Complete Transcript Of Assange Guardian Livechat (And Possibly His Last Pre-Arrest)

Tyler Durden's picture

Earlier today, record interest in what could be Julian Assange's last live chat crashed the Guardian's entire website (which is the 16th top ranked site in Britain on a regular day getting tens of millions of hits). To be sure, the Guardian's exhaustive coverage of Assange's travails have paid off in droves, and as the Alexa chart below shows, the site's rank has surged as ad revenues have exploded. We hope the Guardian is keeping at least some of the proceeds in escrow for the soon to be created "Free Julian" fund. And while a boredom-intolerant world awaits news of the Wikileaks creator's arrest, below is a complete transcript of what could be his last live interview before captivity.

But first, the Guardian's traffic spike since the whoe Cablegate affair:

Full transcript from the Guardian.

Fwoggie
I'll start the ball rolling with a question.
You're an Australian passport holder - would you want return to your own
country or is this now out of the question due to potentially being
arrested on arrival for releasing cables relating to Australian
diplomats and polices?


Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
I
am an Australian citizen and I miss my country a great deal. However,
during the last weeks the Australian prime minister, Julia Gillard, and
the attorney general, Robert McClelland, have made it clear that not
only is my return is impossible but that they are actively working to
assist the United States government in its attacks on myself and our
people. This brings into question what does it mean to be an Australian
citizen - does that mean anything at all? Or are we all to be treated
like David Hicks at the first possible opportunity merely so that
Australian politicians and diplomats can be invited to the best US
embassy cocktail parties.

girish89
How do you think you have changed world affairs?
And if you call all the attention you've been given-credit ... shouldn't the mole or source receive a word of praise from you?


Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
For the past four years one of
our goals has been to lionise the source who take the real risks in
nearly every journalistic disclosure and without whose efforts,
journalists would be nothing. If indeed it is the case, as alleged by
the Pentagon, that the young soldier - Bradley Manning - is behind some
of our recent disclosures, then he is without doubt an unparalleled
hero.

Daithi
Have you released, or will you
release, cables (either in the last few days or with the Afghan and Iraq
war logs) with the names of Afghan informants or anything else like so?
Are you willing to censor (sorry for using the term) any names that you feel might land people in danger from reprisals??
By the way, I think history will absolve you. Well done!!!


Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
WikiLeaks
has a four-year publishing history. During that time there has been no
credible allegation, even by organisations like the Pentagon that even a
single person has come to harm as a result of our activities. This is
despite much-attempted manipulation and spin trying to lead people to a
counter-factual conclusion. We do not expect any change in this regard.

distrot
The
State Dept is mulling over the issue of whether you are a journalist or
not. Are you a journalist? As far as delivering information that
someone [anyone] does not want seen is concerned, does it matter if you
are a 'journalist' or not?


Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
I coauthored my first nonfiction
book by the time I was 25. I have been involved in nonfiction
documentaries, newspapers, TV and internet since that time. However, it
is not necessary to debate whether I am a journalist, or how our people
mysteriously are alleged to cease to be journalists when they start
writing for our organisaiton. Although I still write, research and
investigate my role is primarily that of a publisher and editor-in-chief
who organises and directs other journalists.

achanth
Mr Assange,
have there ever been documents forwarded to you which deal with the topic of UFOs or extraterrestrials?


Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
Many weirdos email us about UFOs
or how they discovered that they were the anti-christ whilst talking
with their ex-wife at a garden party over a pot-plant. However, as yet
they have not satisfied two of our publishing rules.
1) that the documents not be self-authored;
2) that they be original.
However, it is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs.

gnosticheresy
What
happened to all the other documents that were on Wikileaks prior to
these series of "megaleaks"? Will you put them back online at some stage
("technical difficulties" permitting)?


Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
Many of these are still available
at mirror.wikileaks.info and the rest will be returning as soon as we
can find a moment to do address the engineering complexities. Since
April of this year our timetable has not been our own, rather it has
been one that has centred on the moves of abusive elements of the United
States government against us. But rest assured I am deeply unhappy that
the three-and-a-half years of my work and others is not easily
available or searchable by the general public.

CrisShutlar
Have you expected this level of impact all over the world? Do you fear for your security?


Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
I always believed that WikiLeaks
as a concept would perform a global role and to some degree it was clear
that is was doing that as far back as 2007 when it changed the result
of the Kenyan general election. I thought it would take two years
instead of four to be recognised by others as having this important
role, so we are still a little behind schedule and have much more work
to do. The threats against our lives are a matter of public record,
however, we are taking the appropriate precautions to the degree that we
are able when dealing with a super power.

JAnthony
Julian.
I
am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I
helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the
Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic
cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished
nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and
secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that
correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other
liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer
advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot
operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the
protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US.
In
publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not
highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire
process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish
UK telegrams and UN emails.
My question to you is: why should we not
hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes
unresolved because diplomats cannot function.


Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention.

cargun
Mr Assange,
Can
you explain the censorship of identities as XXXXX's in the revealed
cables? Some critical identities are left as is, whereas some are
XXXXX'd. Some cables are partially revealed. Who can make such critical
decisons, but the US gov't? As far as we know your request for such help
was rejected by the State department. Also is there an order in the
release of cable or are they randomly selected?
Thank you.


Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
The cables we have release
correspond to stories released by our main stream media partners and
ourselves. They have been redacted by the journalists working on the
stories, as these people must know the material well in order to write
about it. The redactions are then reviewed by at least one other
journalist or editor, and we review samples supplied by the other
organisations to make sure the process is working.

rszopa
Annoying
as it may be, the DDoS seems to be good publicity (if anything, it adds
to your credibility). So is getting kicked out of AWS. Do you agree
with this statement? Were you planning for it?
Thank you for doing what you are doing.


Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
Since 2007 we have been
deliberately placing some of our servers in jurisdictions that we
suspected suffered a free speech deficit inorder to separate rhetoric
from reality. Amazon was one of these cases.

abbeherrera
You
started something that nobody can stop. The Beginning of a New World.
Remember, that community is behind you and support you (from Slovakia).
Do you have leaks on ACTA?


Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
Yes, we have leaks on the
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a trojan horse trade agreement
designed from the very beginning to satisfy big players in the US
copyright and patent industries. In fact, it was WikiLeaks that first
drew ACTA to the public's attention - with a leak.

people1st
Tom
Flanagan, a [former] senior adviser to Canadian Prime Minister recently
stated "I think Assange should be assassinated ... I think Obama should
put out a contract ... I wouldn't feel unhappy if Assange does
disappear."
How do you feel about this?


Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
It is correct that Mr. Flanagan
and the others seriously making these statements should be charged with
incitement to commit murder.

Isopod
Julian, why do
you think it was necessary to "give Wikileaks a face"? Don't you think
it would be better if the organization was anonymous?
This whole
debate has become very personal and reduced on you - "Julian Assange
leaked documents", "Julian Assange is a terrorist", "Julian Assange
alledgedly raped a woman", "Julian Assange should be assassinated",
"Live Q&A qith Julian Assange" etc. Nobody talks about Wikileaks as
an organization anymore. Many people don't even realize that there are
other people behind Wikileaks, too.
And this, in my opinion, makes
Wikileaks vulnerable because this enables your opponents to argue ad
hominem. If they convince the public that you're an evil, woman-raping
terrorist, then Wikileaks' credibility will be gone. Also, with due
respect for all that you've done, I think it's unfair to all the other
brave, hard working people behind Wikileaks, that you get so much
credit.


Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
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.

tburgi
Western governments lay claim to moral authority in part from having legal guarantees for a free press.
Threats of legal sanction against Wikileaks and yourself seem to weaken this claim.
(What
press needs to be protected except that which is unpopular to the
State? If being state-sanctioned is the test for being a media
organization, and therefore able to claim rights to press freedom, the
situation appears to be the same in authoritarian regimes and the west.)
Do you agree that western governments risk losing moral authority by
attacking Wikileaks?
Do you believe western goverments have any moral authority to begin with?
Thanks,
Tim Burgi
Vancouver, Canada


Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
The west has fiscalised its basic
power relationships through a web of contracts, loans, shareholdings,
bank holdings and so on. In such an environment it is easy for speech to
be "free" because a change in political will rarely leads to any change
in these basic instruments. Western speech, as something that rarely
has any effect on power, is, like badgers and birds, free. In states
like China, there is pervasive censorship, because speech still has
power and power is scared of it. We should always look at censorship as
an economic signal that reveals the potential power of speech in that
jurisdiction. The attacks against us by the US point to a great hope,
speech powerful enough to break the fiscal blockade.

rajiv1857
Hi,
Is
the game that you are caught up in winnable? Technically, can you keep
playing hide and seek with the powers that be when services and service
providers are directly or indirectly under government control or
vulnerable to pressure - like Amazon?
Also, if you get "taken out" -
and that could be technical, not necessarily physical - what are the
alternatives for your cache of material?
Is there a 'second line' of activists in place that would continue the campaign?
Is your material 'dispersed' so that taking out one cache would not necessarily mean the end of the game?


Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
The Cable Gate archive has been
spread, along with significant material from the US and other countries
to over 100,000 people in encrypted form. If something happens to us,
the key parts will be released automatically. Further, the Cable Gate
archives is in the hands of multiple news organisations. History will
win. The world will be elevated to a better place. Will we survive? That
depends on you.


logo2

That's it every one, thanks for all your questions and
comments. Julian Assange is sorry that he can't answer every question
but he has tried to cover as much territory as possible. Thanks for your
patience with our earlier technical difficulties.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

This brings into question what does it mean to be an Australian citizen - does that mean anything at all? Or are we all to be treated like David Hicks at the first possible opportunity merely so that Australian politicians and diplomats can be invited to the best US embassy cocktail parties.

This is a good question, yet rhetorical.  I will answer it anyway.  Julian is an Australian, and he should definately be allowed to return there. 

No questions about the bank leak release?

Azannoth's picture

Citizenship = voluntary slavery, damn if it was possible to live without a passport I'd throw away mine in a second

tmosley's picture

How is citizenship voluntary?  You can't renounce it unless you get citizenship somewhere else.  We are all just slaves (at least in name), free only to change masters (sometimes).

Shylockracy's picture

If you are already despondent about citizenship, make sure you do NOT read the following book. It may cause severe depression.

Besatzungsrecht im wiedervereinten Deutschland: Abbauprobleme und Restbestände.
Dr. Michael Rensmann

2002, Nomos Verlagsges.MBH + Co. ISBN: 3789078832

caconhma's picture

Back in 1938, the chief of the Soviet KGB in Europe defected to the USA. His name was Orlov. He was a 3-star KGB general.

FBI found about his defection many years later after he revealed it after Stalin's death. His new name was Borg, and he moved to Cleveland, OH.

KGB was very good assassinating people from ordinary defectors to heads of sates.

Orlov/Borg knew that. So, he wrote a letter to Stalin offering a deal: if my and my family lives are safe, I keep my mouth shut. Stalin accepted the deal.

After Stalin's death, he revealed himself. He even testified in front of the USA Congress but he never revealed any info about Soviet spies in the USA  or in Europe.

He knew the entire KGB spy-net in the USA including all nuclear spies as well as the famous Cambridge 5 in England. But FBI and MI6 never got anything.

He called Stalin a "bloody butcher" but he kept his part of the deal even after Stalin's death.

bank guy in Brussels's picture

The Aussie gov't is under the US thumb, like Canada's.

Wikileaks ambiguities, from the web -

- Board members of Wikileaks from CIA-entities, including ones tied to CIA-Google contracts and funding, and to CIA's front NGO 'National Endowment for Democracy'

- Thrust of Wikileaks revelations supporting US war initiatives against Iran and for military intervention against Pakistan

- Israeli Prime Minister happy about Wikileaks in effect supporting war in Middle East, and Julian Assange praises the Israeli Prime Minister

- Wikileaks has something like € 1 million in bank, € 200,000 annual budget, supposedly from small 'donations' via PayPal, ha! not likely, bigger sweetheart funding likely behind it

- Wikileaks website doesn't reflect million-in-assets organisation, many have done much more with much less

- One of Wikileaks site names registered by Jimmy Wales founder of Wikipedia, notorious CIA-agent disinfo site (proven in Wired news etc.), Wales himself part of CIA-linked CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) major US gov't policy tool for oligarchs & establishment

- Wikileaks has unusual super good access to corporate media, NY Times and UK Guardian, both shills - mouthpieces for US and UK governments and establishment, media with fake 'progressive' image but refusing to carry much anti-gov't reporting, however nice open door for Wikileaks

