Julian Assange, The Man Behind WikiLeaks

To increase the impact of the U.S. documents, Assange decided to share them with some of the leading news organizations in the world, including The New York Times - a relationship that grew testy when Assange published the first set of war logs without removing the names of Afghans who were cooperating with U.S. forces.

Kroft: The most persistent criticism from within the press has been that you have behaved recklessly from time to time. And the example that they cite is the fact that you've decided to release Afghan documents without redacting the names of people who had provided intelligence to the U.S. government.

Assange: There's no evidence, or any credible allegation, or even any allegation from an official body that we have caused any individual at any time to come to harm in the past four years.

Kroft: The Pentagon said that they've gone through all of these documents and they found the names of 300 people.

Assange: Well, that's new public information to us. It's possible that there are 300 names in the publically released Afghan material. We don't pretend that that process is absolutely perfect. We did hold back one in five documents for extra harm minimization review and we also improved our process. So, when Iraq came around there was not even a single name in it.

Kroft: I mean, there have been reports of people quoting Taliban leaders, saying that they had the names of these people and that they were going to take retribution.

Assange: The Taliban is not a coherent outfit. But we don't say that it is absolutely impossible that anything we ever publish will ever result in harm. We cannot say that.

Kroft: There's a perception on the part of some people who believe that your agenda right now is anti-American.

Assange: Not at all. In fact, our founding values are those of the U.S. revolution. They are those of the people like Jefferson and Madison. And we have a number of Americans in our organization. If you're a whistleblower and you have material that is important, we will accept it, we will defend you and we will publish it. You can't turn away material simply because it comes from the United States.

After the release of the State Department cables, Attorney General Eric Holder condemned WikiLeaks for putting national security at risk. "There's a real basis. There is a predicate for us to believe that crimes have been committed here," Holder said at a press conference.

Holder announced that the Justice Department and the Pentagon were conducting a criminal investigation. They are reportedly looking at the Espionage Act of 1917 and other statutes to find a way to prosecute Assange and extradite him to the U.S.

Assange: It's completely outrageous.

Kroft: Are you surprised?

Assange: I am surprised, actually.

Kroft: But you were screwing with the forces of nature. You have made some of the most powerful people in the world your enemies. You had to expect that they might retaliate.

Assange: Oh, no. I fully expected they'll retaliate.

Kroft: You took, you gathered, you stored all sorts of classified cables and documents. And then released them to the world on the Internet. They see that as a threat.

Assange: They see it as highly embarrassing. I think what it's really about is keeping the illusion of control. I'm not surprised about that. I am surprised at how the sort of flagrant disregard for U.S. traditions. That is what I'm surprised about.

Kroft: You're shocked? Someone in the Australian government said that, "Look, if you play outside the rules you can't expect to be protected by the rules." And you played outside the rules. You've played outside the United States' rules.

Assange: No. We've actually played inside the rules. We didn't go out to get the material. We operated just like any U.S. publisher operates. We didn't play outside the rules. We played inside the rules.

Kroft: There's a special set of rules in the United States for disclosing classified information. There is longstanding…

Assange: There's a special set of rules for soldiers. For members of the State Department, who are disclosing classified information. There's not a special set of rules for publishers to disclose classified information. There is the First Amendment. It covers the case. And there's been no precedent that I'm aware of in the past 50 years of prosecuting a publisher for espionage. It is just not done. Those are the rules. You do not do it.

• « Previous Page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next Page »

[NeverLift]

Oy, veh! How much illiteracy can be packed into four words.

Canon: A music form, as in the Pachelbel Canon in G. The artillery piece is a cannon

Fauder: Ain't no such word. Unless to count "cannin fauder" which the Urban dictionary (a dictionary of words and phrases used by street punks who failed 3rd grade) describes as "Panties or other items of intimate clothing as stuffed into a vagina by an erect ***** during intercourse/coitus"

The word you want is "fodder".

Or maybe you really meant cannin fauder. Hmmm.

Oh, a BTW: His name is Eugene Debs. With one "b".

Ignoramus. (Look it up.)

[Matt6543]

Yes, there's a good reason that no military is a democracy - because if they were, they wouldn't be able to get the poor to sacrifice their lives for the interests of the rich. I suspect that in workers' revolutions such as the Bolsheviks or the force led by Fidel Castro, soldiers served of their own free will, rather than because they would be jailed or executed if they did not.

