Assange: US pushing "Digital McCarthyism" in assault on Wikileaks

Discuss

89 Responses to “Assange: US pushing "Digital McCarthyism" in assault on Wikileaks”

  1. Kimmo says:

    So where’s the charge against Huckabee then?

    Make with some due process sometime soon, US!

  2. happyez says:

    By the way, the rule of law and warfare would in no way be violated by killing you. Nor would that be correct to call it an assassination. You’ve declared yourself an enemy of the U.S., seeking its defeat in Afghanistan, and you’ve backed that up by disseminating classified information intended to sabotage the war. In previous wars, foreign spies and saboteurs have been executed. All well within law and custom. More recently, a NY appeals court just upheld the conviction of Hassan Abu-Jihaad for leaking a relatively small amount of information to our enemies.

    I know it was a few posts ago, but this is great. Because it succinctly states what, I’d say, most people are thinking.
    Assange hates the US (enemy), sabotage our troops (disseminating classified information), and therefore you are to be gone (executed).

    I don’t know if this is a brick wall of thought, or really someone who is just ‘patriotic’, but it is probably more like a black and white view of the world vs the grey reality.

    From what I know, this statement is wrong – the information was on the past; it exposes atrocities done in the name of the USA for unsubstantiated reasons of why they are actually there; Assnage is Australian (no treason), but it isn’t clear whether the whole organisation or just JA is in the posts sights.

    Ernunnos, I would suggest something some questions to ponder. You don’t have to write back, just ponder them:
    - what information/leaks should be released? If none, then how do we become educated about the real facts of history? (noting that the documents about Iraq and Afganistan are not current to present day action) If it is again, ‘nothing’, then when?

    - are you looking at JA directly, or the organisation? If him, then think about this: the internet was designed to withstand a nuclear attack. I believe WL was designed along the same lines. Do you want no information out about anything, or just nothing that implicates the USA?

    If you are targeting JA, then you are falling for the ‘get the man, and the org collapses”. It won’t happen. It was designed to not happen (although I note that JA is a control freak and compromised this, but I believe that the structure stands intact). There are people working right now to keep releasing cables – they also have tonnes of leaks that sit unopened, because of lack of time.

    Think about this Ernunnos, something happens to JA. Then the day after he is gone, the next Cable goes out. Then a week later, they release the insurance key, then 2 weeks later, out comes the bank info. You knocked off a man, which had no discernable affect on WL. Sure, a face is gone, but you do know that he put himself up as a fall guy? It’s in the plans!!!

    It’s not going to stop…if you don’t realise this, then you may just be ranting to yourself. It is obvious you don’t like Assange and/or WL. But they aren’t going away, or others like them.

    I love it, because for once, a mob not connected to any power elite in ANY country is playing one of the best games of power chess, where they are in the lead!!! When has this happened before?? And WL is not just about hurting US feelings you know. They dealt with Kenya long before the USA you know…don’t you?

    As JA said, the USA spends more on military intelligence then the rest of the world combined. So they aren’t going down in a hurry.

    If it’s the troops are so worried about, how about just pulling them out of Afganistan altogether, and putting them to defending the actual country of the physical and political infrastructure and population of the USA, and collecting info on real threats (which may include WL). Like an military is meant to do…imho

    It’s a new world now. I’d be working out intelligent ways to clamp down on them, or working out ways to deal with the new paradigm.

    • Ernunnos says:

      1. Wikileaks exposes information that is still actionable. This is not merely dead or historical data. Indeed, if it were, then there would be very little point in releasing it.

      2. I haven’t expressed an opinion on what should be leaked. For all you know, I support Wikileaks and their objectives.

      3. It’s not about the organization at all. It’s about Julian Assange, who has essentially declared war on the U.S. and its interests. And in my opinion, that’s fine. He’s a grownup. He can do that. But such decisions come with consequences. I view this as no different than an idealistic American in the 1930s going off to fight the fascists in Spain. It is your right. Just don’t be surprised when you catch a bullet in the throat.

      My issue with Assange is that he doesn’t believe his own propaganda. He wants to fight the big, bad, evil empire, but he doesn’t actually believe that the big, bad, evil empire will put him up against the wall. Or even in Guantanamo, as it has done with so many other foreign citizens who’ve attempted to fight it. He wants to play war, with all of the glory, and none of the risk.

      Even if I supported the goals of Wikileaks 100%, I would love to be there when he discovers that the U.S. really is what he claims it is. Watching that smug, entitled, privileged expression slide into one of abject shock and horror would be as funny as watching a hellfire-and-brimstone televangelist arriving at the gates of a hell he never actually believed in.

      • happyez says:

        About the info being still live/ not dead – that’s fine so long as names are redacted. AFAIC, I want to know what we are doing there. Don’t you?

