Julian Assange: WikiLeaks is preparing to publish one million new secret government documents

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Guardian

Julian Assange: WikiLeaks is preparing to publish one million new secret government documents
By Conal Urquhart, The Guardian
Friday, December 21, 2012 4:26 EST

Julian Assange has said that WikiLeaks is preparing to publish 1m new secret government documents as he marked six months of refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London with a speech from its balcony on Thursday.

The WikiLeaks founder has remained in the embassy to avoid arrest and extradition to Sweden on suspicion of sexual offences. There is a permanent police guard and Assange will be arrested if he leaves the premises.

Around 80 supporters gathered to hear Assange speak. They carried candles and held placards reading, “Don’t shoot the messenger” and “Don’t trust Sweden”. Some sang Christmas carols as they waited for Assange from the first floor balcony, a short distance from Harrods department store. There were 60 additional police officers on duty.

Assange emerged with a raised fist and greeted the crowd: “What a sight for sore eyes. People ask what gives me hope. The answer is right here,” he said.


Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/21/julian-assange-wikileaks-is-preparing-to-publish-one-million-new-secret-government-documents/

[randome]

1. We are still waiting for his world-ending bank documents to be released.

My guess is this 'one million documents' claim is more of the same. Nice round figure, isn't it?

[leveymg]

2. Even the NYT and Reuters cite Wikileaks docs as sources these days. So, this has served a useful

purpose in providing otherwise unavailable context to what we get from gov't statements and actions.

I may not idolize the guy, and am not entirely sure about his motives, but Assange has served the public good by prying open a shuttered window into what's been happening around the world. Why do so many at supposedly progressive sites like this seem to miss that part of it?

[CBHagman]

5. I can only speak for myself, but I see Assange's behavior as...

...self-promoting, self-protecting, spiteful, and manipulative, rather than as a means to promote the common good. In fact I think there's evidence he's willing to harm others in the service of his mission, whatever THAT is besides hiding out and having some.

[sendero]

11. I have an idea...

... let's trump up some ridiculous "sex" charges against you as a transparent gambit to get you extradited to a country where they really really don't like you and where they have a history of screwing over people they don't like, law or no law.

Then you can hide out in some banana-republic embassy for 6 months. And after that we will see how "self-promoting, self-protecting and spiteful" you are.

I'm going to predict, just based on your post, that you are going to come up short.

[Festivito]

13. Well done sendero. +1. /nt

[JDPriestly]

35. So what. We are supposed to have a free press, except that the government hides information

that is embarrassing to it, so the press is in that way silenced. The government is circumventing the First Amendment by labeling its own mistakes and crimes "top secret," "classified."

I don't care whether Assange is the worst person in the world. I'm glad we are getting information, much of it absolutely trivial or hidden to cover up, that we should have been getting all along.

Thank God for whistleblowers. If we had an honest government, we would not need them, and we would not need Assange. Unfortunately, we do. I don't like the fact that people have to break the law just to be honest and share information some of which is very important for us to know.

[truth2power]

6. I think "supposedly progressive" is your answer...

Happy Holidays!

[randome]

7. No, no, he promised to bring the world to its knees with his super-secret code files.

That were locked with a secret password. Nothing earth-shattering happened. Maybe some fines can be laid at Assange's feet but that's about it.

I wish there WAS someone more reliable to put the squeeze on the Establishment but Assange is no hero, IMO. His main concerns seem to be about himself.

And he fucked up the Kyoto Climate Change agreement.

[leveymg]

9. On balance, I would counter, Wikileaks has done far more good than harm. It shouldn't be about

Julian Assange, even if he radiates that impression.

As for DU and similar sites, it seems there's been a concerted effort by multiple official and semi-official parties to try to influence the content and quality of debate on multiple issues, of which Wiki is just one. The place is large and varied, and has some exceptionally bright, well-informed people, but there are also many truly naive people who are too easily stampeded.

I wouldn't blame the breakdown of the global climate agreement on Assange - I don't think even he thinks he has that kind of power. If there were no duplicity in the bargaining positions of states, as at Kyoto, release of telegrams wouldn't be a problem. Don't burn the bearer of the "truth" (even though there are layers of deception even in leaks of the Classified DoS cables and the like - that's always been my strongest reservation about Wikileaks.)

[randome]

10. I hear you.

I don't think there is a 'concerted' effort so much as interest in the topic itself. For me, it fascinates me that so many want to believe he is a hero even when he does harm.

Not speaking of you, just in general.

All heroes are flawed and I'm forever drawn to threads that deal with seemingly unsolvable positions or topics. It helps me personally to organize my thoughts and isolate what I truly think.

[leveymg]

12. Beware of Villains, even more so those proclaimed Heroes. eom

[JDPriestly]

39. Agreed, leveymg. It is a shame that people have to violate the law just to get the truth out there.

Our government should have the courage to own up to its mistakes without people having to violate the law. Whistleblowers can and do go to jail for telling the truth. It must be a terrible internal struggle to decide whether to break the law and tell or break a moral code and remain silent. We should not place people in the position to have to make that choice in the first place.

