If a single foreign national is rounded up and put in jail because of a leaked cable, this entire, anarchic exercise in “freedom” stands as a human disaster. Assange is a criminal. He’s the one who should be in jail.
–Joe Klein, Swampland (12/1/10)
Actually, Julian Assange didn’t leak anything–he can’t, because he didn’t have access to classified documents. Someone (or someones) who did have such access leaked those documents to Assange’s WikiLeaks, which, as a journalistic organization, made them available to the world, both directly and through other media partners.
This distinction, which is widely ignored in commentary on WikiLeaks, is actually quite important, because the ethical obligations of a government official with a security clearance are quite different from those of a media outlet. An official makes a promise to protect classified information, and should break that promise only when the duty to keep one’s promises is outweighed by the public interest in disclosing wrongdoing. Journalists, on the other hand, are not in the business of protecting secrets, and should have a general presumption in favor of informing the public unless disclosure would cause specific foreseeable harms. The two ethical situations are pretty much opposite.
To treat Assange as a leaker when he is, in fact, a journalist is not only morally confusing, it’s quite dangerous to journalists in general. If the government can declare Assange to be spy or a terrorist because he’s published classified documents he’s received, every investigative journalist who does the same thing is in deep trouble.
John W.
The only reason Assange can do what other journalists can’t is the fact that he doesn’t work for a mainstream media outlet.
Helga Fremlin
‘To treat Assange as a leaker when he is, in fact, a journalist is not only morally confusing, it’s quite dangerous to journalists in general. If the government can declare Assange to be spy or a terrorist because he’s published classified documents he’s received, every investigative journalist who does the same thing is in deep trouble.’
Exactly, Jim!
Just heard an interview on our public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, conducted by someone who would call himself a journalist no doubt, but whose line of questioning revolved around the ‘chances’ of shutting down the Wikileaks website and whether it was possible to arrest Julian Assange. The interviewee was an American law professor who was only slightly less critical of Assange and Wikileaks. That’s what passes for ‘journalism’ in this country these days…
Oh, and thanks for making time to meet me again in November.
All best,
Helga
mr_coffee
The whole thing is silly. It’s right up there with blaming Tom for some “friend” slandering someone else on FaceBook – whether the accusations were accurate or not. It’s WORSE than that since it’s verifiable information. I don’t care who said it, I’m glad the TRUTH is out there, regardless of who wants to keep it secret. If they were this worried over the consequences… they should have done something different.
I do hope Julian’s lawyers add to our deficit.
cousintroy
“If the government can declare Assange to be spy or a terrorist because he’s published classified documents he’s received, every investigative journalist who does the same thing is in deep trouble.”
umm… exactly?
ctrenta
*** To treat Assange as a leaker when he is, in fact, a journalist is not only morally confusing, it’s quite dangerous to journalists in general. ***
I respectfully disagree with that statement. Assange is a leaker of information in the tradition of Daniel Ellsberg. He chose to be in this role. When Assange released the video of the two Reuters cameramen that were killed (Collateral Murder), the footage was edited to create an emotional response. Remember the beginning “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind?” That was commentary, not journalism and irresponsible IMO.
*** He didn’t have access to classified documents. Someone (or someones) who did have such access leaked those documents to Assange’s WikiLeaks, ***
Did someone give him that information? Yes. But I don’t think that makes him a journalist. But let’s say that he is. If so, I don’t think he’s that good at it. Here’s another case in point. The New York Times, in one of its rare responsible moments, said “The abridged version drew criticism for failing to make clear that the attacks happened during clashes in a Baghdad neighborhood and that one of the men fired on by the helicopter was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade.” Jay Rosen, accurately observed that Assange did it because he knew the story wouldn’t get the attention it deserved unless the traditional media could break it. I’d also recommend commenters watch Stephen Colbert’s interview of Assange when he came out of character and called Assange out on his editorializing. A well-known journalism professor I know said Assange may have realized “it’s much easier to be Daniel Ellsberg that it is to be Ben Bradlee.” He’s right.
To Assange’s credit, he turned the next batch of documents (of the Afghanistan occupation) over to credible journalists who could tell the story, Der Speigel, The Guardian, The New York Times, and others. I think Assange learned his lesson. He did the same thing by releasing these cables to The Guardian, Der Spiegel, and some others. I think he skipped the NYT because of their less than positive coverage of him, but that’s just me.