        It’s not about the organization at all. It’s about Julian Assange, who has essentially declared war on the U.S. and its interests.

        This is where your stumbing block is, with respect to you – as you write well.
        There is a difference between ‘declaring war’ (whatever that means) on a country, which I have heard he hasn’t done, and targeting the most powerful and active participant in large-scale wars etc etc. If Venice was still the superpower, and there were as many leaks coming from there (these two MUST go together), you would have the Venetial Justice Ministry on WLs arses just as much.

        Also, and a big also, which you hadn’t taken note of before, was that WL is NOT US-CENTRIC. You have noticed this yes?
        The biggest ones of recent times have been about the US, and you may have read that people within WL are a bit miffed about this. Because it focuses on big stuff from one place.

        “Why not from North Korea or China?” I hear you say, well, I assume you think this. Someone does anyway. Well, get some leaks from them and whoosh, here comes Chinese secrets. But the reason we don’t see them is because mafia organisations are harder to pry information from. Would you like the USA to emolate the mafia? Just saying…

        Also, the story is really about WL the org, not the fall guy. Thought I’d say this because you seem to be saying that’s not the issue.
        This possibly shows where you are not uptospeed with what is going on. That things have changed due to WL and the internet is the new reality, whether it’s ‘great’ or not.
        JA is the fall guy Ernunnos. They continue with or without him. The leaks keep coming. It’s been designed this way.
        This is probably the elephant in the room you are not addressing. Which is fine. But it means if you were advising DoJ, you wouldn’t be helping them much. Then again, neither am I…

        And in my opinion, that’s fine. He’s a grownup. He can do that. But such decisions come with consequences. I view this as no different than an idealistic American in the 1930s going off to fight the fascists in Spain. It is your right. Just don’t be surprised when you catch a bullet in the throat.

        This I agree with you on! I have noticed it. Whether this is what he is thinking, I dunno, but I do get that impression.
        But hey, I’m not in his shoes, and many activists are not ready for the success they crave. But I assume, I really do, that the team he has has knocked some reality into him. I don’t want WL to shift in what they do, I just hope he is uptospeed with the reactions and results of his actions and that from those who don’t like what he is doing

        Watching that smug, entitled, privileged expression slide into one of abject shock and horror would be as funny as watching a hellfire-and-brimstone televangelist arriving at the gates of a hell he never actually believed in.

        Smug??? You know, I don’t think you like him.

      • Owen says:

        The US is ostensibly a nation of laws, which means that we cannot simply kill those who displease us. We can arrest and try those we believe have committed crimes, and we can fight against our stated enemies if we have declared war, but to do anything else would show that we are not, in fact, a nation of laws.

        If we do take the authoritarian way out and assassinate him, or torture him, or arrange a kangaroo court for him, it proves him right, which is what he has wanted all along.

        But, it’s telling that in a conflict between an increasingly immoral government which tortures people and an idealist who wants to make it reform or collapse, you not only side with the torturers, but express joy at the thought of watching them work.

        • Ernunnos says:

          The US is ostensibly a nation of laws, which means that we cannot simply kill those who displease us.

          Actually… if they’re foreign citizens who’ve declared war on us, we kinda’ can. You don’t have to try and convict soldiers before shooting them. That was true in both hot cold wars. This one’s just kinda’ tepid, but that’s well within the range.

          If you don’t like that, it’s probably not a good idea to A) Declare your intent to thwart a superpower and then B) Do something to get their attention and make them take you seriously.

          • Ugly Canuck says:

            Only States can declare war: NOT self-appointed rag-tag bands of vicious, violent and deluded maniacs and fanatics.

            Why do you dignify THEM so, by granting those assholes THEIR desired “Holy War”?!

            The USA does it self a great dis-service, to go to “war” upon the ‘invitation’ of those merely CRIMINAL scum.

            “War” is far too grand a word for the forceful POLICE operation that has always been the proper, correct and just answer to these terror attacks and those behind them.

            IMHO.

          • Owen says:

            Ernunnos, for the U.S. to be at war with an entity, Congress has to pass a declaration of war against that entity and the President has to sign it. Thus, we are not at war with WikiLeaks.

            If the U.S. formally declares war on WikiLeaks, then sure, we can kill Julian Assange, provided we honor our treaty obligations, such as the Geneva Conventions.

            But WikiLeaks, as we’ve noted repeatedly, has not done anything illegal. So until we declare war or pass a law making what they’re doing illegal and they keep doing it, we can’t do anything. ‘Declaring your intention to thwart a superpower’ and ‘Doing something to get their attention’ are not declarations of war if they’re both legal, and in this case, they are.