The sad thing is that our government needs to have the right to keep some secrets. But, as with so many things, when it goes to extremes and keeps things as "secrets" that the voters should know, then individuals who cannot see the broad picture, feel compelled by their consciences to disclose what is sometimes an ugly truth.

The responsibility for deciding what really should be kept secret and what should not lies with the government. When we have so much whistleblowing, it is a sign that the government is not making good decisions in this area.

Again, dishonesty and cowardice in our government are portrayed as the fault of aberrant, law-breaking, whistleblowing individuals. And the worst of it is that whistleblowers are breaking the law. They really are, and they usually know it when they do it. Our government puts them in that position -- in which they are torn between two conflicting obligations.

[stevenleser]

87. He also gravely hurt the institution of diplomacy globally by willy-nilly dumping diplomatic

communications. No doubt this has hurt the ability of embassy and consular staff to communicate for fear that their private communications will be leaked.

I really dont care that an analyst in a Consulate in bora bora thinks the mayor there is a drunk. But Assange and wikileaks thinks that we do care. That is not journalism or whistle blowing. If you have wrongdoing to report, report it. Data dumping is not reporting or whistle blowing.

[allrevvedup]

15. Useful yes, but to whom?

Whatever its origins Assange seems to have sold his brainchild to one or more intel outfits before it was out of diapers, resulting in a limited hangout / smear operation used by spooks to peddle their wares without being too obvious about it. Which spooks I don't know, but anyone sending sensitive docs to wikileaks is doing some agent's job for free.

Incidentally that was also the opinion of Cryptome found John Young, who was recruited by wikileaks in its early days but demurred after determining on Jan. 7, 2007 that "Wikileaks is a fraud":

Fuck your cute hustle and disinformation campaign against legitimate
dissent. Same old shit, working for the enemy.

http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm

So I'd expect this latest round to be helpful mainly to the usual suspects namely NATO and its war-on-the-world partners.

[msanthrope]

19. John and Deborah at Cryptome had Assange's number early on.

I marvel at the DUers who have fallen for Assange's schtick...

[allrevvedup]

21. Thank you.

It's worth pointing out because Assange can do a lot of damage and played a part in the 2010 washout.

[LiberalLovinLug]

75. And I marvel at the DUers who have fallen for the Right Wings propaganda machine

And are fully on board with putting their heads in the sand, duct taping their windows, and killing the messenger....literally.

[stevenleser]

86. Right, because the only reason someone could dislike someone is based on right wing info.

So, the reason the Gores divorced HAD TO BE because they read the right wing info on each other. There is no other reason someone could dislike someone.

[LiberalLovinLug]

94. No, not the only influence

But the right wing elements in all of the US news media is pushing the same meme that he is just a self-serving arrogant fame whore and a great danger to the security of the United States and so it follows logic that if one has the same view you probably were influenced somewhat by that.

[randome]

95. Not sure what right-wing media you are monitoring.

From what I can tell, the only time Assange makes the news these days is when he talks about himself from the Ecuadorian embassy.

[leveymg]

27. As I said, the potential for misuse of Wikileaks for selective leaks and disinfo is plain to anyone

who cares to think about it. If someone can come up with some solid examples, that would be very useful (to us, the regular people).

[JDPriestly]

40. Yes. Again, I agree with you. But we still get some useful information. We have to be discerning

as usual.

[merrily]

33. Who is John Young again? That webpage is not very impressive.

[allrevvedup]

36. He runs a site called cryptome that's basically a prototype for wikileaks.

People send him docs and he puts them on the web. Yeah it's pretty low-res but he was at it before wikileaks monitized the concept, you might say.

[Luminous Animal]

68. Daniel Domscheit-Berg stole that info and destroyed it...

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2011/08/21/openleaks-founder-destroys-cache-of-unreleased-wikileaks-documents/

UPDATE

Correction: WikiLeaks asserts 3000 unpublished whistleblower communications were destroyed by DDB, not 3000 documents. This is much worse and definitely different than saying 3000 documents.

WikiLeaks confirmed on Twitter on Sunday that the cache included the following: US intercept arrangements for over a hundred internet companies and 5 GB of files from the Bank of America. People asking when WikiLeaks will release the Bank of America data has become a regular occurrence. Now, if what WikiLeaks says is true, there will never be a release of BofA data and the Big Bank can now breathe one giant sigh of relief.

[randome]

69. Sorry, that sounds like an excuse.

If Wikileaks is as good as they say they are, they would have copies. A mere 5 GB of files? It doesn't sound credible.

[Luminous Animal]

71. Okey-doke.

DDB has openly admitted to destroying 3000 submissions. Some excuse.

[snot]

90. Thank you!

[drm604]

3. Documents from which government or governments?

The article doesn't say. Has Assange even said?

[Berlum]

4. We need Geraldo to get to the bottom of this

[Chorophyll]

8. Oh, whoopie.

[green for victory]

14. Julian Assange reminds so called "reporters" and "journalists"

that they are nothing more than readers of press releases

Lots of Democrats hate him because he speaks truth to the present Admin.
Lots of Republicans hate him because he spoke truth to the last Admin.

