under his belt with rubberhose (which, at the time was pretty cool), and boring stuff like NNTP caching. He's did a fair amount of work in the security / privacy computer sciences.
And if you think about it, his impact on the world with wikileaks has been greater than essentially everything he did before it. And he's remained true to his ideals consistently, he didn't just hop on the web2.0 'lets start a wiki' thing out of no-where. It's an extension of his political and ethical belief system.
Haters gonna hate..
I guess some people harbour angry feelings towards him for releasing that military video - something along the lines of loose lips might sink ships.
I don't get this. Why does anyone in the USA feel that these wars are in their interest at all?
I'm not American, but before Iraq I used to feel like the USA was if not a complete white knight, at least the least-worst big power in the world. But when GWB did his 'yeah, I'm proactively invading, and I like torture, who's gonna stop me?' circus show, suddenly something flipped inside me, and I realised that militaries are not fundamentally on anyone's side who is not in their immediate chain of command.
And the American people haven't been directly in the chain of command of the US military since Hiroshima. Not really even during WW2 - William Stephenson's British Security Coordination saw to a lot of secret propaganda to swing things so that war became cool. Ever read the very first issue of Superman in 1939? The villains were arms dealers trying to drag the USA into a European war. That attitude sure changed quickly, and it wasn't all due to a spontaneous change of heart in the voting public.
So: why this feeling in Main Street USA that anyone revealing war secrets is worse than prosecuting a bad war in the first place? Especially from people who often lean right and are fearfully distrustful of a Government they see as "men with guns" telling them how to live - yet when it comes to literalmen with guns, they're all for knuckling down and taking orders from the Commander In Chief right away! I can't get my head around that contradiction.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Sheesh, one of their top generals got fired just for expressing opinions! That's a fucking oppressive atmosphere.
A military is an organisation where people can legally get executed by their superiors for disobeying an order.
How can such an organisation be anything but oppressive, by definition?
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Most likely it's negative. The military would publish and shout from every hilltop all the positive stuff.
Because "we killed 3 Taliban leaders using a missile from a drone" is good,
but include "and 240 of their relatives, who also happened to be attending the wedding" would put the USA's national security at risk.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!