      • DWittSF says:

        I would love to be there when he discovers that the U.S. really is what he claims it is. Watching that smug, entitled, privileged expression slide into one of abject shock and horror would be as funny as watching a hellfire-and-brimstone televangelist arriving at the gates of a hell he never actually believed in.

        How about being there when an Afghan family is having a wedding, and is immolated by Hellfire missiles?

        I wouldn’t care to see it, but your own smug, entitled, privileged expression may ironically slide into one of abject shock and horror, as the authoritarian killing machine you love so much one day turns its sights on you, and grinds you into hamburger. Wouldn’t that be a hoot!

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          We need a tee-shirt that says Put Your Schadenfreude Back In Your Pants.

        • Ernunnos says:

          My cherry got popped when I watched a bunch of American tax agents hose down a building full of women and children with machine guns. On American soil. That was right around the same time the U.S. government floated the idea of requiring all encrypted communication to have a back door key they could use.

          Welcome to the party. What took you so long? If you’ve got a sixpack of something more shocking to contribute, the cooler’s over there.

  3. andygates says:

    “I’d be working out intelligent ways to clamp down on them, or working out ways to deal with the new paradigm.”

    Well, “don’t be evil” is still a good baseline. It amuses me to see just how hard that is for the current paradigm to digest.

  4. Kosmoid says:

    In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. Winston Churchill

    • Ugly Canuck says:

      The former Naval person was often wrong.

      • Kosmoid says:

        Churchill and the Allies went to great pains to prevent the Nazis from learning that they had developed radar and had broken the enigma code. By estimates, this shortened WWII by two years.(!) That’s the context for this quote.

        To paint the US as the prime example of a repressive regime is “shock jock journalism.” And to bring up McCarthy from the 1950s? Believe me, today’s journalism is a far cry from Edward R. Murrow or even Walter Cronkite.

        • Scarecrow Repair says:

          No, the US is not the prime example of terrorism. But sheer size magnifies any US-sponsored terrorism. Osama bin Laden has killed maybe 4000 people. More US soldiers have died than that, and then you add in Iraqis, innocent civilians caught in the crossfire, and we are responsible for far more deaths. Even the disproportionate Israeli response to a very few deaths from crude rockets pales in comparison to what we have done in Iraq, arguably only so Bush Jr could finish Daddy’s war.

          Gitmo is certainly state-sponsored terrorism. Either they are prisoners of war or they are criminals. Rendition for outsourced torture, or our very own home grown kind, is still torture, and still terrorism. So are the drones shooting missiles at people in other countries we are not at war with. If any third world country was doing this, we’d be screaming at them as terrorists.

          All these “leaders” we have, with their idiotic remarks, are as sane as Osama bin Laden. They are certainly terrorists more than Assange, and they have the power of the world’s only superpower behind them, one well known for extra legal assassinations.

          It is entirely proper to call the US government a terrorist organization. It just isn’t the worst.

          • Kosmoid says:

            I’m questioning the ultimate goal. And, I think our journalists are puppets of their corporate sponsors or self interest.

            We have to change our tack to a determined effort to move to sustainable energy sources, like yesterday. We should have NO dealings with oil-producing states financially. The US is all about technology. People from all over the world come here to train.

            We need more young people committed to engineering, science etc. to make this change possible. Fewer journalists, please. OK, Julian, you’re a martyr, now what?

            Future generations will be looking back wondering what we did that was useful. How will they view Wikileaks?

          • DWittSF says:

            Future generations will be looking back wondering what we did that was useful. How will they view Wikileaks?

            Prolly in a much better light than Farmville, Facebook, Foursquare, and all the other digital Bread & Circuses.

    • Forkboy says:

      Good thing we’re in a perpetual state of war then, huh. That way we can keep beefing up the bodyguards between that precious truth and the common rabble.

      • Kosmoid says:

        No, you better believe that we’re at war because of our commitment to fossil fuels. We’ve never fought a war where we’re funding both sides. Time to turn the corner.

        • imag says:

          What about the War on Drugs? We’re the biggest consumer of the drugs we fight.

          If you were being sarcastic, sorry for the obvious comment.

          • Kosmoid says:

            No, in a country that has a problem with obesity, we sell the most diet books. Our journalists are failing us. Once we are given the some decent information we can begin to approach the people we need to elect.

          • AnthonyC says:

            All good information must be mixed with falsehoods, in order to remain fair and balanced.

    • Forkboy says:

      Forgot to add that that attitude is probably also why ol’ Winston was out on his ear as woon as the war ended. luckily for our leaders we’re in no danger of running out of wars soon.

    • Anonymous says:

      Please never, NEVER, compare WWII (defence during a geographical war) to the US occupation of Afganistan (illegal, politically motivated crock of shit).

      It’s insulting; and idiotic.

