Julian Assange

I want to point out that Assange is an Australian, not American. Does anyone know if he has released info on Australia?

Tsu322
I want to point out that Assange is an Australian, not American. Does anyone know if he has released info on Australia?

Yes he has released information about Australia and its previous government.

swanne

daaskapital

swanne
Sure, the US has dirty closest. But like any other countries. How come doesn't Assange also exposes illegal tortures against internet usage in China? Or african government deviation of fundings which results in famine in Africa?

edit on 16-10-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)

WikiLeaks relies on information submitted by insiders. If no one from China of Africa has approached WikiLeaks in order to pass along information, than WikiLeaks will not have that information, this meaning that they cannot publish. In saying this, WikiLeaks has, in the past, exposed numerous governments around the world, including those in Africa...it isn't only the USA of which WikiLeaks has exposed.

So, Assange know only what some "whistleblower" key figures tell him is the "truth". How can Assange know idf this information is true and not invented propaganda? How can Assange know if the info doesn't come from right-wing extremists, or neonazi cells in US, or the Communist party? The answer: Assange can't. All he knows is that a high-ranking guy gave him the info. Yet he'll publish it anyway. Even if it harms other people. Assange don't care, he's the sensationalist type.

And when it comes time to expose Assange, like in the Fifth Estate movie, Assange goes ballistic and threatens Benedict Cumberbach.

I don't see a hero. I see a villan trying to pass as an hero.

I assume that Julian Assange knows how to obtain information through other means, without having to rely on whistleblowers. That being said, the primary purpose of WikiLeaks is to obtain material from whistleblowers, not act as an intelligence agency which conducts espionage in order to obtain confidential information from a nation-state.

While it is true that Julian Assange does not know who provides the information, WikiLeaks employs many tactics in order to prove documents. I can't remember the exact details, but they do send investigative journalists out to investigate the material and its related subjects. They also employ forensic analysis of documents.

Again, as i pointed out earlier, Julian Assange has withheld information in the past, as he, and other editors concluded them to be harmful. He redacted names from many of his released documents, in an attempt to minimise harm. He even approached the Pentagon for aid in the matter, of which they denied.

The Fifth Estate is not exposing anything about Assange. It is a fictional movie based upon two slanderous books. Why wouldn't he be angry?

daaskapital
The Fifth Estate is not exposing anything about Assange. It is a fictional movie based upon two slanderous books.

The "slanderous" book were written by Assange's own "right-hand", Daniel Domscheit-Berg. This Daniel Domscheit-Berg seems to know alot about Assange, alot more than what the anonymous-friendly media wants to admit.

swanne

daaskapital
The Fifth Estate is not exposing anything about Assange. It is a fictional movie based upon two slanderous books.

The "slanderous" book were written by Assange's own "right-hand", Daniel Domscheit-Berg. This Daniel Domscheit-Berg seems to know alot about Assange, alot more than what the anonymous-friendly media wants to admit.

edit on 17-10-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)

No #.

The book was written by Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who had a pretty significant falling out with Julian Assange. Daniel Domscheit-Berg had also destroyed WikiLeaks' dropbox and fled with crucial documents.

it is obvious that Daniel Domscheit-Berg has something against Assange and/or WikiLeaks.

He seems to know a lot about Julian Assange, but i wouldn't trust his obviously biased opinions.

Again, The Fifth Estate is a work of fiction, which is (loosely) based on two books.

reply to post by swanne


I agree, he is an unwitting villian.

I think he wants to be a hero though not pretending.

I think his aspergers is the cause of his confusion and that he wrongly thinks he is helping.

reply to post by starheart


I don't agree with or point of view. At this point he is one of the most wanted, not for lying (As you imagine, must of the liars and corrupt ones,govern you), cause that doesn't change nothing.

lies, vanity, power, sex and corruption (money)... all those rule inside of most men.

note: nevertheless you have a nice OP.

reply to post by dlbott

Putting people and families in danger in countries where people don't have the same rights we do and are often killed or imprisoned is not whistle blowing but criminal.

