“Julian Assange and his cronies, in their effort to hinder our war efforts, are creating a hit list for our enemies by publishing the names of our human intelligence sources…. I simply will not stand idly by as they become death targets because of Julian Assange. Let me be very clear, WikiLeaks is not a whistleblower website and Assange is not a journalist.”
— Sen. John Ensign (R.-Nevada) introducing an anti-WikiLeaks bill that would forbid the disclosure of the names of intelligence agents and informants
Funny, I thought our legal traditions generally frowned on the notion that powerful government officials, particularly members of Congress, get to declare who is and isn’t a journalist?
Funnier still, I don’t recall similar umbrage from Ensign and his GOP colleagues when White House staffers on a political vendetta repeatedly disclosed the identity of a covert CIA official.
Oh, but here’s something (Gannett News Service, 7/15/05): Following the Bush White House’s Valerie Plame scandal, Ensign and most of his GOP colleagues voted against Harry Reid’s bill that would have revoked the security clearance of any federal employee who disclosed classified information.
From a Guardian Q&A with Julian Assange:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks
Q: The State Dept is mulling over the issue of whether you are a journalist or not. Are you a journalist? As far as delivering information that someone [anyone] does not want seen is concerned, does it matter if you are a ‘journalist’ or not?
Assange: I coauthored my first nonfiction book by the time I was 25. I have been involved in nonfiction documentaries, newspapers, TV and internet since that time. However, it is not necessary to debate whether I am a journalist, or how our people mysteriously are alleged to cease to be journalists when they start writing for our organisaiton. Although I still write, research and investigate my role is primarily that of a publisher and editor-in-chief who organises and directs other journalists.
I think Assange is being unfairly targeted. Someone with a security clearance is “leaking” this material. If Assange were not in the mix, they would send it to another news organization. I especially don’t like the calls for assassination that have been swirling around. Did any Republicans suggest assassinating Cheney for betraying an undercover agent? She also had contacts with sources that undoubted died as a result. Amazing, the hypocrisy.
I have yet to read all of what has been published on WikiLeaks. But I agree with adage that democracies die behind closed doors. In my opinion, the things being kept secret have been multiplying like crazy, particularly during the Bush Administration. Had we known what the national energy policy (Cheney’s) called for, we wouldn’t have embarked on these ruinous wars. We taxpayers PAY for these outrages, and suffer from the results of being kept in the dark.
“Fascism will come to America in the name of National Security.” – Dist. Atty. Jim Garrison
I attempted a response to a previous item but it wouldn’t accept it. Do I have to have a website AND an email address? I have only an email address.
Assange is being an honest broker in the information business; he merely shows what is there. He doesn’t make anything up. Whereas, the murderer George Bush and his administration across the board lied, cajoled Britain and others to perpetuate the misinformation about Iraq’s WMDs. And while today, Bush, while pushing his “Deluded Points” knows no shame by saying how bad he felt that there were no WMDs. He goes to a press dinner and jokes while showing a video of himself walking around his office talking about “where are the WMDs”, “well, they aren’t here, maybe over there.” And while giving interviews he is never admonished by anyone when he admits to torture. Why is torture banned the world over, but it’s okay when the USA does it?
He acts like a rich person, you know, they’re above it all. Rules do not apply to them, they are, after all, rich and privileged. These people really irk me. Why do they think they are entitled? Is it just because they are rich? I have to admit, they are entitled; money talks in this society. Greed is rampant and if you have the money then you can buy privilege. Just like the privileged Bush, he should be tried in a court for the murder of 4600 US soldiers and 140,000 Iraqis’. It is in the law books, these crimes that he has committed. He misled an entire country, the media, and other governments. And the present administration just eggs him on, not pursuing any charges against him. Bush is safe and will never be brought to justice.
The American dream is a myth perpertrated by the rich to make the average Joe think that he, too, can become rich, if only he works hard enough and thinks positive;after all, he is in America, where all things are possible, or so we have been led to believe. It’s all a smoke screen to keep people from being exposed to the inequality between the rich and the middle class and to make it so that they, the rich are shielded by the very people who should be complaining, the non rich.