  5. Grognard says:

    For someone who isn’t an American, Assange sure speaks highly (and in detail) of our unique system and history. Is this why he’s focused on American secrets and not China’s, North Korea’s, etc?

    This is such an interesting story on so many levels…

    • maikaahl says:

      First of all, he isn’t deliberately focused on America; this is a myth. It is only a result of the US myopia in regards to events overseas, that it seems like America is the only target as nothing before these leaks had made it to US media focus. In four years of operation, Wikileaks has covered all continents, but of course, Wikileaks has a bias towards documents in English, therefore you shouldn’t be surprised if the place with the most English documents, ie the US, has the most leaks. Having a government so corrupted with corporate influence and being involved in two very unpopular and likely illegal wars, doesn’t help either.

    • insert says:

      Just yesterday, Wikileaks announced that it’s partnering with a Russian newspaper to release Russia-related leaks. They’re not just focusing on the US.

  6. user23 says:

    I would very much like to see Noam Chomsky & Julian Assange speak together. As most of you are probably aware, Chomsky has accused the U.S. over & over again of being a nation which has committed atrocities & acts of terrorism.

  7. Xenu says:

    Well that makes congress look bad. But hey, what else is new?

  8. maikaahl says:

    > but — that could be clearer.

    This idea of ambiguity around this point, murdered Kenyans or what have you, seems to be lingering in your mind. The question today was, to paraphrase: “Are you a terrorist?”, and the answer is clear: WL have never used violence or threats to further its political agenda. To support this he cites lack of evidence to show anyone having been killed in 4 years of operation. You don’t need to “guess” and it is perfectly clear, and you need to move on.

    > And as a further aside, Assange looks exhausted.

    He is a [former] programmer; we all look like that at the best of times!

  9. Aloisius says:

    I find it amusing that Assange of all people is complaining about people using hyperbole to make a name for themselves.

  10. Reich Templin says:

    I suspect he was refering to the sudden death of Guido S. in Nairobi. Microsoft ironically was funneling money to the African free software evangelist. Via the American software manufacturer also Wikileak’s Daniel Schmitt was cross-financed, they hired his wife as a lobby figurehead for their German dependency. Guido was a great personality; he was an African of German elite descent, ancestors of him plotted the failed Stauffenberg assault on Hitler. He sent around mails of despair, passed away and was then turned in to a false ‘hero’.

    • maikaahl says:

      It’s unlikely as he has talked of “people”, this would rule out a single person’s death, or at least be only part of the story. A while ago I came across a video interview with Assange, perhaps around the time of the Icelandic bank leaks, he talked in an interview about people harmed. He definitely mentioned people harmed in Africa, and very likely he said Kenya. It’s out there, but I can’t find. (Google should do video transcribes to enable text searches… hm… I wonder if anyone is working on that.)

      • Reich Templin says:

        Yes, probably there were more persons affected. Guido had Ghanian citizenship, and he died in Kenya in 2008, June 5 or 4. 34 years of age. The community of digital activists is pretty small in Africa. You may have a nation or capital with 2 Mio inhabitants but still the community of relevant transnational persons and business men is pretty small, persons know each other. His sister wrote: “I am sorry to have to inform all of you of Guido’s sudden passing in Nairobi. We know he died at home between Friday night and Monday morning. We do not know the cause or time of death. However, no foul play is suspected.”.

  11. Itsumishi says:

    That interview is excellent. The man still has some balls of steel and is up against a hell of a lot of power.

    The only way to fight that level of power is to make sure everyone is watching and praying that your supporters hold those in power to account.

    On a side note, the “Merry Christmas” at the end is comical after an interview like that.

  12. Winski says:

    This interview was astounding… It was GREAT to see and hear Assange actually articulate the reasons for what he and Wikileaks do, but to turn the table on the US noise makers that say and spew OUTRAGEOUS things at every turn..

    Huckleberry, the Swag-Hag, the Cluster-Fox clown of the year Bob Beckel who called, publicly for Assange’s assassination with no repercussions – This is just NOT ACCEPTABLE.

    So if you or I called publicly for the same types of things, we would be hauled away in shackles… That’s EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN TO THE CLUSTER-FOX CLOWNS – TODAY.

    He did look weary but neither he or the rest of his organization will ever give up… Seems they are among a smaller and smaller and smaller circle of REAL journalists….

  13. Anonymous says:

    Wikileaks is a by product of the current state of the world. Most people assume we live in a democracy governed by laws – Clearly looking at the wikileaks revelations and the position many politicians have taken who are sworn to uphold our laws is disgraceful – The US media has been censoring the news by mainly not reporting on it – The political blogs have generally been quite on this issue – The most interesting dialogs come from the tech blogs – Here is a most of the news organized by source -
    http://www.kbucket.com/main/view_kbucket/35

  14. thatbob says:

    I admire how Assange has put the US Govt in the uncomfortable position of having to assassinate some of its own foot soldiers or field ops in order to morally justify the assassination of Assange. Like, someone in government actually has to confront that equation before making the call.

