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

Then again, this is from

[Anonymous Coward]

...Wired, known for its constant barrage against wikileaks.

Re:Then again, this is from

[Abcd1234]

So you're saying they're lying and that the quotes from people who've resigned are false.

Well, fortunately, this is the web, I'm sure they and others will come out to counter these claims.

Right?

I mean, it couldn't be that the beloved wikileaks really is rotting from the inside out thanks to a paranoid, egomaniacal who believes he can run the project with an iron fist...

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.

Oh really

[RMH101]

My immediate reaction was "they've been leant on". I'd imagine the US government has been putting pressure directly on any individual involved in the hope of a) weakening Wikileaks and b) causing dissent and reducing their credibility.

Re:Oh really

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the CIA has infiltrated WikiLeaks. Their agent is destroying the organization from the inside by posing as an attention-hungry egomaniac with an autocratic leadership style.

Re:Oh really

[epiphani]

I doubt it. At this point it would appear the governments of the world don't need to do anything to deal with wikileaks - they simply need to wait.

Something like this is _very_ delicate. If Assange is getting a bit full of himself, this thing will come apart quickly.

Re:Oh really

[FriendlyLurker]

My immediate reaction was "they've been leant on". I'd imagine the US government has been putting pressure directly on any individual involved in the hope of a) weakening Wikileaks and b) causing dissent and reducing their credibility.

NYT:'The civilian also said that the Army had offered him “a considerable amount of money if I were to keep my ear to the ground and be an in with them with WikiLeaks.” He said that he had turned the Army down'

So there is some precedence, there is a plan and a 120 strong department working around the clock to make it happen. Does not sound far fetched to me.

Re:Oh really

[_Sprocket_]

....there is a plan....

Pop quiz; what is the plan? Have you actually read that document? The most direct "plan" in the leaked document is as follows:

(S//NF) Web sites such as Wikileaks.org have trust as their most important center of gravity by
protecting the anonymity and identity of the insider, leaker, or whistleblower. Successful
identification, prosecution, termination of employment, and exposure of persons leaking the
information by the governments and businesses affected by information posted to Wikileaks.org
would damage and potentially destroy this center of gravity and deter others from taking similar
actions.

In summery, go after whistle-blowers / leaks. That's it. No grand government conspiracy to lean on Wikileaks staff. No grand plan to get Assange personally. Yet every time anything remote touches on Wikileaks or Assange, we get post after post about how it is the latest evidence of powerful enemies pulling strings all in accordance with The Plan.

Seriously folks, where that skepticism that prevents you from swallowing everything fed to you by your government? Does it all go out the window because you're being fed by someone who matches your politics?

Re:Oh really

[mweather]

It's a site that leaks classified information. I think the chances of their being no conspiracy against it are pretty slim.

Re:Oh really

[_Sprocket_]

Let's see... once again, according to the material you've linked:

In his battle against Assange, officials say, Carr’s central assignment is to try to determine exactly what classified information might have been leaked to WikiLeaks, and then to predict whether its disclosure could endanger American troops in the battlefield, as well as what larger risk it might pose to American foreign policy.

The team has another distinct responsibility: to gather evidence about the workings of WikiLeaks that might someday be used by the Justice Department to prosecute Assange and others on espionage charges.

Carr’s team was given an important head start with the arrest in June of a 23-year-old Army intelligence specialist in Iraq, Bradley Manning of Potomac, Maryland, who is suspected of leaking the Afghan war logs to WikiLeaks and whose computers have been seized.

So his job is to analyze Wikileaks' activities and prepare a case for prosecution if the Government wants to go that direction? And that's the evidence of Government leaning on Wikileaks staff? Investigation.

Furthermore, the article does fall in line with what I've already pointed out. They were given a lead on an accused leak. And presumably have been involved in putting together a case against Manning. Which is exactly what that leaked document outlines; going after the leaks.

Once again - I have to ask if you even READ what you're linking to. You even quote a definition for conspiracy that hardly fits the material you're providing.

Re:Oh really

[inKubus]

Actually, this is probably wikileaks decentralizing. These guys aren't idiots, there's quite a few PhDs and other savants on the team.

It rose from pretty much nothing, just a domain name. It can rise again as governmentleaks.com, etc. That's the internet. The site is too high profile now to be below the radar of politics. Instead they will release via bittorrent.

It's sad that the media still isn't doing their job and instead acting as shills to tarnish wikileaks. They are being used by the spin doctors. The media response is predictable. They could either go "why didn't we do that" or they can go "we would never do that, we're too professional". Which is the problem--this idea that educated journalism just rehashes what everyone else and the government is saying.

But when you look back in history you see the truely groundbreaking stories that really changed things (like tobacco, watergate, etc) were almost snuffed out by national security and governmental interference, put the reporters at risk of jail, and possibly even assassination attempts.