The point I want to make is Assange is not a journalist or certainly not a good one. He’s a professional computer hacker and a leaker of good and bad and useful and useless information. Is Wikleaks journalism? I think the verdict is still out. I think that’s a topic that journalism organizations and journalism schools are still trying to figure out.
Jim Naureckas
Being a journalist does not mean that you do not have or convey opinions. It is also possible to be a journalist without being a good journalist. At a time that people are talking about imprisoning or even murdering Assange because of what he’s doing, I think it’s important to be clear that he is engaged in the same activity that Bob Woodward is, regardless of your judgment of the relative merits of each.
Ida
This is another example of why the fair blog is so good — this isn’t a long blog entry but the ideas are just not present on other blogs. It is a coherent and efficient deconstruction of the flimsy but ultimately still impenetrable popsicle stick house that is being shown off throughout the media spectrum.
ctrenta
*** Being a journalist does not mean that you do not have or convey opinions. ***
True, but it should not get in the way of the news you are are writing or producing for the public. Unless you are a pundit or a news host, your opinions should be left out of the information you provide for the public. It’s our jobs to remain independent monitors of power. As Tom Rosenstiel and Bill Kovach wrote in their classic The Elements of Journalism “Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth,” not what we want the truth to be and not the facts we want people to believe in. Assange did the wrong thing by putting in his commentary at the beginning of Collateral Murder. I think he learned his lesson from that and that’s why he has since worked with legitimate news organizations. I’ll say it again. Assange is a whistleblower who obtains information. Journalists report on his findings.
*** It is also possible to be a journalist without being a good journalist. ***
OK, true. But you also have to be a smart one at it. Assange IMO is neither.
*** I think it’s important to be clear that he is engaged in the same activity that Bob Woodward is, ***
Bob Woodward is an investigative reporter who wrote for the Washington Post. Where has Assange worked as a professional journalist? Assange has written a book, developed software, and he knows how to hack computers. But I have not heard anywhere where he has worked as a professional journalist.
I give credit to what Assange is doing. He is putting his life on the line. I just don’t think we can call him a journalist because he has no relative experience. Professional journalists and journalism schools and organizations are trying to determine whether Wikileaks is even journalism. It’s something. They’re still learning about it. As for Assange, again, I see him as another Daniel Ellsburg. Nothing wrong with that.
Jim Naureckas
ctrenta wrote:
“Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth,” not what we want the truth to be and not the facts we want people to believe in.
Opinion isn’t the opposite of truth. If you are covering a war that you believe is unwinnable, or a candidate who you think is a liar, are are you being more truthful by concealing those opinions from your audience?
My journalistic heroes are people who reported because they believed the truths they were telling were vitally important, and explained to their audiences why they believed this.
ctrenta
But let’s be clear. Assange isn’t a journalist. He’s a whistleblower. Rob Woodward is a journalist. He did investigative work with Carl Bernstein and exposed Watergate.
Journalism to me is about presenting accurate and confirmed facts in an independent and neutral manner. That entails asking tough questions and acting as an independent monitor to those in power. I agree there is a need for opinion journalism. That’s why we have op-eds. I love Chris Hedges, Robert Fisk, Glenn Greenwald, and others. But I consider that secondary because it’s different from journalism that reports confirmed facts, not what people think are the facts. My editor called Hedges, Fisk, and co. “The after dinner mint” journalism. I agree with that. I read the op-eds after I’ve digested everything else.
michael e
I would be interested in hearing Mr Assange answer a few simple questions.Do you feel any responsibility for the pain caused by these releases?Or is this all about the addiction of being the first to get a story?I wonder if he received the complete blueprints for a hydrogen weapon-would he print that?He seems to print whatever he begs borrows or steals without regard to top secret sensibilities.He in fact seeks it out.In that sense he is a dangerous, stupid or purposeful man.
First things first- is to track the leak, and prosecute that person.SEcond is to see if mr Assange has broken any laws.Even in this country where freedom of the press is sacrosanct;We do not look kindly on information (much of it top secret) being purloined in the dark of night and released with the possible reason of attacking US interests.