    This is a country that was led into a costly, illegal war, despite widespread, nationwide protest; and where confessed war criminals sell books and public appearances with impunity. To accuse Assange of being a terrorist is to strip the word of all its meaning – precisely as was done with the word Communist in the 50s, and the word Anarchist in the generation before that.

  15. opinionated&free says:

    Poor Julian.
    He seems to be becoming the face of Wikileaks and the whole movement. He is in for more hell than ever before. Poor guy. Keep strong, guys.

    i may be opinionated, but i am free.
    are you?

  16. Anonymous says:

    Our leaders have been lying and trumping up war and fear and terror to gain powers and secrecy which it is clear they are actively abusing to cover up their embezelment and incompetence and the fact that it is exactly these policies that have led and will lead to conflict, inequality and death around the world.

    Assange is great because he is a moral man and he is merely pointing to a line which should exist, that our leaders shouldn’t cross.

    I find his historical comparisons apt, the United States is failing in its duties to its people, its values and the world.

  17. Blue says:

    Did he just call Fox News a terrorist organisation?

    OH YES HE DID!

    :)

  18. Anonymous says:

    bully for mr assange. someone needed to stand against the facist oligarchy the u.s. has become.

    my god, if they in charge would have played it a little more low key it would have already disapeared under the next news cycle, but the fucking idiots just couldn’t help exposing their lowest common denominator, loud mouthed stupidity and let the rest of the world get a glimpse of just how insane the leadership of the u.s. actually is.

    the reaction to the leaks is far more telling about the character of the u.s. than the content was (although it didn’t reflect well either). the u.s. only follows the rule of law when it is convient for it to do so, and it is a terrorist state by definition.

    calling for his murder. THESE ARE YOUR LEADERS!

    WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? HOW CAN YOU LET THESE PSYCHOPATHS RAPE AND PILLAGE NOT ONLY YOU BUT THE REST REST OF THE WORLD ASWELL?

  19. thatbob says:

    i LOVE how he points out that Manning is political prisoner. This is so obvious but hasn’t been said before. You’d think that Nelson Mandela would speak out about this. Better yet, let’s all start using the honorific “American Mandela” before Manning’s name in headlines and elsewhere.

  20. spocko says:

    I think it is very important to point out the people who have called for the assassination of Assange. And it is important to look at exactly what they said and where they said it.

    So say for example someone tweets a threat to kill someone,
    if published on Twitter their account can be suspended. From their Terms of Service and rules:

    *Violence and Threats: You may not publish or post direct, specific threats of violence against others.” From Twitter rules

    Accounts engaging in any of these behaviors may be investigated for abuse. Accounts under investigation may be removed from Search for quality. Twitter reserves the right to immediately terminate your account without further notice in the event that, in its judgment, you violate these Rules or the Terms of Service.

    http://support.twitter.com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules

    If they published the death threat on another site, they might have also violated the TOS of that website.

    Now I’m sure people might go on about “my free speech to say what I want!” but if you read the TOS or AUPs of a number of places you post you will see that you do NOT have the right to call for killing specific people.

    Frankly if we want to put a stop to this excessive violent rhetoric the people who make these calls need to be exposed and suffer the appropriate consequences–suspension service, and, if they also violate the rules of their employment, they should be warned and if they don’t stop calling for people’s death, fired.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Mike Huckabee A christian calling for the assassination of Assange?

    Are you sure he is Christian? It does not look like it.

  22. Ernunnos says:

    No, Julian, that’s not the definition of terrorism. The use or threat of violence between states is known as “war”, or sometimes “diplomacy”. Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, ie. the deliberate use of violence against civilian targets for purposes of inspiring fear. This may also occur in war – particularly when indiscriminate weapons such as firebombing are used – but collateral damage that will occur in any war even when militaries do their utmost to only strike legitimate targets is not terrorism either.

    By the way, the rule of law and warfare would in no way be violated by killing you. Nor would that be correct to call it an assassination. You’ve declared yourself an enemy of the U.S., seeking its defeat in Afghanistan, and you’ve backed that up by disseminating classified information intended to sabotage the war. In previous wars, foreign spies and saboteurs have been executed. All well within law and custom. More recently, a NY appeals court just upheld the conviction of Hassan Abu-Jihaad for leaking a relatively small amount of information to our enemies.

    The fact that you don’t actually fear retribution – as evidenced by the fact that you’re giving interviews instead of in hiding – is actually a bit of a back handed compliment. You don’t actually expect the U.S. to respond to the threat you pose. Possibly because your name is Assange instead of Hassan, and you’re a pasty geek instead of a black man. And you’re probably right.