Just because you do not agree with me does not mean I have no understanding of these topics. We obviously have vastly different perspectives. Yours happens to be the perspective of the establishment. You seem to believe that because something has always been done a certain way, that is the only way it can or should be done. This has nothing to do with what "I want" for myself - it is what is right and just, what I and the rest of the human race deserve because they are our human rights, and no capitalist, politician or general has the right to take them away from us. Justice obviously has no bearing on your views or those of the rest of the right wing. So just go read some more Ayn Rand and keep on rationalizing - it's what the ego does best.

[heffleydj]

Eugene Debbs said it best - - - - Canon fauder for the Imperialists!

[Matt6543]

OK, well according to the oath as you quoted it, obeying orders is not paramount: defending the Constitution is listed first before obeying orders, which I take to mean that defending the Constitution is paramount, while obeying orders is secondary. Also, while I can't imagine any possible exceptions to the duty of defending the Constitution, we all know that there are at least some exceptions to the duty to follow orders and regulations, as demonstrated at the Nuremburg trials and other war crimes trials.

He may have broken military law, but he did not violate any civil law - if he did, I would like to know which one. As has been mentioned elsewhere, Daniel Ellsberg was tried under the Espionage Act for releasing classified documents and was acquitted, and the U.S. has no Official Secrets Act for the specific purpose of protecting whistleblowers.

I am sure that according to military regulations, no one has the authority to declassify documents other than the people who can classify them in the first place. Nonetheless, since the duty to defend the Constitution supersedes the duty to obey orders and regulations, if any member of the military was convinced that the secrecy of a particular document was damaging to the principles of the Constitution, such as democracy or human rights, he would be obligated legally, but more importantly morally, to release those documents. It should be obvious that there have been occasions in history when classified documents needed to be leaked to protect the integrity of the Constitution and for the general well-being of the populace. Leaking these documents is always against the rules no matter who does it, but obviously someone needs to make that decision or government wrongdoing would remain secret, in defiance of the Constitution. Since it was the government trying to keep the secret, one can be fairly certain that the full force of government and the ruling powers would be brought down upon him for doing so. That is why it takes great courage and moral integrity to be a whistleblower - much more of both than it takes to blindly follow orders. There will always be disagreements over whether or not particular leaks were called for, and obviously those in power will always say it was treasonous, since they are the ones who stand to lose something.

As far as releasing the documents "willy-nilly," what was he supposed to do, go through tens of thousands of pages one by one and decide whether each one should or should not be released? That is not practical. He knew that many, if not most, of the documents contained important information that the public has the right to see. He sent the documents to responsible parties, and those parties, before releasing the documents, contacted the U.S. government to ask for assistance in determining what out of the documents should be redacted because of legitimate security concerns. The U.S. government refused to offer any assistance or advice, so Wikileaks had to publish all of the documents uncensored. If there was anything in there that legitimately needed to be kept secret, the government had ample opportunity to make sure it was removed, but they declined to do so; therefore the responsibility for any security breaches lies with them.

I am not sure what legal definition of treason you are referring to. As I said, I'm pretty sure he did not break any civil law. And "treason of the worst kind?" - I find it hard to believe that you would consider this incident as bad as, say, selling nuclear secrets to North Korea.

People's opinions on the need for secrecy vary, but in a democratic society, openness is supposed to be the chief operating principle, and our government has long been using secrecy for personal gain, convenience, and political gain, instead of only when it is truly necessary. Democracy required that something be done about it. What defines treason is also a largely subjective matter. The ruling class and their supporters tend to think that any disagreement with the government is unpatriotic, and doing anything to undermine the government constitutes treason. The common folk are more likely to think that patriotism means not necessarily supporting the government, but supporting the founding principles of the nation even if that means opposing the government. These people would probably think that the government working against the Constitution is treason, while a person breaking an unjust law in support of the Constitution is an act of great patriotism.

[Matt6543]

What he "must answer for" is also a matter of personal opinion. Authoritarians love to crucify anyone who breaks their rules in order to make an example of them and repress any other dissent. Whatever happens in the legal proceedings does not change the fact that the government is violating the law in their current treatment of him, giving him cruel and unusual punishment even before he's been to court. Of course, that's right in line with the policies in Guantanamo and other offshore prisons, where they are violating human rights along with our own Constitution and international law. So who's really committing treason?

The bottom line is that the government was lying about civilian casualties, American military casualties, and a lot of other things. When the government lies to the people, the people have the right to know the truth, and now we do.

[NeverLift]

Gee whiz, a State depertment that misleads people? What can we expect next, politicians that insult each other? Oh, the horror.

The precedence of following orders AS THE METHOD FOR defending the Constitution, is well established in military law. The idea that any soldier can violate his orders whenever he feels doing so better protects the Constitution is utter nonsense and you are too intelligent to believe your own words. Reductio ad absurdum is the final debating tactic used in desperation by those that know they've lost the contest. Using that here insults the two of us. I'm done with you.