To be Hated by Frauds is a Badge of Honor.

Assange's Christmas address from Ecuador embassy in London

[allrevvedup]

16. When did he speak truth to the Bush/Cheney Admin?

Wikileaks launced its website in Dec. 2007 and spent its first months helping destabilize Iceland and Kenya. They didn't start leaking Afghanistan stuff until after Obama was elected and while he's openly mocked Obama and Clinton at every turn I have yet to hear Assange criticize Bush or Cheney, let alone publicly ridicule them.

[green for victory]

17. happy holidays

maybe i should have said about instead of to

you don't think Asssange has been friendly to the bush admin do you?

W certainly isn't fond of the Aussie, that's for sure, so if you hate Julian you're on W's team!

George W. Bush Cancels Denver Appearance Because Assange Might Speak

Saying that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange "has willfully and repeatedly done great harm to the interests of the United States," an aide to former President George W. Bush just announced that Bush is canceling a appearance in Denver scheduled for Saturday because Assange has also been invited to address the gathering.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/02/25/134061287/george-w-bush-cancels-denver-appearance-because-assange-might-speak

[Octafish]

18. For starters, Wikileaks chronicles criminality on the part of Bush and Cheney...

Here is an aide-mémoire of a few of the highest profile revelations.

by Ryan Gallagher
17 February 2011
OpenDemocracy.net

Since 2006, whistleblower website WikiLeaks has published a mass of information we would otherwise not have known. The leaks have exposed dubious procedures at Guantanamo Bay and detailed meticulously the Iraq War's unprecedented civilian death-toll. They have highlighted the dumping of toxic waste in Africa as well as revealed America's clandestine military actions in Yemen and Pakistan.

The sheer scope and significance of the revelations is shocking. Among them are great abuses of power, corruption, lies and war crimes. Yet there are still some who insist WikiLeaks has "told us nothing new". This collection, sourced from a range of publications across the web, illustrates nothing could be further from the truth. Here, if there is still a grain of doubt in your mind, is just some of what WikiLeaks has told us:

SNIP...

•The Obama administration worked with Republicans to protect Bush administration officials facing a criminal investigation into torture (see Mother Jones)

SNIP...

•More than 66,000 civilians suffered “violent deaths” in Iraq between 2004 and the end of 2009 (see the Telegraph)

CONTINUED with LINKS...

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ryan-gallagher/what-has-wikileaks-ever-taught-us-read-on

Gee. No wonder they want to shut up Assange and the Internet he rode in on.

[allrevvedup]

20. "The Obama administration worked with Republicans to protect Bush administration"

Bingo. That's the wikileaks take-away, repeated ad nauseum by equally dubious figures like Hedges and Greenwald. When you get down to brass tacks the truth of the matter is usually otherwise but wikileaks doesn't deal in truth.

Now I know you have a lot of respect for this guy, and many fine folks do, and I'm just giving you my take on him: his politics suck (he's a winger libertarian) and let's not forget this grand slam:

WikiLeaks Climate Cables Prove Rush Limbaugh Was Right
http://124.153.64.38/topic/issue/climategate-wikileaks-climate-cables-prove-rush-limbaugh-was-right-video-sdWxmsVoiZc-76676-49.html

Assange is no friend of Dems and wikileaks has yet to release incriminating info on the Bush administration. But when it comes to shifting blame for Bush crimes onto Obama they're the reigning champs.

[Octafish]

42. Not my idea. That's what Obama's guy recommended. You may've heard of him: Cass Sunstein

Government Nanny Censoring "Conspiracy Theories" is Also Responsible for Letting Bush Era Torture and Spying Conspiracies Go Unpunished

Washington's Blog
Thursday, October 7, 2010

Cass Sunstein was the main adviser to the Obama White House advocating against prosecuting Bush administration officials for torture, illegal spying, and other crimes. As constitutional expert professor Jonathan Turley wrote in 2008:

Close Obama adviser (and University of Chicago Law Professor) Cass Sunstein recently rejected the notion of prosecuting Bush officials for crimes such as torture and unlawful surveillance.

The exchange with Sunstein was detailed by The Nation’s Ari Melber. Melber wrote that Sunstein rejected any such prosecution:

Prosecuting government officials risks a “cycle” of criminalizing public service, (Sunstein) argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton — or even the “slight appearance” of it.

Sunstein did add that “egregious crimes should not be ignored,” according to one site, click here. It is entirely unclear what that means since some of us take the views that any crimes committed by the government are egregious. Those non-egregious crimes are precisely what worries many lawyers who were looking for a simple commitment to prosecute crimes committed by the government.

CONTINUED w links...

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/10/main-obama-adviser-blocking-prosecution.html

Forgiving war crimes is why Bush and Cheney are free and Don Siegelman and Bradley Manning are in prison.

[allrevvedup]

44. So why isn't Assange releasing millions of docs on Bush's "egregious crimes"?

Surely there must be enough NSA field reports and videos sloshing around that Assange could nail junior, dick and rummy in one wfell swoop, right? But no, we get nothing close to that, just miscellaneous memos from nobody's like Sunstein, who didn't run any torture prisons as you might have noticed. As far as I can tell Assange is just another tool of the MIC, and a willing one at that.