How is it that the fed moved on pirated CDs and DVDS yet have done nothing on this in 6 months?
woodward burnstein
….four european news organizations were given access to the documents by wikileaks in advance of their publication….
guardian columnist simon jenkins says the paper informed the us government about what they planned to publish and redacted certain information that might put individuals’ lives at risk or compromise ongoing military operations.
the new york times editors wrote: “As a general rule we withhold secret information that would expose confidential sources to reprisals or that would reveal operational intelligence that might be useful to adversaries in war. We excise material that might lead terrorists to unsecured weapons material, compromise intelligence-gathering programs aimed at hostile countries, or disclose information about the capabilities of American weapons that could be helpful to an enemy.”
woodward burnstein
ps
according to the ny times, none of the cables provided to it were marked “top secret.” approximately 11,000 were marked “secret.” nine thousand were labeled “noform” (not to be shared with foreign governments).
Anthony
ctrenta:
I think your “after-dinner mint” comment is a perfect encapsulation of the arrogance of establishment media. In that world, the press is comprised of a hierarchy of credibility and importance, with “just the confirmed facts” reporters at the top, and media watchdogs at the bottom. But it is worth pointing out that the writers you highlight, particularly Chris Hedges and Robert Fisk, spent years as “real” journalists, as you would say, only to grow disillusioned with the very authority granted by their positions. For them, the media’s role as “gatekeeper” of the truth was problematic, not only because the “confirmed facts” often weren’t, or were at best half-truths, but because the natural role of the press as a check on government and corporate power had broken down; indeed, had been entirely perverted. And in order to see this clearly, and to write about it without accusations of bias, they had to step outside the confines of establishment media and its stranglehood on the definition of “credible journalist.”
But this question of who is and who is not a journalist just seems moot in light of the open and democratizing nature of the Internet. I almost take for granted now the ease with which I can check the facts or bias in a news story by reading a blog like Dean Baker’s, or by visiting a website like FAIR’s. Like you, ctrenta, I read the opinion pieces after I’ve read the originating sources, but I don’t consider the former of secondary importance. My hope is that the news is enriching and fact-filled, but as this is not always–or often–the case, I let the watchdogs step in to balance things out.
WikiLeaks Fan
So our “war efforts” are being hindered by WikiLeaks. Imagine that! Since we got involved in these war efforts based on nothing but a bunch of lies, I certainly hope that WikiLeaks puts a real big dent in the war efforts of the U.S. The U.S. uses the excuse that WikiLeaks revelations might put lives in danger but who cares about all of the people (especially our own U.S. citizens) who have died as a result of the U.S. war efforts since the U.S. started these wars based on a bunch of lies. Hypocrisy rules and the U.S. government knows all about hypocrisy! The emporer has no clothes and is worried sick. GOOD!
CWren
The definition of “journalist” has evolved, folks. Many “news” organizations, primarily Internet based, like ProPublica or, nowhere in the same league, HuffPost, reach out to the newer category of “citizen Journalist.” Anyone with a camera, a fair amount of writing ability and the ability to sift fact from opinion and to OBSERVE and report, can be a journalist. And we’re much better off for that, considering how mainstream media has sold out to governmental and multinational corporations’ interests.
Cascadienne
Question for CWren: From your comment, “nowhere in the same league,” I’m not sure which website you rank as better — ProPublica or HuffPost. Would be interested in your evaluation of each. Thanks.
Cascadienne
To Anthony: I think your insight about the media watchdogs is spot on and thank you for it:
But it is worth pointing out that the writers you highlight, particularly Chris Hedges and Robert Fisk, spent years as “real” journalists, as you would say, only to grow disillusioned with the very authority granted by their positions. For them, the media’s role as “gatekeeper” of the truth was problematic, not only because the “confirmed facts” often weren’t, or were at best half-truths, but because the natural role of the press as a check on government and corporate power had broken down; indeed, had been entirely perverted. And in order to see this clearly, and to write about it without accusations of bias, they had to step outside the confines of establishment media and its stranglehood on the definition of “credible journalist.”
tishado
From michael e: “I would be interested in hearing Mr Assange answer a few simple questions.Do you feel any responsibility for the pain caused by these releases?”
I have heard Mr Assange point out that, according to the US government itself (in secret documents) no one was hurt by the earlier leaks, or even threatened to the point that the government felt the need to inform them.