Raymond how do you know Mr Assange is an honest broker?I hope you would at least agree this all rates a very serious investigation?
As far as the Bush rant and the class warfare……Lesson of the day is we heard you then- and we hear you now.We (the majority of Americans)respect your opinion and your right to vote with that opinion as your guidepost.But We have transcended that and are moving on.You are stuck in neutral.Which i suppose is better than Obamamania which was full speed reverse.
Im sorry the American dream is simply a myth to you.In my life i have seen many of my friends accomplish what they wanted in life with hard work,a good spirit,and yes some luck thrown in.No one i know was handed any great trust fund .”The rich are shielded by the very people who should be complaining”?The non rich are not complaining because they know there is not a hill of beans difference between the two.We both put our pants on the same way.This ingrained class warfare you believe in where we are not of the same biology is just crap.
Someday i hope you achieve whatever it is you would like to achieve.If that include wealth you may be surprised to wake up one day hated…..by people just like you.Strange feeling.Being a good person.Charitable ,giving,honest and loving to your family and friends.Hated!With people in politics clammering for your earnings, that they feel, and demand they can do more with.Strange world indeed.
Interesting that WikiLeaks is being accused of putting lives in danger while every day our TV screens show us the names and pictures of troops in Afghanistan who have lost their lives but noone seems to be questioning that sorry state of affairs.
I suggest people read Dan Kennedy’s column in The Guardian about Julian Assange and the debate about whether he’s a journalist or not. Kennedy is a former Boston Phoenix staff reporter and currently teaches journalism at Northeastern University. He is a respected voice in the Boston area and he is someone I turn to for a nuanced and accurate perspective on journalism topics. Here’s what he said about Assange’s release of Collateral Damage earlier this year.
To read more click here.
Stephen Colbert’s interview with Assange was also revealing. Colbert in one of his rare out of character performances called Collateral Damage “emotional manipulation.” Colbert — our hero who called the White House press corps out — is 100% spot on IMO. Watch here.
Finally, Kennedy makes a point that rings true. One has to ask if Wikileaks is really about journalism. Kennedy wrote the following.
Amen.
I’d also recommend that people read Mark Coddington’s “This Week in Review: Making sense of WikiLeaks … “ at The Nieman Journalism Lab for an excellent and thorough round-up of what journalists. These people know their stuff. I think we’ll get a lot out of what they’re saying Wikileaks is and isn’t.
Doesn’t Suze O point us in the right direction? There’s a leaker, then a publisher, WikiLeaks, then a few recipients, like the Times and the Guardian, who make their selections and invent their headlines. As Suze points out, If WikiLeaks didn’t do its part, someone else would probably step forward. To put the whole weight of blame or applause on WikiLeaks misses out a few players in the game.
Crabby
Crabby’s got a point folks.
As mentioned before, we haven’t always known ALL of what’s happening in government, or what’s said “privately” or out of earshot of the entire world. But my question is “Do we really need to know everything”?
I mean, does the average joe in America know how to digest and or understand all of what they
hear, or see anyway? Do you have enough information of all the aspects of government to even make an intelligent decision on what should or shouldn’t be disseminated? I think not. A look at some of our Sunday morning political talk shows most of us “average” folks how little we really know and understand.
One thing we all should be thinking is that a totally transparent government works against what we want, a secure nation. After all the right hand doesn’t always need to know what the left is doing/thinking.
Wikileaks turns on the kitchen light and the cockroaches scatter. Now we just have to squish a few under our workboots: call out/throw out the politicians who condone spying on citizens, wage illegal and immoral wars, target civilians and journalists, torture and assassinate, ignore war crimes, impede criminal investigations, favor international corporations over basic human rights, encourage wanton consumption and pollution, sell arms to any country, manufacture crisis to justify curtailing civil rights, fatten the few at the peril of the masses, etc.
What Wikileaks has published is simply the truth. What sort of journalist could question the value of the truth?
