But I Don't Support What Julian Assange Is Doing. . .

It isn't that I don't think that some of the information coming from Wikileaks hasn't been revelatory, but it releases information without discrimination. And I don't think that is good for the world. I think diplomats being able to have confidential conversations is crucial to the diplomatic process. To think that every conversation that these diplomats have should be made public feeds into a culture of soundbites over substance.  I am more interested in the outcomes of their private conversations than the conversations themselves.

And I don't understand placing such a high value on releasing any and all information regardless of how destabilizing it might be to the world at large.  What I have read about circumstances surrounding the rape charges against Assange doesn't make me think he is a rapist. However, it does add to my perception of him as an egomaniac. I don't think he is naive about the potential disastrous consequences of what he disseminates, but I think his primary investment in his own notoriety, just barely masked by a poorly conceived idea of what is "best for the world," is what drives him. He is incredibly irresponsible, and I am personally glad that he and Wikileaks are being stopped.
EvesHarvest EvesHarvest 51-55, F 37 Responses Dec 7, 2010

Your Response


What is happening to Bradley Manning is awful.

How do you run for a seat in Australia while trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy in London? That is wild.

Speeches by You Tube? Even if he won, how would he get to Australia? Kudos to Ecuador for granting him asylum. Mr Assange knows the British and US are seriously leaning on his hosts. He also knows just how quickly he will disappear once off embassy grounds.

Bradley Manning is being subjected to treatment harsher than convicted terrorists in Gitmo. Mr Assange is running for a seat in the Australian Senate while trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

I do not know where you get the facts from, but they are wrong.First have the facts right, then form your opinion. We still can disagree then of course. That is until now still possible. When we do not stop our governments, we are out of free-speech and out of control ( if we ever had any). I do certainly agree that not all what Wikileaks does is 100% OK. Even if it's some government set up, and theer will be WWIII. Same outcome: first amendment will be gone!!


it sure seems like the corporate pressure tactic has backfired. it increased people's determination to support Wikileaks. And if the US succeeds in trumping up charges without legal basis against Assange, they are basically making a martyr of him.

Assange better really step up his security after he releases something about the banks or Wall Street. I wouldn't put it past them to sick a Blackwater assassin on him.

"putting the lens on certain things and neglecting to mention other facts" would in fact be a good method of my estimation of Assange in all this. He an 'Schmidt' are really irrelevant ... so long as there exists a conduit for whistle blowers.

When the 'first' conduit is allowed to be closed, there is precedent for it to happen again - legal or not. Punish Assange however you see fit for his poor judgment in releasin material. I WOULD like to see it done in legal fashion - not by a kangaroo court of corporate pressure.

Again Eve ... the big megaleak ain' happened yet - here. But it has in Iceland. In Iceland it was too big to be ignored. What happens here is anybody's guess. I jus wanna see it happen before it can't.

I may have a more skeptical stance than you towards the term "truth" in the information age. An awful lot of the supressment of information in the information age comes about not by lying (though there are examples of that, too), but by putting the lens on certain things and neglecting to mention other facts. The corporate shut down of Wikileaks was an overt act that everyone saw. On a daily basis, we are fed certain facts by the media and not others, not because those facts aren't available but because they just aren't getting the attention. Certainly one of the reasons for this that has been speculated is because of corporate ownership of the media. The "brownshirt" moment you talk about is important, but I fear it will fade quickly as people go back to complacency about being fed the facts that we are meant to consume.

All that is rather tangential to what we have been quibbling about. I think there being multiple spinoff sites to Wikileaks is important. Daniel Dromscheit-Berg, Assange's former right-hand man who is writing a book about the experience and starting Openleaks, said that he supports what Assange has done but has learned that "absolute power corrupts absolutely." He and others within Wikileaks feel that, among other things, Assange had lost objectivity and was over-focused on the US. He also felt that Assange/Wikileaks wasn't holding itself to the same standard of transparency that it was holding as the ideal. So I think there being spinoffs is good and healthy for a variety of reasons.

There is more information out there than can be released and digested.

I am encouraged to read this.