- One of Julian Assange's lawyers is also lawyer for US Associated Press, giant US-gov't linked corporate media agency, owned by major US media owned by ruling US oligarch families

- Julian Assange hostile to other progressive revelations, Assange hostile to questioning about US 11 Sept for example

- Julian Assange childhood troubled, under tutelage of parental figures involved with CIA-mind-control-experiment-type application of severely mind-altering drugs upon children

- Assange has previously used internet code name 'Mendax', ancient Latin word for 'liar'

- Weird situation with Assange and Swedish girls, one of them previously published web treatise on how to get revenge on ex-boyfriend re false accusations, one of them has departed for Israel

- The best lies are those that mix some truth with the lies, and the US gov't, has little problem with a further expansion of the well-known fact it is a torturing, murdering, killing-of-innocents regime. A few more Iraq and Afghanistan war atrocities exposed, are a small price to pay for a world-class media manipulation project to help sponsor more upcoming wars, and which will enable US to achieve greater dominance over internet content.

Just sayin'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brGAgrxscOg

Tense INDIAN's picture

exellant... the leaks are about torture , crime , killing of innocents....whats new there...the uS govt is aware that the people already know of these going ons......what r the people going to do anyway.....but suppose if u just plant a few more leaks like "dirty bombs found in Libya leads to Pakistan"....or something similar....their job is done ...people will believe it to be true work of a HERO.....i cant believe so many ZHers are prasing this guy.....

CD's picture

"- One of Wikileaks site names registered by Jimmy Wales founder of Wikipedia, notorious CIA-agent disinfo site (proven in Wired news etc.), Wales himself part of CIA-linked CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) major US gov't policy tool for oligarchs & establishment"

 

cryptome.org founder John Young leaked the (alleged) emails around the foundation of WL, and some of them discuss this very issue - check out the site. If you Google GeorgieBC, he's got a pretty good summary/Cliffnotes version.

slaughterer's picture

Tyler, you do wear a thick condom, I hope.

kaiten's picture

"Since 2007 we have been deliberately placing some of our servers in jurisdictions that we suspected suffered a free speech deficit inorder to separate rhetoric from reality. Amazon was one of these cases."

 

Ouch!

tony bonn's picture

go julian go!!

"It is correct that Mr. Flanagan and the others seriously making these statements should be charged with incitement to commit murder."

this is the complete hypocrisy of the fascist american state....if you uttered the word sqirt pistol at an airport you would be shot dead where you stood without a trial just as happened at the miami airport during caligula's reign a few years ago....but a senior government official can call for assassination of an individual by the usa and get away scot free...

this is perfect proof that security has nothing to do with safety but with power and subjugation

fuck the tsa, candians, and americans...they are lying hypocrites...

digitaldorobo's picture

"fuck the tsa, candians, and americans"

 

How about specifying which Canadians and Americans? There are many Canadians, myself one, and many Americans who support what he is doing.

cougar_w's picture

A valid point. However the actual number is so low that it is in no way a stretch to say "fuck Americans" on the specific issue of opposing fascist elements in government and industry. This is a battle we are losing and badly.

Americans really are too busy getting rich or staying rich to do much to rock the boat. And so we slide into the abyss where awaits the moral undertow. So sure, fuck Americans. We're self-involved losers.

I won't say "fuck Canadians" because I'm not Canadian. Hey some Canadian: Little help here?

revenue_anticipation_believer's picture

Lets pretend, imagine, for the moment this scenario:

Inverse 'rendition': Assange is an 'asset' to be protected from the mob, simply by placing him police protection for the moment

Assange and zerohedge BOTH can be considered 'assets', and therefore protected and funded as needed (along with other 'special operations'

BOTH Assange/ZH were enabled/activated/protected as part of the 'management of information/propaganda' mostly in relation to the financial TOTAL COLLAPSE that did NOT...indeed  occur....sucessfully averted/diverted from mass-critical...