To be honest there was little in the Wikileaks documents that we didn’t already know, or at least, strongly suspect. But the documents have underlined the gulf between what we are told by the people that represent us and what really happens behind closed doors. It may not be a surprise but its a reminder; to journalists (question everything) and to governments (you are accountable to the people). We may not like Assange and what he has to publish but we should defend to the death his right to publish it.
The saddest thing is that Wikileaks is necessary to fill the void left by the mainstream media.
Sydney all that said… are we really sure we want an open conduet to diplomatic dispatch?Or a bug in the oval office.Or a tap on Obama’s phone.Or two way mirrors with cameras beaming the content of private meetings at the DNC headquarters.Or a member of the NY Times sitting in at all joint chief meetings taking notes for publication the following day.And all to be adjudged for publication by one man who’s motives are- shall we say questionable?I mean there are limits right?Right?The question is has Assange reached it.
Policymakers may want to keep discussions secret, but when their communications and acts are made public, they should be able to defend them or just maybe they should not have done them.
In today’s electronic media, the Wiki leaks cables speak for themselves. But we are better off for knowing acout them. Some politician will always be able to appeal to fear ignorance and patriotism to get even with what is perceived as the “other” usually a foreigner.
Well mr Assanges threats of a nuclear response and taking a poison pill if arrested where empty blackmail threats.He was just arrested by Scotland yard on two sexual assault charges against wickileak staffers
he wasn’t talking about taking a poison pill if arrested…. According to the Daily Mail UK Assange has “distributed to fellow hackers an encrypted ‘poison pill’ of damaging secrets, thought to include details on BP and Guantanamo Bay.”
now we wait and see what happens….
as for the “two sexual assault charges,” they revolve around a swedish law called “sex by surprise,” which involves intercourse without a condom.
in one case the condom broke and in the other there was consensual sex with a condom followed by sex without…..
stories and speculation about assange’s accusers, the flip-flopping prosecutors and just what, if any, crime was committed during sex with the two women have been rife in sweden since august.
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-julian-assange-criminal-probe/19741444
Yes but isn’t it funny how it is always the way the mighty have fallen.No matter the power or scope of a mans influence. Brought down by a bit-of tail.
New information coming in about the damage done by the leaks.Military sensitive info that is a wish list for any terrorist group wishing to inflict damage.
People, seriously. Do your research.
I read too many factual falsehoods in comments and nitpicking at arguments.
If you want to talk as if you knew something. Do some research beforehand. That means checking multiple sources and cross referencing information. Getting what you can from the from the source instead of hearsay…
Think. Be smart. Nothing is black on white. Think about yourselves as citizens and what are YOUR interests.
mclatchy has a good piece on the first amendment implications of an assange prosecution
here’s a bit….
Since 1917, the Espionage Act has made it a crime to “willfully communicate” secret government information that could harm national security. Yet, during all that time, the government has shied from prosecuting journalists or the news media for publishing classified information. The First Amendment’s freedom of speech and the press has protected journalists in the past, though it is not clear whether the courts would consider Assange a journalist.
In the past, the government has been more willing to prosecute leakers of classified information rather than journalists who publish it, said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Assange could have “a pretty good defense,” she said, if it were shown the classified cables were sent to WikiLeaks without his involvement. The Supreme Court has said the “innocent recipient of unlawful information” is usually protected in publishing it, she said.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/07/104909/an-assange-prosecution-would-raise.html#storylink=omni_popular
Lest we allow this fact to fade, I’d like to issue a reminder that this new information outlet has manifested in the wake of a massive failure on the part of “journalist”-branded outlets.
I feel encouraged by the ability of truth-outers to work around the bulwarks of established info-entertainment biases and corruption. Maybe they can drive “journalists” back into journalism?
Assange is someone who knows well how the news media operates, and decided to play the game to some extent in hopes of his organization getting more attention.
I’d like to think the public’s yearning for some straight dope has something to do with these emerging media players.
Sure will make a more intriguing movie plot than another media story I could name, but won’t.