Yet they prevailed because the printing press enables them to copy their report and send to everyone and there's no way people can call it back. Now, obviously this great power requires responsibility, but in a case where the information is really telling about a war that they are asking us to vote for each year--telling in that it shows the government has lied to us to keep us voting for the war--I think that should come out. If soldiers should die because of the information release, remember who sent them over there to begin with. If they were safely at home it wouldn't be a problem now would it? Furthermore, if the information release leads to the war ending sooner, what about all the lives that will be saved?

Thus it's a bullshit ad-homium argument. "What about the troops?!" I can't believe we're so ignorant in this country that we believe we can have a war where no one dies except the enemy. And I have lots of friends in the military in various capacities, and none of them want to die, and most of them don't want to be there but they also know that it's their job. But the majority of them would give their life to end the war right now and bring all the rest home. I guarantee that.

So, wikileaks needs to decide if this is information that will help end the war, and cause political support for it to buckle in the US or not.

Now my little rant against: I, for one, want to know if I've been lied to. They are spending OUR MONEY (and our kids) on the war and they are asking for me to vote on it again. I want my vote to be based on the most true facts possible.

Re:Oh really

[_Sprocket_]

And that's all a fine argument once we get to the point of the US Government attempting to prosecute. But they're not (at least not yet). And while investigation can lead to prosecution, they're not the same thing.

If the Government does attempt prosecution, then I'd be behind your argument in most cases. But the only one they've started prosecution on is Manning. And the Espionage Act of 1917 clearly applies there.

What fails to come to light in this thread is any evidence of a conspiracy to lean on Wikileaks agents. Yet you've invoked all this as proof. And that proof fails to deliver. Just as it fails to deliver when all the other conspiracy theorists invoke it to explain away criticisms of Wikileaks and anything else that touches Wikileaks or Assange in a negative light.

As an aside, the article described this supposed dedicated group as "nearly 120 intelligence analysts, FBI agents, and others" - not sure where you get "propaganda specialists" out of that although I think you're counting "spooks" twice naming the FBI. The problem I keep having in these threads is that there's supposed to be clear proof, yet every time a little digging is done, we discover that the bias of the individual has produced fictions and presented them as fact.

Cue the People's Front of WikiLeaks in 3... 2...

[Rogerborg]

If there's one thing Freedom Fighters can't stand more than the Romans^W Military Industrial Complex, it's each others' company.

Note: this is +1 Sadly Insightful, not Funny.

Typical

[MyLongNickName]

As someone with a business background and studying for my MBA (let the jokes begin), I find this type of thing fascinating.

This type of situation happens a lot in small business. Most successful smal businesses face failure when they make the hurdle to medium-sized businesses. They either end up folding,or going back to a smaller company.

To get a company up and running requires a certain personality -- very confident, very controlling. To successfully grow you need a staff around you that shares in the power and is trusted to make decisions. The original personality type fails in this regard. Either the person in charge must change his leadership style or the person in charge must change (i.e. get rid of him).

So from the 50.000 foot view, it seems like we have this situation at wikileaks. This is a shame as I think this type of organization can truly be a benefit to freedom and democracy.

Flameware

[FriendlyLurker]

Skipping the wired (and poster "Americanos") spin at looking right at the chat logs they are basing it on (reproduced below), it is pretty clear that this Domscheit-Berg character keeps trying to weasel out of Assanges clear to the point question - did he run to Newsweek with this tabloid crap. When pressed to answer question he goes all childish in his answers and avoids the question. You'd be hard pressed not to fire an employee like that, in any organization. I guess the bags of money from the WWR is finally beginning to pay off dividends.

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 answe

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

Re:Flameware

[Americano]

it is pretty clear that this Domscheit-Berg character keeps trying to weasel out of Assanges clear to the point question - did he run to Newsweek with this tabloid crap

Yeah, he totally weasels out of it completely. Oh, except for the part where he says: "i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this."

For what it's worth, my "spin," as you call it, is entirely accurate. The people who have left that Wired have spoken to have cited differences and disputes, both personally with Julian Assange, and with his -- apparently autocratic -- leadership style. Go RTFA, and you'll see that it's not really me "spinning" the summary, it's a pretty accurate summary of what the Wired story has to say.

You may disagree with their assessment, and feel that Assange is NOT being autocratic and heavy-handed, but that does not change the fact that Wired has reported this to be the opinion of several of the people who have resigned.

Re:Flameware

[Americano]

No?

That's right, NO.

Assange asked him directly, "did you speak to Newsweek about this."

Domscheit-Berg responded directly, "I didn't speak to Newsweek or other media representatives about this."