I never realized that, thank you for putting this up! People that he interrogated in those countries are often punished severely after, when the government there founds out. This was the case when The Gazette's interviewers interviewed the Muslim children in Myanmar. Later on, these childrens were threatened and viewed worse than before (which, in return, threatened the children's family food and health survival). Now imagine what happens when its a more dictactorial government, like in Africa or Middle-East.
So, good point, which many people overlook....

reply to post by WanDash

If not for "leaks" of the same genre as WikiLeaks & Anonymous (et al) have brought forth...a lot of dirty-rotten deals and the scoundrels who made them, would not be known... (consider Jekyll Island & the Federal Reserve, if you need an example) ...

reply to post by JBA2848

I guess unbiased releasing of news or leaks really makes people mad. Well what he did was right. Erase the names of people in the leaks and then publish them.

True, but so far, 3/4 of exposed dirty deals were US in origin. What about the dirty deals of much more dictactorial government, governments that are willing to let hundreds of thousands people starve to death while they're having a party? Who exposed them?
And there's a difference between leaking corruption, and promoting outright revolution.

reply to post by daaskapital

Yeah, i would be hostile too if a movei about me and my organisation was based off of two hostile books..

If Assange is a defender of human rights, then he should have been aware that the public have the right to know about BOTH sides of the coin. He should know that freedom of speech and thought are what defines us as a free country. Knowing that, he should have known that one day, the negative side of Wikileaks would be exposed. Instead of accepting this as freedom of speech, he instead insulted the lead actor who reached out to him, and then damaged for awhile his reputation. That is not the action of a man who respect human rights.

As for The Guardian breaking the contract, I don't think so, because up till now, it still defended Assange and attacked The Fifth Estate and its filmmakers and actors. It was the one who edited Cumberbatch's words so that it damaged for awhile the actor's credibility; it was the one that published a dreadful review on the movie, claiming it to be a bunch of lies; it was to The Guardian that Assange published his private letter. And in-between that, The Guardian was still continuing to praise Assange. Hardly a nemesis to Wikileaks.

As for Daniel Domscheit-Berg, I could argue that he did the right thing. Would you have worked at the CIA and found dangerous files, you would have sabotage it and stole or destroyed the dangerous files. It takes alot to break a bond between two best friends; whatever forced Domscheit-Berg to end it and sabotage Wikileaks must have been really dangerous.

You do know that WikiLeaks actually withheld thousands of dangerous document from publication, right?

Was it, by any chance, before Domscheit-Berg left Wikileaks? Or slightly after?

WikiLeaks relies on information submitted by insiders. If no one from China of Africa has approached WikiLeaks in order to pass along information, than WikiLeaks will not have that information, this meaning that they cannot publish.

Oh, yes, that is a very logical way to expose corruption... Then Wikileaks expose no corruption in China, because no Chinese went to see them. Journalism doesn't work that way. A journalist will travel himself to countries, even if it might endanger him, without anyone having to submit pages of infos. Then he'll investigate and find what's wrong. That is journalism. Waiting for someone to give you something isn't exactly the most efficient way to expose corruption. Are you telling me that Wikileaks will never expose the corruption in Myanmar and in the four syrian camps I mentioned earlier, just because no one could get out of there and tell him so? These peoples are banned under threat of death to get out of their villages. How do you want them to travel all the way up to wherever Wikileaks is, and to tell him "Hey! There's corruption here!"?
How does that makes sense? You're really gonna tell me that the world's leading corruption exposing organisation works that way? Insiders giving info.
Pray tell me: have you ever thought that maybe some "insiders" had a really big grudge against, let's say for the sake of explaining, the Republican Party. That insider is somewhat intelligent, and he creates false proof and false evidences incriminating the Republican Party of something horryfying. He then give that to Wikileaks. And BAM, the Republican Party gets destroyed because Wikileaks published false evidences given by an "insider" who had a grudge.
Have you ever thought that may have happen, or may happen?