“Or is this all about the addiction of being the first to get a story?I wonder if he received the complete blueprints for a hydrogen weapon-would he print that?He seems to print whatever he begs borrows or steals without regard to top secret sensibilities.He in fact seeks it out.In that sense he is a dangerous, stupid or purposeful man.”
Wikileaks has an extensive editing process and they edit out material that they think should not be released. They have held back a large proportion of the documents regarding Iraq and Afghanistan due to such concerns. They have even asked the US for help in determining what information would be dangerous to release. The US refusal to participate suggests that the government is not as concerned about real security as it is about enforcing the principle of government control of information.
“First things first- is to track the leak, and prosecute that person.”
That is being done, but it is a little hypocritical that it has not been done with other government leakers like in the Valerie Plame case or other cases where the government breaks its own laws to advance its own political purposes. If information is secret, the government should not leak it in violation of the law but should declassify it and make it openly available.
“SEcond is to see if mr Assange has broken any laws.Even in this country where freedom of the press is sacrosanct;We do not look kindly on information (much of it top secret) being purloined in the dark of night”
Obviously we do not care that much or a number of journalists and assistants to Mr Cheney would have been arrested and gone through trials over the Valerie Plame case, that actually put national security at risk in tangible, not theoretical ways. For all of the information that Wikileaks has released, I have heard no allegations that it has revealed the secret identities of US agents, putting them at rist in their current assignments. That is a serious crime, but it is ignored when done at the behest of the VP’s office, it is okay. When evidence of serious crimes is published in carefully edited form, it is “treason” or “terrorism” and needs to be punished with death!
“and released with the possible reason of attacking US interests.”
Where is the evidence for this extreme statement? The information that has been provided has provided evidence of crimes, given citizens information with which to make decisions, and highlighted numerous occasions on whcih journalists have been right and diplomats and soldiers and politicians have been lying. That sounds like upholding American interests and retaking the country from those who would pervert it for their own personal gain.
“How is it that the fed moved on pirated CDs and DVDS yet have done nothing on this in 6 months?”
The government has been very active in trying to suppress Wikileaks, right down to appearing to take actions that violate all sorts of Us and international law. However, the information is out there and as long as some of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have access to it feel that the public should know what is done in their name, I suspect it will continue to get out even if Wikileaks is bombed, Assange tortured, etc.
As far as pirated CDs and DVDs, they are still pretty easy to get and make.
Ken Jacobs
The truth will make you gag and wave your arms forbiddingly. I fear for Assange’s life, and feel for Bradley Manning in military prison, in isolation. A dungeon, where he can be driven mad. So much for the military and government and their flunkies getting to the truth; they want him babbling, and Julius Assange dead as a lesson to all us dupes lest we cease to mind our own business.
Of course it’s a piece of reporting. Let’s put attention where attention belongs, on going through this courageous and conscientious gift of hidden fact. Investigate murder. Learn who profits from it.
Mare Wahosi
Mr. Assange has done a honorable deed. To prevent unnecessary wars, environmental disasters, economic corruption….there needs to be governmental transparency and journalistic oversight; none of which is happening currently. The American Empire has become so corrupt that only grassroots bloggers, rightous whistleblowers and hacker journalists can help us move away from becoming a banana republic of haves and a lot of have nots.
C Ronk
“[T]he ethical obligations of a government official with a security clearance are quite different from those of a media outlet. An official makes a promise to protect classified information, and should break that promise only when the duty to keep one’s promises is outweighed by the public interest in disclosing wrongdoing. Journalists, on the other hand, are not in the business of protecting secrets, and should have a general presumption in favor of informing the public unless disclosure would cause specific foreseeable harms. The two ethical situations are pretty much opposite.”
I would state this differently. The ethical obligation of government employees to protect classified information based on a promise they make to do so is only an incident of their position and is distinguishable from a journalist’s obligation to protect classified information only by the legal, not the ethical, consequences that traditionally could ensue when that promise is broken.
The ethical obligation to refrain from publicizing information that legitimately should be secret belongs to everyone regardless of their position, government employees and journalists alike. Conversely, information that is wrongfully kept secret, either to conceal official ineptitude, wrongdoing, or law-breaking, or simply to prevent embarrassment among the powers-that-be, should be exposed, by government employees and journalists alike, notwithstanding any promise that may be in force to refrain from exposing such secrets as part of one’s job responsibilities.