[Octafish]

48. Sunstein was on the short list for Supreme Court.

From Greenwald:

In 2008, Sunstein became the leading proponent of the Bush/Cheney-sponsored bill to legalize Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program and to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, a bill which Obama — advised by Sunstein — ended up voting for in violation of his pledge to filibuster. The same year, Sunstein provoked widespread anger among progressives by insisting (again) that investigations and prosecutions of Bush officials would be inappropriate and harmful. As summarized by Talk Left’s Armando, a long-time lawyer: ”Cass Sunstein has been defending the Bush Administration’s illegal actions and the Bush Administration’s preposterous claims for many many years now. This is who he is.” Hey, Left: doesn’t the thought of Supreme Court Justice Cass Sunstein make you tingle with “excitement,” just as Peter Baker said?

[allrevvedup]

52. Good ol' Glenn, finding a razor blade in every apple.

I hadn't considered Sunstein for SC and while the whole FSA business was disgusting, if Greenwald is running his catapult against Sunstein, he must have more going for him than I realized.

Yep, that's how much I despise Greenwald. Utterly mendacious snake. FOX for the sushi set, bless their hearts.

[Octafish]

55. That's one way of looking at it.

You should learn more about Greenwald.

[snot]

56. Thank you again. Let me add,

Hedges and Greenwald are both prize-winning journalists.
Hedges has won the Pullitzer and was squeezed out from his job at The New York Times for expression opposition to the US invasion of Iraq.
Greenwald is a Constitutional and Civil Rights lawyer who's been on the right side of all my issues.
If these guys are "dubious," all I can say is, we need lots more dubious journalism.

[tama]

79. Are you really denying

that Obama admin DOJ not only refused to persecute Bush admin war criminals, but also actively stopped citizen attempts to prosecute them on grounds of National Security?

Also you give (on purpose?) false testimony of Assange's politics, which fall closest in the category of pro-union social libertarian (ie. some sort of anarchist not far from Chomsky).

When Obama admin continues and enhances the war crimes and police state measures of previous admin, the blame does not "shift" but becames shared. Putting (D) after police state fascism does not make it any better and it's no excuse to stop opposing those policies. Unless...

[allrevvedup]

24. "More than 66,000 civilians suffered 'violent deaths' in Iraq

between 2004 and the end of 2009. . . ."

Let's think about those dates: Obama took office in 2009 and ended the Iraq war in December 2011. It's over. So why is it that wikileaks keeps trying to lay blame for the entire debacle at Obama's feet? With some success too.

[merrily]

38. Obama did not end the war in Iraq. He withdrew many troops by the date previously agreed to by Bush.

But before the withdrawal, the U.S. tried to persuade the Iraqis to extend the occupation, but the Iraqis did not bite.

[allrevvedup]

41. It's over. Look it up. :)

p.s. happy holidays to you and yours merrily!

[Octafish]

46. Like Poppy, Smirko Bush is a war criminal. Iraq never hurt the United States.

Like his father before him and dreamed about by his grandfather Prescott, Bush lied America into war. He is a warmongering traitor and belongs in prison. Yet, it's not in the papers or on the tee vee. Why?

Correspondence and collusion between the New York Times and the CIA

Mark Mazzetti's emails with the CIA expose the degradation of journalism that has lost the imperative to be a check to power

Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 29 August 2012 14.58 EDT

EXCERPT...

But what is news in this disclosure are the newly released emails between Mark Mazzetti, the New York Times's national security and intelligence reporter, and CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf. The CIA had evidently heard that Maureen Dowd was planning to write a column on the CIA's role in pumping the film-makers with information about the Bin Laden raid in order to boost Obama's re-election chances, and was apparently worried about how Dowd's column would reflect on them. On 5 August 2011 (a Friday night), Harf wrote an email to Mazzetti with the subject line: "Any word??", suggesting, obviously, that she and Mazzetti had already discussed Dowd's impending column and she was expecting an update from the NYT reporter.

SNIP...

Even more amazing is the reaction of the newspaper's managing editor, Dean Baquet, to these revelations, as reported by Politico's Dylan Byers:

"New York Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet called POLITICO to explain the situation, but provided little clarity, saying he could not go into detail on the issue because it was an intelligence matter.

CONTINUED with LINKS...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia

So, it's national policy to avoid discussing certain subjects. Why Obama doesn't do anything about that, as well, is very concerning to me. And Glenn Greenwald.

[allrevvedup]

47. Fine, then where's the beef on Bushler? This stupid bs is about Obama.

More blame shifting from the king snakes, Glenn Greenwald. Eight years of grotesque criminality and now Glenn rides to the rescue to dish dirt on some stupid movie?!?!

Please. Greenwald is a slimy stooge and a CATO tool to boot.

[Octafish]

50. The ''king of snakes, Glenn Greenwald.''

Glenn Greenwald vs. Cass Sunstein -- Battle Royal, in their own words!

Demanding. Demeaning. Obdurate. Obtuse. Need a link?