P.S.: I know that you answered to Swanne that it can't happen, Wikikeaks will discover it. Ever heard of Project INFEKTION? It was during the Cold War; the KJB released to journalists as stubborn as Assange false evidences that the CIA was responsible for hundreds of scandals. So well done were they, that these false evidences soon became absolute truth in the journalists and the population minds, until one day, in the last ten or twenty years, the KJB vault was discovered, and with it, all the papers proving that the "truth" people were taught was in fact fabrications by the KJB.
If the KJB was able to fool Americans journalists and citizens during the Cold War, do you really think that Assange can't be fooled?

it is obvious that Daniel Domscheit-Berg has something against Assange and/or WikiLeaks.

He seems to know a lot about Julian Assange, but i wouldn't trust his obviously biased opinions.

Everyone will be biased in their opinions about Wikileaks and Assange, Domscheit-Berg or sensationalists newspapers. The purpose of democratic's freedom of speech and thought is to allow ALL those opinions to be expressed and heard.

Assange, in an exclusive interview with RT, suggested that investigative journalism may face “extinction” due to journalists who expose abuses in the United States and elsewhere “being treated as terrorists or enemies.”

“a man from Whitehall” confirmed to him that if the materials were not handed over or destroyed “the government would move to close down the Guardian's reporting through a legal route

well well well... nothing new here! right!?

rt.com...

Now about Edward Snowden:

Washington is pushing for him to be handed over for trial on espionage charges and has pressured several countries which voiced their intention to harbor the fugitive.

oh, my, espionage... how can one accuse of espionage, when he does EXACTLY the same to is neighbor's and EVEN friends...



rt.com... (Edward should stay in Russia ‘to tell the true story’ – Snowden Sr)

swanne

RedShirt73
Love him or hate him, the truth of the matter is that video as well as document evidence do not lie. Reminds me of the old adage "Don't shoot the messenger".

There are evidences in favor of Hitler's Eugenics being the "right" way (Galton, F.). But I personally wouldn't let Hitler escape his sentence, if you know what I mean.

So letting the world know about the killings, the rendition and the torture being perpetrated by various governments around the world doesn't concern you? Plus the last time I checked Assange wasn't responsible for mass murdering millions of people, no, he's responsible for releasing information about the ones that do.

reply to post by starheart

And you're welcome for the letter; I thought it would help knowing actually Assange's thoughts from his own hand rather than from some biased newspaper's view.

That film comes out this friday. I was going to go see it thinking it would represent his view. Now I know from that letter that it is subterfuge and disinformation. Thanks again!

Thats why I like ATS.

regards,

intrptr

reply to post by dlbott

It served no purpose to publish all the data he received.

The film (Collateral Murder) was what caused the sensation. The other data was icing on the cake.

Putting people and families in danger in countries where people don't have the same rights we do and are often killed or imprisoned is not whistle blowing but criminal.

Which is exactly what the film showed. And why it upset the government so much. It exposed the lie that we are the great benefactors of the world , seeking only to help other countries win that "freedom and democracy" we espouse.

There are ways to do it without putting people at risk, he did not have to publish every piece of data for example. There is a place for blowing the whistle and dissent but not at the expense of innocent lives.

That was the only way it could be done. Who would have released it in the US? The government? The military? The media? Those were state secrets, the highest crime these days is to tell the truth.

reply to post by starheart


Thank you. Love that letter. Think it's brilliant.

Feature films are the most powerful and insidious shapers of public perception, because they fly under the radar of conscious exclusion.

This film is going to bury good people doing good work, at exactly the time that the state is coming down on their heads.

It is going to smother the truthful version of events, at a time when the truth is most in demand.

As justification it will claim to be fiction, but it is not fiction. It is distorted truth about living people doing battle with titanic opponents. It is a work of political opportunism, influence, revenge and, above all, cowardice.

It seeks to ride on the back of our work, our reputation and our struggles.