    But that’s a matter of privilege, not principle. If we were serious about winning, rather than keeping up appearances, there would be no difference, because there is no difference. At the very least, you two would be rotting side by side in a military prison.

    • wrybread says:

      This really is a priceless posting. Always strikes me as so interesting to see fascism expressed by American patriots.

      A few quick points:

      - Jullian Assange IS NOT a U.S. citizen, and in general we don’t conduct raids on other countries to abduct people. I say “in general” because obviously we’ve done it in the past, and it appears we may be doing with Assange right now, but to argue that its “lawful” is absurd.

      - your argument that since Hassan Abu-Jihaad was just convicted in the U.S. of supporting terrorism and therefore Assange is guilty too is completely retarded: not only is Hassan Abu-Jihaad a U.S. citizen, but he was in the frickin U.S. Navy when he leaked the data. See the difference?

      - and I LOVE that you call it a matter of *privilege* that the U.S. isn’t breaking laws by abducting Assange. Priceless. Sounds just like the speeches from the thugs in China who beat people for protesting, or the thugs in Iran who beat women for not wearing a veil.

      • happyez says:

        This really is a priceless posting. Always strikes me as so interesting to see fascism expressed by American patriots.

        I wouldn’t call it fascism. That’s stronger than what it is. It is also more of a trigger word. I would call it authoritarianism with shades of militarism. How to put it, he seems very fine with using of lethal force to get rid of an ‘enemy’, and generally ‘pro troops’ (non draft troops).

          • happyez says:

            Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. They claim that culture is created by the collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus they reject individualism.

            From Wikipedia.

            I am sure individualism is very centric to the US identity he may be espousing, so it probably still is militarism. But you know, whatever…

            I guess when I hear words like ‘fascism’ used (or ‘socialism’), they seem to be trigger words, lazy use of them and has been debased so they mean nothing. You know, Godwin’s Law and all that.

            I haven’t heard “Social Democrat’ being used as a derogatory term yet.

          • travtastic says:

            So have you been to America since 9/11?

    • vitruvian23 says:

      Can you point to an actual law Assange has broken (with regard to Wikileaks… we’ll see what happens with Sweden and his personal life)? Or any violence conducted against the US or its forces, or even a single incident in which one of the leaked documents has resulted in such harm? If it’s justifiable to treat him as an enemy combatant simply by virtue of disseminating data some of which is classified, do you also advocate setting up fire teams on the offices of the New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel? They’re doing just as much dissemination of the cables, after all.

    • MustWarnOthers says:

      Wow.

      Wake the fuck up. Seriously.

  23. ericmartinex1 says:

    US is the evil empire…never heard that before. Politicians and pundits say stupid things. Wow. Crucify them. Every nation except Amerikkka is a saint then…I also noticed Julian deleted his OK cupid profile or at least hid it from public view.

    • Anonymous says:

      you obviously don’t get out of the u.s. much do you? there is a reason the u.s. and u.k. are hated in the middle east and most third world countries. their collective foreign policies and covert actions have systematically oppessed these countries to expliot them for resources.

      all of the modern problems existing in the middle east can be traced back to cia and sis involvement. the u.s. instigated and backed overthrow of iranian president Mohammed Mossadegh and the installment of the shah could arguably be the flash point of modern militant islam.

      not to mention all of the intrigues arranged directly or indirctly in south and central america. el salvador, uraguay, brazil, guatimala, hati, dominican republic, panama, chile, nicuragua and cuba all have been victims of u.s. backed coups or attemps.

      here’s a timeline for your edification: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

      so yea, the u.s. is a fucking saint.

      • Anonymous says:

        The U.S. did not assassinate Mossadegh. We stepped out of the way while British intelligence pressured the Shah to overturn the Iranian democracy. The proximate cause was his attempted nationalization of what were, at that time, British oil fields. This doesn’t excuse our involvement.

        Of what you listed, we are responsible for: Guatamala, El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Cuba. We weren’t responsible for revolutions in Uruguay or the Dominican Republic (though we should’ve been), or, for that matter, Salvador Allende.

        There’s this bizarre theory of teleology that any amount of CIA involvement with a region makes the CIA eventually culpable for anything that that region eventually does. The CIA has been involved in, frankly, a whole lot of horrific shit. But the vast majority of that horrific shit preexisted and postdated actual CIA involvement; while the CIA was frequently a cause, I’m convinced that it has relatively infrequently been necessary and sufficient cause of int’l events.

        The absence of state secrets does not mean less int’l chaos; it only means that the int’l chaos which does exist doesn’t inure to US benefit. Maybe that’s better. Maybe that’s worse. But the absence of US involvement means just that: the absence of US involvement.