Journalists exist as a class in society with special legal protection because, among other things, of the recognition that government will wrongfully attempt to conceal information, innocently and not so innocently, and thus that there must be persons reliably â┚¬Ã…“on handâ┚¬Ã‚Â, who cannot be intimidated, unlike government employees, to undo the damaging, undemocratic effects of this concealment. In other words, with respect to official secrecy, society sets journalists aside functionally, not ethically or morally.
Confusion arises about the relative ethical obligations of government employees who leak classified information, contrary to their promises not to, and journalists who publish the information, because the general moral obligation not to break one’s promises exists explicitly in the first case but not in the second; but is then, in the first case, falsely applied willy-nilly to specific situations in which competing values are in play, e.g. fidelity to law, to the U.S. Constitution, or to moral principles not acknowledged by law, that the promise per se does not take into account but should. In the case of journalists, as a rule, in relation to the dissemination of information, there is no general moral obligation in play not to break one’s promises, or to faithfully perform one’s job duties, that is readily apparent to weigh against those competing values, so it becomes less difficult to defend journalists’ “openness”: they are after all fulfilling their promises as well as doing their duty.
Further confusion is created owing to the unfortunately persuasive effect of the term “classified information”, which is reflexively equated with information that should be secret, when, as everyone should know, classified information is not always, and frequently is not, synonymous with information that should be secret.
In any event, as applied to the Wikileaks controversy, regardless of whether it was Julian Assange or Bradley Manning (or someone else) who was functionally responsible for the publication of the Wikileaks disclosures, the act performed by either of them has equal positive ethical value, if you think that the information leaked should not have been secret, and equal negative ethical value, if you think the information should not have been exposed. In either case, it is irrelevant, ethically speaking, whether Assange or Manning was a journalist or government employee, or vice-versa.
michael e
To Tishado and Woodward
Obviously we don’t have enough information to say what is the essence and repercussions of this dump will be and has been.IM not even there yet.BUT but but……When I hear Obama, BIll Clinton …George Bush…HIlary Clinton ,most all on the left and right….Our allies and foes ,and most of our security people hitting a panic button- than yes it is past time for an investigation.To trust Mr Assange’s understanding of the information he holds is just stupid,even if you trust his scruples(and I do not).As my father used to say”if you play you pay”.He is about to be hit with a semi.AS charges are brought and suppoena’s are issued across the world, we may see the true colors of this man.Between then and now…if you know Mr Assange ,my guess would be don’t stand too close to him.You may be willing to blow this off- but some very powerful people around the world may not.HE may of pissed off some countries that lets say are not the nicest people.
Morris
The US government hates freedom os speech. Assange should be the next recipient of the next Nobel prize if there is any consistency in their values. Liu Xioaobo was imprisoned for asking for freedom of speech in the media in China. When someone in the West exercises those rights the government wants him imprisoned or killed, just as the Chinese government does.
Any who trusts the word of a government which consistently lies about everything to its people is stupid. Then again those who would support the like of Sarah Plain and George Waterboarder Bush could scarcely be accused of an excess of brains. Pursue the real criminals not those who expose them.
Helen Bedd
“When I hear Obama, BIll Clinton â┚¬Ã‚¦George Bushâ┚¬Ã‚¦HIlary Clinton , most all on the left and rightâ┚¬Ã‚¦.Our allies and foes ,and most of our security people hitting a panic button,” I realize that Assange is providing a valuable service. Those people would like you to believe that our various Mid-Eastern military misadventures have some chance of succeeding The wikileaks show otherwise, repeatedly.
“To trust Michael e’s understanding of the information Assange’s holds is just stupid.”
Eugene Johnson
The comparison of Assange’s actions in WikiLeaks with Daniel Ellsberg’s ‘leaking’ of the Pentagon Papers is fallacious – Ellsberg was truly a ‘leaker’ of classified documents because he was an employee of the Defense Department , had a security clearance and thus was under obligation to keep these documents secret, whereas, Assange is a public citizen, a journalist of whatever grade you want to place him, and hence is free to make public what ever information that comes his way that he desires to. Who’s government is this anyway? The American public has been lied to countless times, albeit for our own good’ , of course, so say the Powers-That -Be, but my friends, look where this has gotten us! We are not stupid. The days of sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that the Man on the White Horse is coming to the rescue these revelations may explode.