It is near CERTAIN that Assange/ZH do NOT know that they were selected/to perform 'management actitities...employed, but yet subject to be 'fired' at anytime = 'cutout-nullified/discredited'

the pseudo 'controller-agent' probably is something like the CFR....no way mere 'hired hands' could regulate/control, sucessfully, while unbeknown/unconscious to Assange/ZH while,yet,these "assets"BOTH pre-existed, not necessarily as 'sleepers' but simply were 'selected'/utilized/hired to perform the perceived necessary functions, that they would do anyway, self motivated...but nearly as well, and not nearly as policy-perfected...'good employees for the job'  

indications: 'protected', continuity-like with evolving business-like improvements, influential/yetinfluential beyond their basic internal structures...IE outsiders have been draftedto ensure/assist sucess...to provide extraordinary access to inside information, to be provided/from time to time...extraordinary, professional commentary mixed with intentional 'noise-commentary'....fundamentally well within conventional ways and means..'revert to the mean policy-steered'

...just a thought experiment..

 

 

 

 

 

cougar_w's picture

Fair enough.

Hmm ...

Having thought about it, I don't think so. Too complicated and too many untested/untestable assumptions.

But thank you for bring that to my attention.

romberry's picture

One problem. Wikileaks isn't doing the redations. The newspapers/media they released these documents to are doing the redactions, and the redactions are a specific effort to protect innocent people from potential harm. Anyway, take it up with Der Spiegel, The Guardian and others.

BTW, as valuable as Cryptome has been and is, some of the criticism from that corner is beginning to strike me as something akin to jealousy. Do the people at Cryptome resent the high profile status of Wikilleaks and the fact that they have not been able to achieve similar levels of recognition even though they have been at it much longer? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that much of the criticism from that direction in recent weeks does not seem to me well founded.

WaterWings's picture

Uh, where did you read the cables cuz I read 'em from their very organized site; directly. Yeah. Redacted. WTF? I didn't read what the papers pushed - I read it live.

Redacted.

 

romberry's picture

The cables you read directly on Wikileaks are the redacted versions that have been published by their media partners.

 

WikiLeaks has not published "250,000 classified documents."  They've only published 612, and the only documents from the leak of diplomatic cables published on the WikiLeaks site thus far have all been ones published by its newspaper partners such as The New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, etc., including with the same redactions.   - Source: http://is.gd/iaqUB

 

RowdyRoddyPiper's picture

Flanagan is a idiot. I had the misfortune to take a intro Poli Sci class of his back in the 80s at the glorified high school called the University of Calgary. Like lots of tenured folk, he believes he alone among the masses has wisdom that makes him wise.

Village Idiot's picture

"How about specifying which Canadians and Americans? There are many Canadians, myself one, and many Americans who support what he is doing."

 

Yes, and there are Jews who are supporting him as well.  The "clarification" thing doesn't work so well around here - I've tried.

Bring the Gold's picture

I know. I get so enraged by idiots who think that if an organization of Arab Terrorists blow something up, therefore all Arabs are evil. You can extrapolate this to Jews, Americans, Chinese and so forth and so on.

This myopia allows the real threat, leadership amongst these groups, to be protected by layers upon layers of people who identify as one of the groups now wholly demonized. Been working like a charm since Babylon.

Be specific about who you dislike or else STFU because you are merely propping up the powers that be or the powers that WANT to be. Freedom starts with the individual recognizing that everyone is an individual who is part of various groups. It's rare to find a group anywhere whose membership is evil through and through. It happens, but most of the time ordinary people who don't know what the fuck is going on are lumped in with Saddam or Ariel Sharon or Bush or Obama or the Queen of England.

No more collateral damage. "Leaders" are and always have been the problem.

Buck Johnson's picture

As he stated, for them to be after him so bad it shows that whatever he's doing and what he has is earth shattering and can change.

jus_lite_reading's picture

I wish I would have known! I would have asked about BAC!

moofph's picture

...bravo! mr. durden...and we are all suspects at this point in time...here's a toast to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!

spekulatn's picture

 

Isopod
Julian, why do you think it was necessary to "give Wikileaks a face"? Don't you think it would be better if the organization was anonymous?
This whole debate has become very personal and reduced on you - "Julian Assange leaked documents", "Julian Assange is a terrorist", "Julian Assange alledgedly raped a woman", "Julian Assange should be assassinated", "Live Q&A qith Julian Assange" etc. Nobody talks about Wikileaks as an organization anymore. Many people don't even realize that there are other people behind Wikileaks, too.
And this, in my opinion, makes Wikileaks vulnerable because this enables your opponents to argue ad hominem. If they convince the public that you're an evil, woman-raping terrorist, then Wikileaks' credibility will be gone. Also, with due respect for all that you've done, I think it's unfair to all the other brave, hard working people behind Wikileaks, that you get so much credit.