[allrevvedup]

53. A link to the Guardian? Save it.

I can get better MI6 propaganda from the radio now that they're blasting BBC crap on every NPR channel.

[Octafish]

54. The Guardian is a pro-democratic newspaper.

Why you have a problem with it is anybody's guess.

[allrevvedup]

57. Was.

Now it's a spook operation. Times change.

[green for victory]

64. Glenn Greenwald is a spook?

I've heard Glenn Greenwald called a lot of things here (most interestingly, things seemed to flip flop somewhere around early 2009, I can't begin to imagine why)

But never a Spook!*

Now I'll take this opportunity to plug his column:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/glenn-greenwald-security-liberty

Recent:

HSBC, too big to jail, is the new poster child for US two-tiered justice system
12 Dec 2012: Glenn Greenwald: DOJ officials unblinkingly insist that the banking giant is too powerful and important to subject to the rule of law
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/12/hsbc-prosecution-fine-money-laundering

Newtown kids v Yemenis and Pakistanis: what explains the disparate reactions?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/19/newtown-drones-children-deaths

Zero Dark Thirty: CIA hagiography, pernicious propaganda
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/14/zero-dark-thirty-cia-propaganda

*****

Spooks: Possibly the best tv series ever made

[TorchTheWitch]

88. I absolutely loved that tv series!

Probably my all-time favorite.

[OnyxCollie]

58. Here's my guess:

IT SAID SOMETHING BAD ABOUT OBAMA!

(That upsets the cheerleaders.)

[snot]

51. Thank you!

And if anyone wants to understand how wrong-headed some of the Assange-hating around here is, pls look into the facts re- the accusation that Assange or WL have profitted from their work.

[Octafish]

60. Anytime, snot! Why does this matter? Well...

WikiLeaks, War Crimes and the Pinochet Principle

By Amy Goodman
Posted on May 30, 2012, Democracy Now!

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s protracted effort to fight extradition to Sweden suffered a body blow this week. Britain’s Supreme Court upheld the arrest warrant, issued in December 2010. After the court announced its split 5-2 decision, the justices surprised many legal observers by granting Assange’s lawyers an opportunity to challenge their decision—the first such reconsideration since the high-profile British extradition case from more than a decade ago against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. The decision came almost two years to the day after Pvt. Bradley Manning was arrested in Iraq for allegedly leaking hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. government documents to WikiLeaks. The cases remind us that all too often whistle-blowers suffer, while war criminals walk.

Assange has not been charged with any crime, yet he has been under house arrest in England for close to two years, ever since a “European Arrest Warrant” was issued by Sweden (importantly, by a prosecutor, not by a judge). Hoping to question Assange, the prosecutor issued the warrant for suspicion of rape, unlawful coercion and sexual molestation. Assange offered to meet the Swedish authorities in their embassy in London, or in Scotland Yard, but was refused.

Assange and his supporters allege that the warrant is part of an attempt by the U.S. government to imprison him, or even execute him, and to shut down WikiLeaks. In April 2010, WikiLeaks released a U.S. military video that it named “Collateral Murder,” with graphic video showing an Apache helicopter unit killing of at least 12 Iraqi civilians, including a Reuters cameraman and his driver. In July 2010, WikiLeaks released the Afghan War Logs, tens of thousands of secret U.S. military communications that laid out the official record of the violent occupation of Afghanistan, the scale of civilian deaths and likely war crimes. The Swedish arrest warrant followed just weeks later.

So many public figures have called for Assange’s assassination that a website was created to catalog the threats. Former Arkansas governor, presidential candidate and Fox News commentator Mike Huckabee said, “Anything less than execution is too kind a penalty.” Prominent conservative Bill Kristol said, “Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?”

CONTINUED...

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/wikileaks_war_crimes_and_the_pinochet_principle_20120530/

PS: Seems like a lot more DUers are interested in shutting down the First Amendment if it curtails warranted criticism of war crimes, corruption, or cronyism, whether by "My President," the pretzeldent or the long line of BFEE gangsters going back to Smedley Butler's time.

[snot]

89. Octafish, you rule; thank you for all of that.

[randome]

59. 'Chronicles' implies an organized goal.

Wikileaks has none. Their sole purpose is to publish whatever documents they can get their hands on.

Do you really think they reviewed the millions of documents they have released?

Now some of those documents have helped shed light on things we need to know.
Others have done harm.
The vast majority have done nothing.

That's not 'chronicling'. That's not even 'journalism'. That's robotic publishing. A three-year-old can push the mouse cursor over to a 'Publish' button and do the same thing.

[Octafish]

73. To me, 'Chronicles' means 'Record'...

...with emphASSis on the second sylLOLlable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002366571

Of course the leaked government RECORDS chronicle criminality. Why else would Uncle Sam go crazy over their release?

[treestar]

23. Interesting about Iceland and Kenya

Do you have more info on that? The Kenyan election aftermath was terrible.

[allrevvedup]

26. Apparently wikileaks helped "liberate" Iceland's banks

from regulation and restriction and opened the country to the glories of international "free-market" capitalism. It's been spun six ways to Sunday but it looks to have been a basic destabilization and regime change operation brought to you by Banksters Inc.