Gene
Phelps Hawkins
Much of this, including the main item, is simply wrong … journalistically, factually wrong. Assange is, of course, a journalist. But he is also a cryptographer, a master hacker who has been charged with same, who has attracted a coterie of similarly-skilled people.
The idea that he and his group are just this convenient group of receivers, who wait around for some clone to dump a few hundred thousand secret documents on them is absurd.
Listien to him; he has explained exactly how he does this, and nobody listens or reports. Happily for him, today’s journalists are a sad group of wildly self-satisfied lunkheads who don’t report, they repeat. C’mon folks, get a grip and get busy … doing some reporting.
Dr. Colossus
Disagree.
Manning leaked the information. He is a ‘leaker’.
Assange and his organization are neither journalists nor ‘leakers’. They are proliferators of information for political ends.
https://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-%E2%80%9Cto-destroy-this-invisible-government%E2%80%9D/
They are not journalists because they do not write anything or analyze information, they just host large chunks of it (and these days seem to sometimes broker it to news organizations)
The newspapers who broke this story are journalists with most of the journalism being done by the orginal 5 newspapers were sent the information to analyze so we can make some sense of it . The Guardian, The New York TImes, Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El Pais. Most other news organizations and blogs have just repeated the above news sources analysis’.
If you are going to be so arsey about semantic distinctions you should apply the same rigor to yourself.
Assange is not a journalist. I cannot think of an accurate name to describe his role since it is unprecedented. Maybe a information reformer / terrorist (delete as your allegiances dictate)
Real talk:
https://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-%E2%80%9Cto-destroy-this-invisible-government%E2%80%9D/
http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf
http://cryptome.org/0003/secrets-taxonomy.htm
http://workwithoutdread.blogspot.com/2010/11/assange-and-information-restriction.html
naturalist1
WikiLeaks Fan Says:
December 3rd, 2010 at 7:29 pm
So our “war efforts” are being hindered by WikiLeaks. Imagine that! Since we got involved in these war efforts based on nothing but a bunch of lies, I certainly hope that WikiLeaks puts a real big dent in the war efforts of the U.S. The U.S. uses the excuse that WikiLeaks revelations might put lives in danger but who cares about all of the people (especially our own U.S. citizens) who have died as a result of the U.S. war efforts since the U.S. started these wars based on a bunch of lies. Hypocrisy rules and the U.S. government knows all about hypocrisy! The emporer has no clothes and is worried sick. GOOD!
I read that, Fan, and cut it to make a comment. No longer necessary as you’ve said it very well. I’ll just repost it for those who missed it. Thanks.
naturalist1
tishado. Mikey isn’t presuaded by information and facts. He knows Right from Left, not wrong. Might as well reason with a fence post.
naturalist1
“An informed citizenery….” is the bulwark of liberty in a free siciety. Only a few may be called Journalists, fewer yet, Whistleblowers. But each of us, when we witness wrong-doing hidden in the vail of secrecy has the obligation to reveal it. Without knowledge there can be no wisdom. Without wisdom only Might will rule. Depending on the consequences to such revealations, future wrong-doing will be allowed or discouraged. As a Society we have been sweeping a mountain of wrong-doing under the tapestry of patriotism in the name of God for decades. Each time we do lowers the bar for the next offence. The reason we can no longer step over the bar is that it has become an enormous pit.
michael e
one man deciding that diplomatic correspondence should be transparent is chilling
digital-mc-carthy
Assange is a publisher & editor for Sunshine Press. As such he is a member of the 4th estate no less than any other journalist. If we may only consider employees of Pravda to be journalists, our 4th estate is in bad shape.
The people who leaked the documents, the associates of Wikileaks and the employees of Sunshine Press, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, El Pais, Le Monde and possibly the New York Times all decided what should be released. Not “one man”.
Brian
“If a single foreign national is rounded up and put in jail because of a leaked cable, this entire, anarchic exercise in “freedom” stands as a human disaster.”