        • vitruvian23 says:

          Who said anything about *assassinating* Mossadegh? There’s plenty of documentation that the Dulles brothers authorized Agent Wilbur to spend upwards of $1M to bring about the coup in Operation Ajax.

  24. oasisob1 says:

    1. If Ass-ange was serious about revealing these things, he’d release everything at once. That he withholds information is proof that he merely craves constant attention.

    2. Manning had other avenues to address his displeasure, but he didn’t use those avenues. Therfore, he’s 100% guilty and should spend life in prison. This may be the price of whistleblowing.

    • Anonymous says:

      @oasisob1 the WikiLeaks ORGANISATION (not assange) isn’t releasing them all at once because they are vetting any sensitive information that could be used to physically harm people. You are choosing to make a baseless statement.

    • purple-stater says:


      1. If Ass-ange was serious about revealing these things, he’d release everything at once. That he withholds information is proof that he merely craves constant attention.

      If everything was revealed at once, simply because of the sheer volume of it all, a few choice bits would be brought out, thrown about in the news for a bit, then all would soon be forgotten. For an easy example of this just take a look at the significantly larger amount of military information already released. There’s been positively diddly about it in the news for the last month, except for an occassional off-hand comment about Manning.

      If it’s released a wee bit at a time, all of those bits will get, overall, much more attention.

      • Cowicide says:

        1. If Ass-ange was serious about revealing these things, he’d release everything at once. That he withholds information is proof that he merely craves constant attention.

        You didn’t think this through very far, did you?

      • oasisob1 says:

        You underestimate the power of the Internet. If it all gets released, it will all get reviewed. Trust me, it’s what the Internet is good at. Do you think a Wikipedia edit goes unnoticed? No, it does get noticed. Do you think the full text of a proposed law goes unread? Even if it is 1000 pages long? No, it does get read. And reread. That’s what the Internet is designed to do; digest stuff. There are people that pore over every square inch of Google Earth to find oddities. There are people that read and analyse every word of a proposed law, to make sure it doesn’t screw them.

        And with regards to ‘Anon’s’ ‘baseless statement’ remark, the cables have been provided unedited to news agencies, and it’s been up to the news agencies to remove ‘dangerous information’; the news agencies haven’t done a good job.

    • mdh says:

      “This is an interesting question. I originally tried hard for the organisation to have no face, because I wanted egos to play no part in our activities. This followed the tradition of the French anonymous pure mathematians, who wrote under the collective allonym, “The Bourbaki”. However this quickly led to tremendous distracting curiosity about who and random individuals claiming to represent us. In the end, someone must be responsible to the public and only a leadership that is willing to be publicly courageous can genuinely suggest that sources take risks for the greater good. In that process, I have become the lightening rod. I get undue attacks on every aspect of my life, but then I also get undue credit as some kind of balancing force.” — Julian Assange

  25. Guesstimate Jones says:

    I had no idea, that there were so many armchair fascists, amongst the Happy Mutants…

  26. uricacid says:

    check out the apologist brigade

  27. GuyInMilwaukee says:

    Best interview of Assange yet. Professional and informative. If you get a chance check out Cenk’s other show and interviews at The Young Turks. http://www.theyoungturks.com
    Disclaimer: I’m a long time podcaster of TYT.

  28. ericmartinex1 says:

    I noticed giving anything other than gushing praise than Mr. Surprise Sex with CIA paid sluts and lack of finger wagging at ameriKKKa instantly labels you an idiot, fascists, dumbfuck, Fox News viewer, etc…Stereotypical Leftist sociology major namecalling and no I am not a card carrying Republican, Libertarian, whatever.

    • Anonymous says:

      Nobody here needs to call you those names…you demonstrated it, for all to see…

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Dude,

      Calm yourself.

      • Cowicide says:

        Xeni: it’s remarkable to see him go on such a hard offensive like this.

        I’m not sure why anyone would expect anything different from Assange. I’m sure he feels even more empowered than ever (as he should be).

        Putting people like Assange in solitary confinement doesn’t weaken them… it just pisses them off.

        • Stooge says:

          Putting people like Assange in solitary confinement doesn’t weaken them… it just pisses them off.

          Of course, there will be some misguided people who might suggest that placing a guy accused of sex crimes in general population would have been the surest possible indication of the state wishing him harm, and quibble that placing him in solitary cannot possibly be an indication of exactly the same intent as well.

          Obviously such petty logic is irrelevant on account of how dreamy Assange is.

          • Cowicide says:

            Obviously such petty logic is irrelevant on account of how dreamy Assange is.

            You just went out of your way to explain something that had absolutely nothing to do with my point if you bothered to read it in context of what I was responding to.

            Your trite semantic bullshit maneuver… neutralized. Try again.