I imagine Julian defense league will be along soon with their side of the story.

[tama]

81. You aware

that your post #31 is the exact opposite of the lunacy you spew in this post?

For history of neoliberalism in Iceland, see e.g.:
http://thjodmalastofnun.hi.is/sites/thjodmalastofnun.hi.is/files/skrar/from_neo-liberalism_to_increasing_income_inequality_-_case_of_iceland.pdf

Corrupt politicians bought by mostly American capital, as usual. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man for the standard operations

and

http://www.savingiceland.org/2009/04/iceland-attacked-by-the-economic-hitman/

[leveymg]

28. How did Wikileaks destabilize Iceland and Kenya?

Really, I'd like to see what you have to say on this. I've also been aware of the potential for this sort of thing having noticed that after the USG cables Wiki first appeared (as filtered through NYT and The Guardian) I could find not a single cable issued by the US Embassy in Jerusalem among the State Dept. docs published. That always struck me as a curious omission, even though I recall later seeing a few such documents.

[allrevvedup]

34. Whoops, meant to put #31 about Iceland here.

I'll keep looking and see if I can find anything more to the point but that's a start. . .

[Luminous Animal]

67. Over 5000 cables from the US Embassy in Israel.

http://cablegatesearch.net/search.php?q=&qo=5120&qc=0&qto=2010-02-28

[leveymg]

80. Thnx. In the initial batch released, there were none.

[treestar]

22. He's not a reporter

That was why he had to hook up with the Guardian and the NYT. Just releasing shitloads of documents is not journalism, and it had no earth shattering effects.

[allrevvedup]

31. Wikileaks released docs that brought down Iceland's biggest bank

actually a consortium of Icelandic savings banks, and that in turn brought down the government. The banks changed hands several times and were apparently renationalized to the new UK-friendly government. Naturally London seems to have played a nefarious role in all of this, assisted by wikileaks, which helps explain why Julian is holed up in Saville Row or whatever posh digs they've got him stashed in this time:

On 8 October 2008, the UK's FSA transferred the UK deposit accounts to ING. In its statement, "The FSA has determined that Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander no longer meets its threshold conditions, and is likely to be unable to continue to meet its obligations to depositors...The FSA concluded that KSF is in default for the purposes of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme".[25]

On 9 October 2008, the Icelandic Financial Supervisory Authority took control of Kaupthing after the resignation of the entire board of directors.[5][26] This came about when "Britain transferred control of the business of Kaupthing Edge, its Internet bank, to ING Direct and put Kaupthing's UK operations into administration" placing Kaupthing in technical default according to loan agreements.[27] The prime minister of Iceland, Geir Haarde, has stated that the British government brought down Kaupthing unnecessarily by abusing their power.

The same day the EBK (Swiss Federal Banking Commission) started proceedings under the Swiss Deposit Insurance scheme[28] with respect to the Geneva branch of Kaupthing Bank Luxembourg. EKB requested customers of that branch to contact them so that compensation of up to 30000 Swiss Francs could be paid.[29]

In Finland, the Financial Supervision Authority (Rahoitustarkastus) took control over the Finnish branch to prevent funds being transferred to Iceland.[18] It has said that it believes that no one will lose their money.[30] Finnish branch paid all its liabilities to its customers with debt it got from three major Finnish banks. Finnish branch then liquidated all of its assets and paid back debt to the Finnish banks. According to Finnish authorities Kaupthing Edge ended its operations in Finland on 30 January 2009.[31]

WikiLeaks has made available an internal document from Kaupthing Bank from just prior to the collapse of Iceland's banking sector, which led to the 2008–2009 Icelandic financial crisis. The document shows that suspiciously large sums of money were loaned to various owners of the bank, and large debts written off. Kaupthing's lawyers have threatened Wikileaks with legal action, citing banking privacy laws. The leak has caused an uproar in Iceland and may result in criminal charges against the individuals involved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaupthing_Bank

Yes this is wikipedia so I'm not vouching for the sacred truth of it but I believe that's a rough-and-ready account of how it went down. Assange by the way is considered a great hero by some in Iceland and there's even a wikileaks member of parliament, or there was.

[green for victory]

45. kicked

Even if that was all he *EVER* did he has done more than 98% of the people in this world.

Fraudsters hate that. So they get angry and stuff. It's hilarious, they'd be even more angry if they knew how hard some people are laughing at them...Hardy Har Har!

The leak has caused an uproar in Iceland and may result in criminal charges against the individuals involved.

imagine that

[allrevvedup]

49. Well, good news for London banksters rarely trickles down to us.

If you follow my drift.

[tama]

82. Not much interest in the LIBOR scandal

even on DU... but any news that put City banksters behind bars or at least make them lose money are good news, of course. If you follow my drift.

[snot]

62. Ha ha ha! Ask DU economists how they view this situation!

Iceland is renowned for having saved their economy by prosecuting their bankers and bailing out the people instead – that's why Iceland's doing so much better than E.U. countries now. They were so appreciative of Wikileaks for the revelations that made this possible that they decided to make Iceland a haven for free speech and passed laws to that end.