Translation: Stop snitching. What we do is okay as long as we can get away with it.
naturalist1
Someone here knows the original author of my new favorite saying “A Republican is someone who knows the same thing on Thursday that he knew on Tuesday, regardless of what happened on Wednesday. Mikey! Wake up! Quit looking out of the window and pay attention in class. The information others present here will alter your understanding of the facts, which will lead to a difference in your interpretation of them. This, if you read and absorb enough new facts and different interpretations based on them, may lead you to understand that you are full of shit! For Christ sake, if you don’t know by now that he’s not acting alone, you’re not paying attention, learning new facts, drawing different interpretations and you are, in fact, full of SHIT! Wake up!!!
michael e
To naturalist1
Actually you knuckle-head i simply quoted Hilary Clinton in a remark she made two days ago.A simple one sentence remark she made .
So she doesn’t pay attention in class?SHE does not understand the facts?If SHE reads a bit more and absorbs the facts SHE will see she is full of shit?SHE does not know he was not acting alone-because SHE is not paying attention ,learning new facts,drawing different interpretations and is in fact….full of shit?And SHE should wake up?
Your feelings on her surprise me sir.Yet……Why do I know that if you new it was SHE who said it- you would attribute great intelligence and erudite meaning to it.And that if she were once again running for office you would forget that she is full of it.Checkmate dude.Maybe someone else just showed he is full of Shite.
As for your “New favorite saying”.It may need a little deeper thought before you publish it.Simple minded drivel comes to mind. Stuff a prof in your dream schools would likely say to his little minds of mush on their first day .
michael e
Sorry “knew”…….I kno OW yu Libers watchh spellink
Helen Bedd
Hillary Clinton did not say “one man deciding that diplomatic correspondence should be transparent is chilling.”
The only match on the internet to that “quote” is to Michael’s comment on this thread.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS383US384&q=one+man+deciding+that+diplomatic+correspondence+should+be+transparent+is+chilling
naturalist1
Actually, Helen Bedd, Mikey’s so screwed up that he’s responding here, where we’re discussing the wikileaks, to a comment I made on the story about the Portland Oregon FBI terrorist plot which he confused with New York. It,s tough, Mikey, I know. All of those facts to try to dispell and counter at the same time. No wonder you get confused.
michael e
Classic …you cant find the quote on the oh so complete google so she did not say it.Sory luv- She did say it.As she said it -i jotted down her words which I thought were thoughtful.Find it as it appears and feel complete if that is what does it for you.
Naturalist keep talking.You are the new poster child.My sighting NY is simply like saying -any man that would Kill in a crowded LA shopping district….or a crowded Philadelphia mall….or a packed stadium in Dallas.It was not literal to his statement.He did say his goal was to kill as many Americans as he could irregardless of age or sex.I have no idea if the ONLY people he meant to kill or would ever wish to kill in this country were those in Portland.But then again neither do you.
Lets see today FAIR bloggers have baited me on a terrorist that they choose over America.Mr Assange over America.Iranians,North Koreans,Russians and any other crazy that feels america is to blame.I love it.Bring it on.Who shall you take up the cause for in your super hero fight against America the evil empire next?Stay tuned batshit fans.
Marco Antonio noriega Bustos
i dont understand this i am from grover beach california a 16 year ol boy i am a famous chicano rapper known as mr. marco from santa barbara california and i hear all@#%$^766 from the congress i cant make my dream become truth cuz i am chicano …and they shut down my web page cuz is wiki wat the #$&%^&^%^*%&*i am tired lesson …
michael e
Marco not sure what it is you are trying to say. Sounds like you believe Congress is hindering your rap career ,and you think being a chicano may be a factor. And you blame”them” for closing your page?Hey hang in there and keep working at school as well as your passions, as it is always important to do your best there- no matter your goals at the present.
Arnold
Assange is performing a great service to the public, but the powerful people who are embarassed, rightfully or not, are now trying to get even, as if there is no public “right to know” if the government “classifies a document”. Assange either vetted the documents prior to releasing them or tuned them over to mainstream news organizations who reacted appropriate names of parties who would be endangered.