I'd hardly call that weasel language, or refusing to answer the question. As far as him leaking this information for "political and financial advantage," what advantage at all is there for Domscheit-Berg in this? Please explain how he's going to reap rewards out of... leaving Wikileaks?

It's funny, apparently when we criticize Assange we need ironclad proof, and even with video we're not sure that it wasn't heavily doctored by the CIA/MSFT/Barack Obama/UN/UK/Germany/Swedish Prosecutors/Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh/et. al., but when anybody else is involved, a bit of baseless conspiracy theory and a few twists of innuendo ("I'm not SAYING he leaked it for financial gain, but he's never specifically DENIED it, either!"), and that's good enough to assume the people we disagree with are guilty.

Double standard? I think so.

Re:Flameware

[boxwood]

were you reading the same chatlog?

All Assange was saying was basically "who dares speak against ME??" And the other guy was just trying to get some work done. Assange refused to give the guy the answers he needed to get his work done.

He was acting like a douche and the other guy got pissed off and told him he was a douche. And then Assange proves it by unilaterally suspending the guy.

Face it Assange is a douchebag, and he's going to bring down wikileaks.

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.

the cause is greater than the man

[circletimessquare]

assange did a good thing starting wikileaks, but we are all human, we are all fallible, and it is possible to praise assange for getting the ball rolling but recognize that perhaps the cause has outgrown him

he obviously needs to let go and let other people run the show in a distributed manner, not with a single point of failure: one man

this is not a trumped up rape charge in sweden. this is a valid problem with his management style. if you blindly defense assange, even to the extent that wikileaks the cause can be hurt in terms of image, ethical behavior, or compromised mission because of his management failures, then you are guilty of hero worship and cult of personality behavior. if you laugh at why people care about the star worship on TMZ.com or wonder why scientologists or north koreans can't see that they are being sold a bill of goods... yet you still defend assange: look in the mirror. surely you can separate wikileaks and assange in your mind

Ahh...the Sweet Irony

[smitty777]

FTA: "When he quizzed Assange in an online chat, Assange responded by accusing Domscheit-Berg of leaking information about discontent within WikiLeaks to a columnist for Newsweek".

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

[Millennium]

The idea behind Wikileaks is a good one, but Assange has an agenda (as the Collateral Murder site clearly showed). I hope these people are heading off to form their own organization, with perhaps something closer to neutrality.

Short memory

[dbIII]

That kind of paranoia really isn't healthy.

It was only about two months ago that people in government were demanding his head. Reacting to this event may well be unfounded paranoia but that does not change that powerful people do want to get him. Now what should happen is that it should stop at the noise of unprofessional weasels demanding his head, but it may go furthur and somebody may be sent on the pointless useless and deplorable task of stirring up trouble from him to "teach him a lesson". It would be as unprofessional as outing a CIA agent because her husband pointed out a blatant and stupid lie, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Re:how is wikileaks safer than 4chan?

[nedlohs]

Because they hopefully some expertise whereas the random guy who wants to leak something probably hasn't even heard any of the terms "proxy chain", "tor", or "4chan".

Because wikileaks claims to do some checking which will give the leak more weight than some random post to 4chan.

Because wikileaks has media contacts and can push the leaked data out to them, which would be very hard for most people to do anonymously.

Re:how is wikileaks safer than 4chan?

[RivenAleem]

And because the admins of 4chan might just out you for the lulz

Wiki leaks is all about media whoring.

[Theovon]

The US government has too many secrets. Certainly, they need SOME, otherwise they can't have a tactical advantage over enemies. But there's stuff decades old that just should not be closed up in some government filing cabinet. I think the excessive government secrecy, cover-ups for mistakes, and all sorts of other crud need to be blown wide open by those who care more for the American people than for their government (which should be for the people, by the people, of the people, etc.).

The problem currently is that those people doing the blowing-open appear to be kindof shallow on ethics themselves. Assange comes across to me as a serious ass-hat who get's a kick out of doing this stuff more because it's "naughty" than because he really cares about freedom of information. Of course, this impression, along with the sexual misconduct charges, could all be the result of Pentagon brainwashing. But if you're going to take the "moral high ground" against government secrecy, you have to be above reproach, and you have to use tactics much less douchy than the ones we've been seeing, what with the "I'm going to release this stuff in two weeks, so I can get lots of personal attention, up the suspense, etc. Maybe I'll be arrested for not having yet released anything, which will be a high profile embarrassment for the government. Strisand Effect."

Wikileaks seems to be more about media whoring than truly doing good things.

Fork already!

[LordFolken]

Just fork the whole thing. Build a new org and run it from there. 1. The world needs more whistle blower sites. Redundancy is key. 2. The service is too valuable to fail because of any number of persons. just my 2 cents.