[freshwest]

76. Thanks. Most of us don't know about high finance and the games played in their court.

[Bragi]

32. Yes, there has been an effect for sure

With the Wikileaks release of the video of the heli-murders in Iraq, we no longer have to debate whether U.S troops engaged in war crimes. The proof is there for all to see. This leaves pro-war crimes people having to defend war crimes, rather than pretending war crimes never happened. - B

[treestar]

63. The video was the only thing they had that could be interpreted

the documents were too voluminous to make any sense of - so they had to bring in journalists.

As to exposing the video, that does not make them journalists.

[Luminous Animal]

66. Wikileaks partnered with news media around the word because sorting through the volume of

info was too much for Wikileak's small staff.

[OnyxCollie]

25. K&R. nt

[saidsimplesimon]

29. Judi Lynn, I'm not a fan of Mr. Assange. His data dumping, without

concern for the people he has put at risk, including Pvt. Bradley Manning, while he enjoys embassy protection, disturbs me.

[merrily]

30. Assange was far from safe in an embassy when Assange first published the material Manning allegedly

sent wiikileaks.

What do you think Manning expected Assange to do with the material Manning sent Assange?

And why is it Assange's job to refuse to publish what Manning supposely sent him for publication? They're both adults.

You may just as well say that Manning sent Assange the material (allegedly) without regard for Assange's safety.

[saidsimplesimon]

37. merrily, I'm not a qualified psychiatrist. I can only speculate that

Private Manning was influenced by hero worship. I will also speculate that Pvt. Mannings' motives did not include profit, or any other political gain. As for Mr. Assange, you decide.

[merrily]

43. Decide what?

I don't know what psychiatry has to do with anything. Or hero worship. Or profit.

I assume that Manning sent classified documents to wikileaks with the intention of having them made public because that is what wikileaks does.

Assange did make them public, as Manning intended, and at great risk to Assange. Assange never ratted out Manning.

They are both adults. I have no idea why you feel Assange had some duty to Manning to refrain from publishing the documents, which is what Manning obviously wanted and expected.



After that, Assange was charged with rape and the U.S. got Amazon and Paypal to cut off payments to wikileaks.

I'm fairly confident that Assange never wanted to be "safe" in the embassy of a third world country.

They are both adults. They both wanted publication by wikileaks of the documents Manning. They both got what they wanted. They both suffered a lot for getting what they wanted.


As I said. you may as well fault Manning for putting Assange in danger as the other way around.

I am not defending Assange here, just trying to understand your logic.

[snot]

91. +1000.

[Catherina]

61. Good. Dump it all so people can realize what's being done in their names

by governments who care more about profit and geopolitical gain than they care about their citizens.

Dump it all.

[randome]

65. They can't possibly have reviewed 1 million documents. So this translates to...

"We're hoping there is SOMETHING damaging to SOMEONE in this new batch!"

'Journalism'? No.

[triplepoint]

70. At Least Julian Assange & Bradley Manning Got the Door Ajar

Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:34 PM - Edit history (3)

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
Thank you Bradley Manning and Julian Assange for at least getting the door ajar. You've each done as much as any true global citizen-hero could have done. Though you're both now physically incarcerated, you've inspired many of us to continue seeking the truth. We are all better for your self-sacrificing efforts.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.
Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door?
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war.

It's where we stop and look around us
There is nothing that we need.
In a world of persecution
That is burning in it's greed.

Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door?
Because the truth is hard to swallow
That's what the wall of love is for.

It's not the way that you say it
When you do those things to me.
It's more the way that you mean it
When you tell me what will be.

And when you stop and think about it
You won't believe it's true.
That all the love you've been giving
Has all been meant for you.

I'm looking for someone to change my life.
I'm looking for a miracle in my life.
And if you could see what it's done to me
To lose the the love I knew
Could safely lead me through.

Between the silence of the mountains
And the crashing of the sea
There lies a land I once lived in
And she's waiting there for me.

But in the grey of the morning
My mind becomes confused
Between the dead and the sleeping
And the road that I must choose.

I'm looking for someone to change my life.
I'm looking for a miracle in my life.
And if you could see what it's done to me
To lose the the love I knew
Could safely lead me to
The land that I once knew.
To learn as we grow old
The secrets of our souls.

It's not the way that you say it
When you do those things to me.
It's more the way you really mean it
When you tell me what will be.

Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door?
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war.

It's where we stop and look around us
There is nothing that we need.
In a world of persecution
That is burning in it's greed.

Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door?

-Moody Blues, "Question," Lyrics by Justin Hayward
.
.
.
.
I wander through each chartered street,
Near where the chartered Thames does flow,
And mark in every face I meet,
Marks of weakness, marks of woe.

In every cry of every man,
In every infant's cry of fear,
In every voice, in every ban,
The mind-forged manacles I hear:

How the chimney-sweeper's cry
Every blackening church appals,
And the hapless soldier's sigh
Runs in blood down palace-walls.