The real question should be why did not the oversight armed services znd Foreign Relations Committees not hold follow up hearings on why our polies are being allowed to endanger the ability of the United States Government to be a model of peace and decency in the world. Maybe
they don’t even aspire to that kind of leadership in the world. Sad if so.
naturalist1
As if there were any question regarding Mikey’s intellectual Prowess, we now have his response to “Marco Antonio noriega bustos. LMAO!
michael e
Natuaralist…your sense of humor is a might thin.Play along once in a while and you wont be such a jerk.
On more important matters…..Mr Assange was just arrested on two counts of sexual assault by Scotland yard.His blackmail attempts this week and threats of suicide masked some other problems for this sweetheart of a guy.
Helen Bedd
mikey, give it up….the Google found you, not Hillary, saying that exact quote. She didn’t say it.
In fact, searching for “Hillary Wikileaks chilling” gets no hits. Trust me, if she had used those words in public, people other than you would have written about it. No one did. Epic troll fail.
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=hillary+wikileaks+chilling&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=e18ec2db23988f7d
PS:
Perhaps you have Hill and the Grampa Grumpy, aka The Maverick, confused….
“This will have an enormous, chilling effect on their ability to be forthright with us,” said Arizona Sen. John McCain.
PPS:
Assange never threatened suicide.
michael e
Helen what can i say but she absolutely did say it.Though i have tinnitis in one ear my hearing and sight are pretty good,as is my memory.Often things people like Hannity and Rush release are scrubbed from the airwaves.Yet you can find it on their sights.Why that is i dont know.Beck often points this out.Try to track Obamas arrest record talked about by Hannity this week.Scrubbed clean and never brought up during the election.We on our side of the coin work with it.What else is there to do?If i find it i will send it on.Do you believe she does not agree with the statement?Read her thoughts.She is not dancing for joy in any of her statements.
Yes Assange did not threaten suicide in his blackmail attempt. I took the release literally.
Sigmund Freau
“what can i say but she absolutely did say it…As she said it -i jotted down her words”
Ack! Ziz Micheal e not only admitz to hearing thingz, he writes zem down!…I zuggezt therapy!
Helen Bedd
@naturalist1…Yeah, I saw Mikey’s ode to the rule of law on that other thread. “Execution first, trial later.”
He also reads minds: “Why do I know that if you new [sic] it was SHE who said it- you would attribute great intelligence and erudite meaning to it.”
That’s impressive, ya gotta admit.
michael e
Actually natuaralist im against the death penalty….excecution.Bush was hard for it.Obama seems Ok with it.Im not for a variety of reasons.Not that some don’t deserve it.Just a personal/professional thing.It would be against my oath….
As far as Hilary goes.Ya know you are correct.I should never put the onus on anyone- that they are in the minority that believes Hilary is a candidate worth more than a sniff and a snort.You have my apologies.
annie
michael e
I am an Australian and I find it very disturbing the way you see the world. As an Australian your definition of a ‘terrorist’ insults me and every other Australian some of whom have died through acts of real terrorism, Americans are NOT the only ones who have suffered through this so-called ‘war on terror’. Australian soldiers died and still are standing beside American soldiers in Iraq & Afganistan so do not think for one second that all Australians do not have a vested interest in knowing ALL OF THE FACTS – as many facts as possible. Not spin not journalists personal opinions not our governments foreboding attitudes and self serving rhetoric just the facts – raw facts.
It is certainly your perogative to not want to know, however what is not your perogative is to dismissively label a person a terrorist – hacker. What your father was saying to you michael e ‘if you play you pay’ be good don’t draw attention to yourself play by the rules at all times (even if those rules are made up arbitarily) and you will be safe. Anybody who adheres to what a politician is telling them to think and say is really do exactely what your father wanted. You need to present a part of America as uninformed dismissive arrogance, the American showpony! It is telling a lot of what I read is acting out of jealousy – people a lot of people would never stand on their convictions knowing wished they would never have the guts to do something groundbreaking.
How far do you want to go -oh yes this invention that Julian Assange was ‘blackmailing’ !!! suicide threats !!!! Julian Assange has never said anything remotely close to this – which means your inventions of reality & truths are a poignant reminder to a lot of people just why WikiLeaks DOES exist.
Josh Stolarski
Mr. Assange is a definitely a great man, maybe a hero is a bold word. He is bringing much needed light on very….very…dark and stagnant subjects. Hopefully someone will come forward on the Vatican archives. You have my respect and best regards, Julian Assange.
Namaste