You an I are not at the same level of alarm over this issue. I don' have any quibble with your assessment of Assange's actions or personality - in regard to haphazard release in the first megaleaks. I would point out that I think that's why wikileaks is releasin the Cablegate leaks in smaller pieces. But if wikileaks is allowed to be stifled ... who's gonna stand up for openleaks?

It's the Niemoller Poem.

You seem to be more comfortable than I with the matter of Internet, Speech an Press freedoms at present. I happen to feel this is the closest I've come in my lifetime to a 'brownshirt' moment here in my country. The corporate suffocation of an information site.

I think that what the rest of the world really wants to know, is why we see fit to stifle this info. Why is it so important to be concerned bout the individual Afghani an Iraqi 'informants' threatened by these leaks ... but we hear no outcry over the innocent Afghanis an Iraqis slaughtered in wars that were clearly instigated for less than noble reasons.

I've said it before. The horse is out of the barn. How he got out is - in my opinion - irrelevant. What is important, is that we may not be able to keep horses in barns any longer.

We may actually be seein the comin of an age of truth - replacin deception. I don' care if Idi Amin, Adolph Hitler an Muammar al-Gaddafi bring it about. If it's here, let's don' waste it.

There are spin off sites emerging. The crackdown already is and will continue to be fierce, but I don't think it is going to be effective in stopping the flow of information. I am interested in seeing what happens with Openleaks, the spin off website from a Wikileaks defector. Just as the powers that be who were exposed will work harder at covering their tracks, I think new websites will put more thought into protecting their sources, how the information is disseminated, having a more decentralized oversight of the process, and (this is going to bug you) perhaps a little more thought put into what is released. This is a whole new area and I think it is going to morph quite a bit, but I don't think it going to die.

Have you missed your lil gadfly?(me) =)

"And it will likely have a lasting on media coverage for the better." Let's assume here that the missing word in this sentence would be 'effect' ... between the words 'lasting' an 'on'.

How does anything occurrin in this drama so far ... how does it effect media coverage for the better?

I see my government an others - along with banks - attemptin to prevent freedoms of the press, speech and information.

I see the Air Force censorin access to the nation's signature newspaper.

I see Sweden - with arguably the worst record for prosecution of sexual assault among the 'advanced' nations - demandin with Interpol the arrest of Assange.

I see the military offerin us a young Army PFC as the 'source' of the wikileaked information. He has been held in solitary confinement since May 2010 ... no blanket or pillow ... no opportunity to exercise .. no regular interaction with other humans. No trial. Human rights anyone?

I see my elected officials, in particular a couple of the stalwarts of what I once called 'my' Democratic party, behavin much differently than their statements on Internet freedoms, The Patriot Act and governmental transparency would indicate.

An I see - in my mind - someone ... somewhere ... who thought maybe they should 'tell'. Who thought they had inside information that should be shared with the world, an thought that once the world understood an 'knew of' that information - that same world would harbor them, an protect them from persecution.

That 'someone somewhere' ... how would any of what has transpired in the past 2 weeks encourage them to come forth with that information?

What I do not see, Eve, is your 'better'. What am I missin?

Two things:

One, Wikileaks has exposed some important things that needed exposing. And it will likely have a lasting on media coverage for the better.

Two, there may be some legitimate criticisms of the way in which the data was put out there. For instance, with names of informants inside Afghanistan and Iraq still being in the documents. There have been concerns expressed by at least five human rights organizations about the endangerment involved, as well as from people within Wikileaks. The Taliban has said openly that they will look through the documents and hunt down informants. That is very serious, and Assange has not worked well with Human Rights organizations on these issues.

Why can’t both these thoughts be held at the same time by people? Why is it that people are getting cornered into—Either you support Julian Assange completely and everything he does, or you support heinous acts by our government and the assassination of Assange? How does that differ from—My country right or wrong?

1. It's interesting that the US State Dept were forced to admit that not a single document that has been published has compromised national security - despite all the hype. But a number of people responding here appear to be believing the hype.

2. Wikileaks have not in fact leaked a single document - they were leaked by, in this case, american insiders. This is the way media have ALWAYS operated. Where do you think the real stories come from? A media that only publishes carefully press releases from govt & corporate spin doctors will not promote public scrutiny and democracy. WIkileaks simply published these documents, but selectively. They asked the US govt - as other media agencies do - to point out anything particularly sensitive, but the govt refused.