He will be tried, he will be convicted, he will be jailed, Assange will eventually be extradicted, tried, and convicted. Anonymous will respond, and the cyberwar experts in such places as Israel and certain unnamed US agencies will find them and take "appropriate" action. That sequence of future events has been set in motion and will follow, no matter how many bleating sheep decry them. It's done; don't waste words.

I won't. This is my last post.

[Matt6543]

I freely admit to knowing practically nothing about military law. From my vantage point, military "law" is a sham, since the military is the antithesis of democracy and its law seems to consist simply of requiring everyone to obey any order issued by anyone further up the hierarchy than them and prescribing punishments for those who don't. A prototypical autocracy. It should have no place in a free society. I have no respect for the rules of any organization that makes you check your civil rights at the door. International law is clear that one is responsible for one's actions regardless of any orders one may have received. A soldier who is a decent human being is guided by his personal morals before his duty to obey. What you call "reductio ad absurdem," I would call following something through to its logical conclusion. You're probably a strict contructionist, but the purpose of the Constitution is to safeguard liberty and justice, and when the government is obviously working against those ideals, anyone who aims to defend the Constitution and its ideals would be obligated to take action against the government. In other countries, they have military coups that overthrow authoritarian regimes and replace them with democratic ones. The essence of "military law" is that the winner makes the rules, so of course Manning will be punished - I won't be surprised if he gets the same treatment as the Rosenbergs - and they'll get Assange if they think they can get away with it. Just because they can do something doesn't make it legal or right. Manning has broken no civil law and Assange isn't even subject to U.S. law.

You apparently think that our being accustomed to being lied to by the government makes it acceptable or right? And that anyone who makes an effort to have a government that actually lives up to some of those glorious ideals that make the U.S. so "exceptional" is a "bleating sheep?" You're quite the idealist. Sometimes I think that I'm cynical, but the level of cynicism in you right-wingers simply amazes me. But I guess those of you who are reasonably intelligent have to come up with ways to rationalize behavior that you know to be completely immoral. It's been lovely chatting with you.

[NeverLift]

And you are a commie ninja turtle terrorist. So?

[Matt6543]

Well, you may be right on the commie part, but I've never to my knowledge been a ninja turtle, and the definition of terrorist is now pretty much anyone the ruling class doesn't like, so I probably fit that one too. So, fascists are anti-democratic elitists who stand for everything I oppose, and I do not like them. I guess I thought you would not like being associated with Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, but maybe you're proud of it.

[NeverLift]

I was being humourous. You are not. My grandmother escaped from the Nazis. Her family died in the camps.

[Matt6543]

Maybe my humor is just a little too subtle for you. If you have family who died in the Holocaust, you should be particularly ashamed for supporting all the same policies that Hitler did. I don't use the word "fascist" as an epithet; I use it according to its definition.

[NeverLift]

I was referring to Bradley Manning, who disclosed classified material in a manner that he knew would make it available to our enemies, giving them "aid and comfort", the Constitution's definition of "treason". Assange, then, is an enemy agent for passing on to the enemy (along with the rest of the world, but that does not mitigate the act) information he knows is classified and whose release would harm the victim nation's security, and that he knows was disclosed illegally. Both should be prosecuted to the max.

[Matt6543]

You're right, that probably is a legal definition of treason, and of course the same people who made the information classified would consider him a traitor for releasing it. However, in a democracy, the government has an obligation to balance any need for secrecy with the principal of open government and the public's right to know what is being done in their name. Our government has long been in the habit of classifying information not just for necessary and legitimate purposes, but also for their own personal gain and to save face by hiding crimes and atrocities, even just to save themselves from embarrassment. State secrets and executive privilege have become another political tool, instead of a measure only for special circumstances as they were intended. The soldier's oath of office is to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States, not to obey the orders of their superiors. If a soldier deems an order to be damaging to the Constitution, the oath obligates him to disobey that order. Bradley Manning judged the unnecessary secrecy of an enormous number of documents to be harmful to the Constitution and the people of the U.S., so bravely and at great personal risk, he followed his oath by releasing those documents to the public. Now the government is torturing him as punishment, and before he's even had a trial, two more violations of the Constitution. So while you and the oligarchs may consider Manning a traitor, most people who believe in democracy consider him a great patriot.