But most, through midnight streets I hear
How the youthful harlot's curse
Blasts the new-born infant's tear,
And blights with plagues the marriage-hearse.

-"London" by William Blake

Note: Julian Assange is a "political refugee" in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London at the present time.

[randome]

72. The Moody Blues were my inspirational favorite band as a teenager.

That doesn't mean Julian Assange is not a narcissist. Or that Bradley Manning does not have deep-rooted emotional problems. Or that Wikileaks has failed to deliver on more than one occasion.

[LiberalLovinLug]

74. Astounding how many DUers are derailed by the Cult of Personality

While Julian Assange himself is hellbent on steering the conversation AWAY from his personal affairs, away from anything but the work of Wikileaks, there seems to be a healthy portion of DUers determined to celebratize Assange and put him on the same level as a Kardashian. They seem to be conditioned to view the world as made up of only celebrities or non-celebrities. And that all celebrities are just like the Kardashians in that they are void of any real accomplishments but are only glamorized by their own self-aggrandizing and their elite moneyed class. That it is entirely because they beg the press to cover them and their only goals are fame and fortune. From these people we get adjectives to describe Assange like arrogant and self-serving or the ironically laughable "he has a persecution complex".

There is another brand of celebrity. And that is the ones that become one through their god gifted talents or just plain dedication and work. Movie stars, athletes and musicians are the obvious example, but you could also include astronauts, writers, cooks, or politicians and many more professions. Its so laughable to hear Fox News blast Hollywood stars simply for being noticed and then naturally promoted by media, including their own! Some of those same stars that became stars working for Murdoch's 20th Century Fox studios.

These DUers cannot see that celebrity is not always garnered in the same manner as the Kardashians or Paris Hilton. That is bought by their money and ties to those with connections to the corporate media and other famous celebrities. That sometimes celebrity is garnered simply for being outstanding or noteworthy. Martin Luther King and John Lennon were celebrities. They didn't buy that label. Lennon's talents and love of music and Kings passions about fighting the racial inequalities in society made the press take notice and in so doing elevated them to celebrity status. Not comparing Assange to those pioneers but IMO he is part of that same vein of celebrities.

I also do not get the dismissal of the work of Wikileaks all because of a distaste for the brashness or rudeness of their leader. If you look at the vitriol of the MSM against him I cannot fault his testiness. Martin Luther King could have been, and probably was, criticized as being too uppity of a black man. John Lennon once said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. Which was true at the time, but none the less was interpreted as over-the-top arrogance. Both of these men were somewhat testy and dubious towards the MSM news industry as well. And as Assange, they had good reason to be.

This post is not dealing with the value of the actual work of Wikileaks, which I'll leave for another time. I just wanted to address this baffling phenom I am witnessing on this board; piling on and willing subjugation to the corporate media's carefully constructed and willful character assassination of the messenger.

[freshwest]

77. Agreed.

[randome]

78. And yet castigating those of us with different opinions is '...willing subjugation...'

I simply think Assange is a narcissist. Any good he and Wikileaks have done has mostly been by accident because no one reviewed the millions of documents they published.

[LiberalLovinLug]

93. Thanks for the armchair diagnosis

If everyone throughout history had their work nullified because of real or perceived psychological maladies, there wouldn't be much scientific progress or art left in this world.

Assange did claim to hold back sensitive documents pertaining to the USA and Israel. But then who can take the word of a "narcissist", eh? Also no reported deaths caused by any of the leaks, which were low level diplomatic cables, but again, I guess he just got lucky?

And I stand by the "willing subjugation" remark. You are not forced to subjugate to the MSM fearmongering and character assassination, you do it willingly.

[tama]

83. If you look carefully

the DU character assassin crowd is largely driven by Cult of Leadership and absolute unquestioning loyalty to Party and President.

[dreamnightwind]

84. Interesting post

Worth the time it took to read.

My take has always been that the tireless and remarkably persistent critics of Assange on this board, and elsewhere, are supporters of the dominant military-corporate paradigm that Assange opposes.

The current Democratic Party, unfortunately, also supports this paradigm, so the arguments against Assange posted here often try to discredit him as someone who unfairly targets Democrats. Or they directly attack his character. You can see the same arguments against people like Greenwald, the Fire Dog Lake crew, pretty much anyone who is willing to challenge the basic world-view of the modern third-way Democrats (which is, sadly, basically the same as the world-view of the corporate right).

I've always thought that the supposed personality and character attacks on Assange that are posted on this board are disingenuous, just a way to attack someone who is willing to criticize Democrats. And that is a shame. Sure, Republicans suck, but the real problems we face have a strong grip on both parties, and to pretend otherwise is to enable the perpetrators of those problems. Assange gives us a better view of the behind-the-scenes players in this process that we otherwise could only guess at. For that I am grateful.

[AntiFascist]

85. The cult of personality works both ways...

several of the most prolific posters on DU (when it comes to Assange-related posts) are hell-bent on criticizing Assange purely because of his personality, with little thought given for any measured success of Wikileaks.

[JackRiddler]

92. That's what LiberalLovinLug said.

[Zorra]

96. LOL! Awesome! nt