WikiLeaks Insiders Resign

Americano writes "Wired reports that at least six WikiLeaks insiders, including Daniel Domscheit-Berg, WikiLeaks' spokesman in Germany, have resigned in the past few weeks. Those who have spoken with Wired cite differences and disputes with Julian Assange, and his autocratic leadership style, as the motivation for their departure. From the article: 'Key members of WikiLeaks were angered to learn last month that Assange had secretly provided media outlets with embargoed access to the vast database, under an arrangement similar to the one WikiLeaks made with three newspapers that released documents from the Afghanistan war in July. WikiLeaks is set to release the Iraq trove on Oct. 18, according to ex-staffers — far too early, in the view of some of them, to properly redact the names of US collaborators and informants in Iraq.'"

Comments

Re:Flameware

[Inda]

Domscheit-Berg: what are the agreements re iraq? i need to understand what the plan is there, and what the constraints are

Assange: "A person in close contact with other WikiLeaks activists around Europe, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive topic, says that many of them were privately concerned that Assange has continued to spread allegations of dirty tricks and hint at conspiracies against him without justification. Insiders say that some people affiliated with the website are already

Assange: brainsorming whether ther e might be some way to persuade their front man to step aside, or failing that, even to oust him."

Domscheit-Berg: what does that have to do with me?

Domscheit-Berg: and where is this from?

Assange: Why do you think it has something to do with you?

Domscheit-Berg: probably because you alleg this was me

Domscheit-Berg: but other than that just about nothing

Domscheit-Berg: as discussed yesterday, this is an ongoing discussion that lots of people have voiced concern about

Domscheit-Berg: you should face this, rather than trying to shoot at the only person that even cares to be honest about it towards you

Assange: No, three people have "relayed" your messages already.

Domscheit-Berg: what messages?

Domscheit-Berg: and what three people?

Domscheit-Berg: this issue was discussed

Domscheit-Berg: [Redacted] and i talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it

Domscheit-Berg: lots of people that care for this project have issued that precise suggestion

Domscheit-Berg: its not me that is spreading this message

Domscheit-Berg: it would just be the natural step to take

Domscheit-Berg: and thats what pretty much anyone says

Assange: Was this you?

Domscheit-Berg: i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this

Domscheit-Berg: i spoke to people we work with and that have an interest in and care about this project

Domscheit-Berg: and there is nothing wrong about this

Domscheit-Berg: it'd actually be needed much more, and i can still only recommend you to finally start listening to such concerns

Domscheit-Berg: especially when one fuckup is happening after the other

Assange: who, exactly?

Domscheit-Berg: who exactly what?

Assange: Who have you spoken to about this issue?

Domscheit-Berg: i already told you up there

Assange: those are the only persons?

Domscheit-Berg: some folks from the club have asked me about it and i have issued that i think this would be the best behaviour

Domscheit-Berg: thats my opinion

Domscheit-Berg: and this is also in light to calm down the anger there about what happened in 2007

Assange: how many people at the club?

Domscheit-Berg: i dont have to answer to you on this j

Domscheit-Berg: this debate is fuckin all over the place, and no one understands why you go into denial, especially not the people that know about other incidents

Assange: How many people at the club?

Assange: In what venue?

Domscheit-Berg: in private chats

Domscheit-Berg: but i will not answer anymore of these questions

Domscheit-Berg: face the fact that you have not much trust on the inside anymore

Domscheit-Berg: and that just denying it or putting it away as a campaign against you will not change that it is solely a consequence of your actions

Domscheit-Berg: and not mine

Assange: How many people are represented by these private chats? And what are there positions in the CCC?

Domscheit-Berg: people in the CCC know about 2007

Domscheit-Berg: go figure

Domscheit-Berg: i dont even wanna think about how many people that used to respect you told me that they feel disappointed by your reactions

Domscheit-Berg: i tried to tell you all this, but in all your hybris you dont even care

Domscheit-Ber

Not surprised.

[MaWeiTao]

Assuange has always struck me to be a self-important attention whore. I'm certain there are quite a few people out there better suited to running the organization.

One of the biggest concerns I have about WikiLeaks is that they end up being driven by particular agendas, that they end up being selective about what they disclose because it might not suit their particular viewpoints or goals.

I do believe WikiLeaks provides a valuable service. But they aren't essential either. There are a million and one ways to leak information. It's nice to have a single, organized source, but it also makes for a convenient target.

Re:Oh really

[Americano]

Daniel Domscheit-Berg indicated he intends to do exactly that here.

SPIEGEL: You quit your job because of WikiLeaks. What will you do now?

Schmitt: I will continue to do my part to ensure that the idea of a decentralized whistleblower platform stays afloat. I will work on that now. And that, incidentally, is in line with one of our original shared convictions -- in the end, there needs to be a thousand WikiLeaks.

Re:Then again, this is from

[DJLuc1d]

Why is this marked troll ? He is spot on. These people left because of an egomaniac in charge - which by all accounts, Assange is just that. Just because wikileaks provides a overall needed service, doesn't mean that the people in charge are above reproach.

Re:I can't say I'm surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

ummm... agenda?

US service folks are murdering civilians (both brown-skinned, and reporters that don't tow the official line) and joking about it. US service people are torturing civilians and joking about it. US service folks are raping and murdering women and joking about it. etc.

I guess you could call being anti-torture/murder/rape an agenda, but that is a sad commentary on you and your nation.

US needs its own Nuremberg trials. Pretty much every service person who served in Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan are, at least, accessories to heinous crimes. Every politician / high ranking cabinet member / state dept. etc. are more directly guilty of heinous crimes (pretty much true for Reagan,Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obamma administrations. They should all, at the very least, go to prison for life.

Re:Flameware

[kevinNCSU]

If you're putting together an army to fight for freedom and liberty, you can't run it like a democracy. There's a reason why decisive leadership is important in times of crisis.

I'm sorry, are you arguing in favor of Assange or President Bush serving a third term to continue the fight terrorists in Afghanistan? The rhetoric has suddenly become indistinguishable.

Re:Autocratic?

[Atzanteol]

How is my post not honest? Did I lie somewhere?

The American people (English colonists) *knew* why the redcoats were being killed. We haven't been told why this guy could be. It's a "state secret" after all. The case has not been made and the president doesn't feel the need to tell us. You don't find that scary? Maybe you don't know - but imagine a president you vehemently disagree with. Now do you find it scary?