[drffc]

You're foolish enough to believe that what has been released to date qualifies as "aid and comfort to the enemy"? Read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman," by John Perkins to learn who the REAL enemies are. Don't believe the hype, the talking heads of the military-industrial-intelligence complex and the stuff they propagandize as "fact" or "intelligence" or how they characterize "our enemies". FOLLOW THE MONEY. Its always about the money. We, America, stole it. They want some of it back. That's only fair.

[NeverLift]

He's a traitor, not a whistleblower, jerkwad.

[Matt6543]

and you're a fascist

[BillyGtr]

Now now, boys, let's not let emotions run away with our reason. Assange is clearly not a traitor, since he is not an American citizen and owes allegiance to neither America or the United States government.
If the American media abdicates its First Amendment-protected duty to be a government watchdog (for whatever reason), it should come as a surprise to no one that some entity on the internet will perform that duty. In a free market (and the internet is still relatively uncensored), someone will always satisfy a perceived need.
Likewise, it should come as no surprise that the Obama administration and other government-lovers should want to silence him for daring to publish expository documents that had no other outlet than the internet. As Shakespeare (I think) wrote: "The Truth Shall Out!" While we know that just because we read it on the internet doesn't make it true, it's not surprising that half-truths, deception and lies should be more quickly exposed by one of the internet's millions of investigative reporters world-wide than by one of the government-authorized American media's few hundred.

[Matt6543]

Good comment. NeverLift is a fascist, though.

[heffleydj]

How else doesa one discover what o9ne's government is up too? Rely on those BOUGHT & PAID-FOR by "Wall Stree? National security has become a blanket to hide all of government's EMBARRASSMENTS! hOW SECURE CAN WE BE IN HOCK TO cHINA? The killed our pets, they poisoned our tooth-paste and tomorrow they will foreclose on our homes and land!

[sadswede]

Sad and revealing how Steve Kroft in his interview acted as a talking head for the power behind, meaning the crypto-industrial complex, now dismantling the principles of the Founding Fathers -the power to "We the people". The famous British Labour politician Tony Benn once said: In Europe the Government is afraid of the people, in US the people are afraid of the Government.
With useful idiots like Steve Kroft in the forefront, the elite has the mainstream media in their firm hands. Therefore its fully understandable Mr Assanges reluctance to be interviewed by people like Steve Kroft.
Have earlier held CBS 60 minutes in high esteem, but with this interview they have shown they play along with the rest of the bunch, which is either owned by or feed through vast advertising budgets by the corporatocary elite in the higher
sphere.

[signol--2008]

Is this about bashing Steve Kroft or the story he brought to us? Forget about he well or bad he was in the interview. I thank Steve for introducing Wikileaks to everyone. Wikileaks proves how powerful and important the Internet can be, and it can only happens here.

More people knows about Wikileaks means more will support this organization making sure they are here to serve us, the people. For that, I thank Steve and CBS. Who cares what side Steve takes or works for, really. Get the information you need, decide for yourself and stop bashing.

[Matt6543]

signol, I think the issue is that people who find out about Wikileaks through this interview are more likely to form a negative opinion of it, compared to if the interview was impartial. In this case, I think since Assange was so articulate, hopefully most people will still see his side of the story, but right-wing bias is a huge problem that is pervasive in the mainstream media, and it is probably the primary reason that the U.S. populace is so incredibly ignorant.

[MDE1]

I usually only tune in to watch the last few minutes with Andy Rooney (who has been mysteriously absent lately) but clicked over to watch this segment, and was astounded at what a poor job Mr. Kroft did in this interview. It's been a week and a half and it still irks me!
The whole "There are people that believe. . . " device only demonstrates either Mr. Kroft's laziness to cite an actual source, or his lack of moral character to actually state his opinion (which should have no part of REAL news).
I thought I was getting old, but clearly Mr. Kroft is TOO OLD to even pretend to do a neutral interview involving anything popularized in this century.
While I also blame the 'suits' at 60 minutes and CBS for this "story," I will forever associate Steve Kroft with it.
Just in case you weren't paying attention, that's NOT a good thing.
RIP 60 minutes.

[debbievann]

Steve Kroft was terrible, to say the least. What has 60 minutes come to? Well, I guess you've joined the ranks of those other news stations who just repeat a well worn rant over and over. I have not watch 60 minutes as regularly as I used to but yesterday confirmed that you are derailed. I remember Mike Wallace holding microphones in the faces of those who did not wish to have their antics made public, Morley Safer, Diane Sawyer, etc. Whereas I may not agree with Wickileaks all the time, I would never ever say that the people of the world should not have their dirty laundry hung out to dry. It's the USA, Steve, not Egypt, or Iran or ........Just so so disappointing.