3. How do you know about these documents? Because other media have published them. Why? For the same reason that wikileaks published them. So have the NYTimes broken the law too? Julian Assange hasn't broken the law. Yet the US govt can still put sufficient pressure on other govts to organise a convoluted arrest path for unrelated charges. I wish every sexual assault accusation was pursued so vigorously.

4. When any muslim calls for the death of an american or westerner, we call it Jihad, and call them extremists, terrorists with sensibilities from the middle ages. But when american politicians and right wing media call for the assassination of someone who as yet has broken no law... why are they not extremists, terrorists or have middle ages sensibilities?

5. If wikileaks had existed 10 years ago, Bush & Blair could not have got away with the deception that led to the Iraq debacle. Weapons of mass destruction... didn't exist... so why have 4748 US & allied troops died and 108,000 Iraqis died? Is that ok with you that the world was put into a bloody conflict on a deception?

It isamazing how people are sucking it (wikileaks) all up.

agree with eve on the great link ima!

open network = good ... closed network = what we got right now(you thought I was gonna say bad?)

Side note ... had to F & F Marcus01 ...

"The American Revolution was illegal. Does that make it inexcusabl­e?

Let the sunshine in. "

When change comes around, it's often greeted with a good deal of skepticism ... we like to kick the tires. I woulda prolly bought an Edsel right away. =)

Guess I'm havin a hard time gettin my head wrapped around the concept of "too much truth."

(wanders off to youtube for some 5th Generation)

That is an excellent article, Imabear. it raises some very interesting questions at the end stemming from looking at the implications of Assange's own philosophy.

The above link is to a story discussing Assange's political philosophy - the "why" of what he's doing. It is really interesting and I recommend it to anyone who is seriously thinking about this issue. This is why he does it, why he thinks it is the right thing to do.

It isn' like our government hasn' known what's goin on with the leaks ... an it IS, in the end, our government that handled the documents in a fashion that was not secure. Yes, a VERY monumental task - that amount of secrecy.

As I understand it, the Pentagon was asked to assist in redaction. This would have meant acknowledgin wikileaks held vital information, an that our government had indeed flubbed up.

The Pentagon said 'No go.' .. played hardball. Why?

I agree,Eves.

The release of confidential diplomatic correspondence is not to be compared to information the public needs to know. The end of confidentiality in diplomatic contacts implicates the end of diplomacy itself. You are absolutely right in taking an interest in the outcome of diplomacy, regardless the process. Wikileaks offers a view of the kitchen but the sheer amount of documents implicates that only a few are highlighted. It also offers ammunition to whoever wants to promote whatever.

If we would live in a world that expands and promotes freedom of information, we probably would look at this differently, but since media increasingly go for sensationalism, real information is in real danger.

Assange has acted like every journalist would: he published the secrets that were handed to him. If there is a culprit in this affair, it is the one (within the US administration) who leaked the documents.

And yes, needless to add that secrecy will only increase...

Will Wikileaks lead to more or less internet freedom?

Gently, I'd ask of you ... Isn' it thoughtful of CBS news? Goin through all those pages an highlighting the lesser known spots along with the mos vulnerable?

An you Eve ... are you promotin terrorism by passin along this link? Or can you be certain no terrorist would ever have troubles sufficient enough to grace these EP pages? Or that the 'censors that be' would never impinge on you or me? After all ... it's a harmless lil discussion .... right?

I wonder what the rationale was of releasing the documents related to vital sites?

darwinsconfusion, where does one go to learn what Gordon Liddy(he dropped his 'G'?) is up to these days? Bet he wishes he'd done his mischief for Cheney steada Nixon, eh?

I advise to watch carefully at who calls loudest for the assassination, beheadin, imprisonment or next set of creative charges against Assange.

SOS Clinton hasn' done it.

Defense Secretary Gates hasn' done it.

Obama hasn' done it.

PayPal has done it. Visa has done it. MasterCard has done it. has done it.

Make you think at all? =)

Oh. An Joe Lieberman has done it too, hasn' he.

Silvertree ... I predict you get exactly what you want ... the release of bankin insider information ... for Xmas. =)

Maybe not in time for Xmas ... shortly into the New Year.