It seeks to cut our strength with weakness. To cut affection with exploitation. To cut diligence with paranoia. To cut loyalty with naivety. To cut principle with hypocrisy. And above all, to cut the truth with lies.

The weirdest thing to figure out is how governments around the world invite whistleblowing yet severely punish those that do come forward. It's a catch 22, damned if you do - damned if you don't.

reply to post by RedCairo

I love my country and I hold dear what our government was designed to be. I don't encourage anarchy or the fall of The Empire I feel is the gradually expanding coup, in part because it's too big -- it won't wobble and get a new center, it would either come crashing down on its threat, or come crashing down period, and both would leave our country in chaos and destruction and tyranny and it's the common people who would pay most either way.

I know that feeling, and I know it will be even worse. Because whoever succeeds at destroying the US, will have total success at destroying all other countries. It already began with Greece, and US has always been the target to this shadow group that wants total dominion since centuries. The signs are there. All revolution started with a hooded figure telling the people what to do; all revolutions ended up with the old and decent government being replaced by tyrants who didn't gave one single tiny thought to their citizens.
And this is exactly what is happening to the US: a hooded figure telling people what to do, encouraging them to revolt, so that at the end, everything will collapse. You talked about the Empire crashing down instead of wobbling and get a new center. You are completely right. When the so-desired revolution will happen, everything Americans and Northern Americans have been able to enjoy (freedom of speech and thought, freedom of religion, freedom of love and marriage, education, charity, Constitutional Laws giving endless human rights), everything will be brought down. Constitution will be bypassed; how can everyone be certain that it will be brought back on after the war? How can everyone be certain that the Constitution won't be burned and erased from history, and give way to tyranny, in the likes of what happened with Stalin and Zedong.

I am not mad of Assange attempts to reveal corruption and dirty secrets; I am mad that the Shadow was that powerful to be able to convince him into publishing files that spreaded pro-revolution thoughts into every citizens. You don't see South Americans wanting to revolt because of Wikileaks's files. In Pakistan, it did nothing. In Australia, no pro-revolution thoughts. But in the US.... Strangely, the US is the most powerful country, and would ever good guys be its leader, its influence will be phenomanol.
Strangely, 3/4 of leaked files are about the US; strangely, everyone now wants its fall. All because one hooded figure told Wikileaks to release alot of incriminating files against the US, and to promote the overthrowing of its government; and all this, without Assange's knowledge. Like all pawns in a game of chess, he has no idea he's being used to checkmate the king enemy. And all that the chessmaster has to do, is sit back and relax while the inevitables moves leads to checkmate. Revolution. Hundreds of millions of deaths. Finally, the chessmaster's final goal: communist/fascist/dictactorship taking over.

"1984" was right: nobody see it coming, and when it happens, the hand behind it does such a good job, nobody still realize it.

reply to post by Tsu322

He wants to make the world a better place and he sees that keeping certain info from the people is wrong and he wants to do something about it. He cannot see that he is going about it all wrong.

Very well said! I would give you a flag, if I could....

When I read Assange's letter, I see an intelligent man and possibly caring. Would he have been truly a man of peace, he might have done alot of change and helping. But all of those qualities are nullified by Wikileaks and the result of his actions. It's just so sad to see what he has become instead of what he could have became...

intrptr
That film comes out this friday. I was going to go see it thinking it would represent his view. Now I know from that letter that it is subterfuge and disinformation. Thanks again!

I don't think it's completely subterfuge and disinfo; or rather, it's not telling what happened from what we've been told all along. If yes, Assange wouldn't have reacted with such anger and threats. I strongly believe the movie is indeed exposing the other side of the coin, and that Assange is scared that it will turn people away from Wikileaks.

As I can see with 3/4 of the replies I got, it ain't gonna happen, no matter what the movie expose.

My suggestion? Go see it anyway, and honestly judge by yourself. People's opinions will always differentiate, and you can't let pre-conceived opinions dictate if you go see a movie or not.