    • Anonymous says:

      I didn’t call you any names. I just wanted you to understand the context that assange was speaking from. You don’t seem to understand the u.s. is not the chosen one but a big part of the problem. You have to look at this in a historical perspective and the u.s. has done things that were wrong, illegal and world fucking. Its a tough pill to swallow but a necessary treatment to your isolated perspective.

  29. Goblin says:

    As this interview makes clear, Assange’s political gambit relies on the separation of people, literally, figuratively or both, from the functions and decisions of their government. I think he stands a good chance of “winning” (or at least “not losing”) this current battle he’s fighting; however, I’m not sure how this might bode for the future. I wonder if his over the top actions might invite regulation where there wasn’t any before. My dislike of Assange and his motivations aside, I think that it would be very hard to make any sort of a legal case against him and Assange knows this.

    The fact he isn’t a citizen of America might politically undermine some of the points he is trying to make. Really, why should we let a non-citizen forcibly dictate constitutional law to a country in which he has never held citizenship?

    Assange has built a power base but he has no way to actualise it on the domestic level. He can’t foment change without seeming like the typical carpet bagger with his own personal agenda. Right now he’s paliesque without having a state or a citizenship to grant him the legitimacy he needs. If only Assange was an American his potential for actual change would be so much greater. As it stands now he comes off as the smug father who knows best, he’s his own worst enemy.

  30. Anonymous says:

    “Europeans are starting to wonder if the US is obeying the rule of law.”

    Europe, you want us to follow the rule of law. So,..does that mean we can have Polanski now?

  31. Burningsol says:

    I really wish the media would stop asking Sarah Palin questions all together. Nothing intelligent ever comes out. She is like a female George Bush. Secondly, i think the useless info coming from these leaks is nothing more than a distraction. As the FED Reserve is forced to discuss its giving away of US tax payers money to foreign banks is out, we are all fixated on this story that is pointless. there is nothing in that cable leak thats worth a crap. give us something good, and for now lets turn our attention to the important things going on here.

  32. civvie says:

    1) This is great interview. Assange is speaking like a true champion of sanity. And his calls to stand and protect the freedoms of the press are urgent and critical.

    2) The incessant “Assange is just an attention seeking shit” crying is both brainless and boring. Though these claims are (mis)directed at Julian personally, making him out to be an ego maniac, it is worth considering Wikileaks prime objective is to create maximum impact for the leaks they cover. Assange is the public face of Wikileaks. It his job to garner as much attention as possible. But I doubt that will concern the tall poppy gardeners.

  33. TEKNA2007 says:

    Wow, that was incredible. What a great interview. He’s standing up for all the things I thought the U.S. stood for before we started throwing that all out the window after 9/11.

    And no teleprompter … just speaking from his convictions. Way to go, Julian.

    He does look tired. That amount of stress is not good for body or brain.

  34. Anonymous says:

    After the way our government has treated Assange I am more convinced than ever that I live in a nation whose government is an instrument of terrorism. There is no rule of law in America anymore. The Department of Justice is a complete joke. Our elections with their rigged voting machines are a complete joke. The Securities and Exchange Commission can’t regulate derivatives or the banks and have proven themselves to be a complete joke. Our antitrust laws are a complete joke as evidenced by our Federal Communication Commission that allows mega media mergers (Comcast/NBC), and makes the FCC a complete joke. This is a country by and for the corporations, not the people. That anyone can call America a democracy reveals that person’s utter ignorance and makes us the laughing stock of the world.

  35. AirPillo says:

    Man, I’d be tired too if I was that high profile and was taking the time to reply every time some pundit or congressman said something stupid about me.

  36. 3d bomb says:

    Outstanding interview and hats off to the interviewer for actually letting more than a few sound bytes come through the interview. Assange was allowed to make some very nuanced points and that was important.

    And since my hat is already off, I’ll just have to nod to bb for some of the best coverage anywhere of this story.

  37. Anonymous says:

    “We stepped out of the way while British intelligence pressured the Shah to overturn the Iranian democracy. ”

    Stepped out of the way? I’m sorry, but this is not even close to accurate. I hope you are not being deliberately misleading.

    “The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America.” – Madeleine Albright March 2000,

    “These [declassified documents] contain a wealth of interesting information. They indicate that the British played a larger—though STILL SUBORDINATE [em. added] — role in the coup than was previously known, providing part of the financing for it and using their intelligence network (led by the Rashidian brothers) to influence members of the parliament and do other things. The CIA described the coup plan as “quasi-legal,” referring to the fact that the shah legally dismissed Mossadeq but presumably acknowledging that he did not do so on his own initiative. These documents make clear that the CIA was prepared to go forward with the coup even if the shah opposed it. ”

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

    http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#U.S._role

Leave a Reply