 

 

Julian Assange:
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.

 

 

 It was a great question and Assange's answer shines a bright light on his psyche. Hopefully wikileaks survives the ego of its leader.

cougar_w's picture

Agreed. People here who claim he is vain and WikiLeaks is an ego trip sound like jealous fucktards.

SignsAndWonders's picture

Umm, you mean people like Zero Hedge?

We at Zero Hedge have watched with interest (and some horror) the Wikievents of the last several weeks. Of particular notice to us recently has been the complete inability (or unwillingness) of Wikileaks to release any new material not related to the self-promotion of its ubiquitous figurehead "Julian Assange." Despite a massive budget, it would seem more than an order of magnitude larger than ours, the Wikileaks enterprise seems totally unable to do more than tweet pleas for patience while sending Mr. Assange to, e.g., Brussels to debate freedom of expression. Where are the millions of documents leakers risked to liberate? This is quite sad for us to see, as we were some of the earliest and most enthusiastic supporters of Wikileaks, as individuals as well as under the umbrella of "Zero Hedge."

http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-zero.htm

 

 

cougar_w's picture

There are many Tylers. I don't agree with the tone and sometimes the content of a good part of what they post. But they are entitled to their opinions one must suppose.

WikiLeaks is a moving target, in both senses of the word moving.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Where are the millions of documents leakers risked to liberate?

If you read the transcript above you'd know that individual cables are reviewed to ensure that individual's names may be redacted if releasing the name would put the person in danger.

Please tell me how Wikileaks can redact information which is potentially dangerous to individuals if they do a document dump?

Bring the Gold's picture

http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/former-wikileaks-activists-to-launch-new-whistleblowing-site/


“I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, original coder, organizer, financier and all the rest. If you have a problem with me, piss off,” Assange famously wrote to one internal critic.

Hephasteus's picture

All government is cospiracy and all governed are conspired against. My guess is Julian's transgressions are planned and his forgiveness pre-ordained.

YHWH's picture

He could have easily picked psuedonyms from popular movies and used that.  It's been known to work elsewhere.

I suggest Wikileaks pick names out of "Resevoir Dogs".  Cool movie.

MurderNeverWasLove's picture

"Hey!  Why do I have to be Mr. Pink?"

Widowmaker's picture

"Courage is contagious."  

So is truth.

People need to rip their fascist overlords of oppression from their places of high worship, unmask the incorporation of violence, evil, and war profiteering at the expense of the public -- one and the same Congress.

Assange is a threat because he's right and armed with truth.

cougar_w's picture

Being right and armed with truth won't get you very far in a world where the MSM are part of the fascist control grid.

What makes Julian and WikiLeaks a threat is the Internet.

It is why you are at ZH. Always keep that in mind. Always.

Widowmaker's picture

Do you work for 2600 or something?

I agree, the Internet has no master, and somehow manages to leverage information with freedom.   It can hurt when its pointed at ya though!

 

cougar_w's picture

I predate 2600. But we would recognize each other in a dark alley.

Welcome to our world.

spekulatn's picture

It is why you are at ZH. Always keep that in mind. Always.

 

Wow.

BorisTheBlade's picture

What makes Julian and WikiLeaks a threat is the Internet.

Very much so. I would go as far as to say that this case is not about Wikileaks, but about the conflict between governments and the Internet, governments will not win this fight unless they succeed in seriously altering the way information is disseminated through the web, which I don't see hapenning given its highly decentralized structure. However, that will not stop them from trying.

What's interesting: Wiki, relying mostly on the help of volunteers and anonymous sources regularly releases some very sensitive material on the government, while the only thing government with their multi-billion budgets and a huge security apparatus has succeeded so far are some sex crimes allegations and taking down WL website, which was predictably reinstated. It is an assymetric information warfare, much like a regular army vs guerillas.

cougar_w's picture

And the Internet was originally a DARPA project. I just love irony, don't you?

StychoKiller's picture

You would think that TPTB would ask the designers of Arpanet if the intrawebz can be taken down -- we both know that:

No, it cannot and

even if it could, eCommerce is more important that saving the Govt's face!

WaterWings's picture

Wow. I like him more now. Still skeptical...