I don' think Assange 'matters' that much any more. The leaks have continued and will continue, if these first days since Assange turnin himself in are any indication.

I gotta echo abstraction ... tell me which leaked info has endangered military secrets.

An if you haven' "thought about the fact that Wikileaks has not leaked anything from China, Russia, or many other countries", maybe the followin articles would be of interest ...

So no, itcsetsaer doesn' bring up an important point - he jus spreads misinformation.

I'm curious - not judgin - but all of you DO understand that wikileaks doesn' go 'get' information, right? They pass along information leaked to them by insiders.

Wrong itcsester. Wikileaks has embarrassed China, North Korea, Russia... Did you see Shell oil have been exposed as having access to all nigerian government information and used it without the knowledge of the Nigerian government? This is illegal - which didn't stop Shell until now they've been exposed by wikileaks. It's all out there. For some reason the US media aren't talking about those leaks - could it be they are on a massive discreditation program because they fear freedom of information? Lots of talk about 'national security' -with little evidence that the military information really has compromised lives more than embarrassed politicians' job security.

It's an interesting concept, freedom of information, that should be supported. It's a powerful plank of true democracy. Maybe Gingrich et al could consider reading the first amendment. Has wikileaks got it right on every document? I really don't know. But in principle, get your facts, before you make up your mind - don't just listen to the powerful who feel threatened by it.

Assange is doing more harm than good.

He started out as a computer hacker, so he has a problem with authority.

Gordon Liddy and Newt Gingrich are calling him a terrorist and he should be assassinated.

It only gives the government an excuse to erode even more of our personal freedoms by creating an event similar to 911.

I am glad to see people engaging in an open discussion about this. People obviously feel very strongly one way or the other.

I hadn't thought about the fact that Wikileaks has not leaked anything from China, Russia, or many other countries. Itcsetser raises an important point..

Every one, politician, member of the administration of a state, CEO, President or ruler and citizens of all countries should man up and tell Wikileaks to release any and all - anyone that assist him/her will be hunted down and dealt with. Dealt with any way possible.

Notice he/she has not released any messages originated by the Chinese, Russians, and many other countries. Its time the governments of the ones he/she has leaked about should adopt a much different policy. Be aggressive - not a wuss.

I agree with Eves. There is nothing positive about what Wikileaks is doing. It does not further freedom of any sort, and will lead to greater secrecy in government rather than less. This is purely the ego trip of someone who isn't really as smart as they think they are.

I doubt if we will ever know the truth about Assange and his relationship with women. As to military secrets if neither side had any there would be no reason for a military. Those of you who have been in combat to save the freedom of the 99% who never served their country may not have had "fun". War was never meant to be fun. North Korea sending rockets to bomb innocent people sleeping in their beds, for example, was an act of war against civilians no different from Hamas shooting rockets into Israel against civilians. Intelligence gathering is designed to prevent these things. Waterboarding to get a confession, in my mind, is no different than the Inquisition in the past. If there were no state secrets most of the world wouldn't sleep easy. The US doesn't invade Zimbabwe just because the leader uses his power and military to remain in office and unemployment is now 95% in a nation that had a booming economy before they decided to kick out all non blacks from owning any businesses in their country. Nothing is simply white or black. I believe that wikileaks has as it's goal destruction of the United States. Just because something is reported in the news is no proof that it really happened. People still report seeing Elvis! I wish we didn't need a government, that we would all repair our own roads, build our own bridges and keep them repaired, clean the streets when it snows, pump our own water from our own well but that's not going to happen. We are all dependent on others to make it possible for us to sit on our ***** and wait to be fed!

Alex Jones ( speaking on Coast to Coast AM ( on December 7th, 2010:

'We've done some research on the two women (Assange is said to have slept with). He spent two nights with two women, both of which are connected to the CIA, one of which clearly worked with them (the secret mainstream news) in Cuba of all places. (She) Is a radical feminist who believes all sex is rape and has written public websites about how to basically frame men.'

'It's on record at Scott Television and even on AP (Associated Press), that these women, on their Twitter feeds celebrated their 'conquest' of Assange, had a party for him the next day, and then after he left, basically set him up.'