Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Senate Votes to Extend Sweeping Bush Era Surveillance Powers
- Six Weeks After Reelection, Obama Sells Out Liberal Democrats
- The Only Way Left to Beat GOP Fanatics: Call Their Bluff and Go Over the Fabricated "Cliff"
- The Financial Elite's War Against the US Economy
- New Year’s Revolution: Connecting the Dots, Coming Together and Fighting Like Hell
- Six Weeks After Reelection, Obama Sells Out Liberal Democrats
- The Financial Elite's War Against the US Economy
- Revealed: How the FBI Coordinated the Crackdown on Occupy
- Senate Votes to Extend Sweeping Bush Era Surveillance Powers
- New Year’s Revolution: Connecting the Dots, Coming Together and Fighting Like Hell
Popular content
Today's Top News
WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange on the 'War Logs': 'I Enjoy Crushing Bastards'
In a SPIEGEL interview, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, 39, discusses his decision to publish the Afghanistan war logs, the difficult balance between the public interest and the need for state secrets and why he believes people who wage war are more dangerous than him.
SPIEGEL: You are about to publish a vast amount of classified data on the war in Afghanistan. What is your motivation?
Assange: These files are the most comprehensive description of a war to be published during the course of a war -- in other words, at a time when they still have a chance of doing some good. They cover more than 90,000 different incidents, together with precise geographical locations. They cover the small and the large. A single body of information, they eclipse all that has been previously said about Afghanistan. They will change our perspective on not only the war in Afghanistan, but on all modern wars.
SPIEGEL: Do you think that the publication of this data will influence political decision-makers?
Assange: Yes. This material shines light on the everyday brutality and squalor of war. The archive will change public opinion and it will change the opinion of people in positions of political and diplomatic influence.
SPIEGEL: Aren't you expecting a little too much?
Assange: There is a mood to end the war in Afghanistan. This information won't do it alone, but it will shift political will in a significant manner.
SPIEGEL: The material contains military secrets and names of sources. By publishing it, aren't you endangering the lives of international troops and their informants in Afghanistan?
Assange: The Kabul files contain no information related to current troop movements. The source went through their own harm minimization process, and instructed us to conduct our usual review to make sure there was not a significant chance of innocents being negatively affected. We understand the importance of protecting confidential sources, and we understand why it is important to protect certain US and ISAF sources.
SPIEGEL: So what, specifically, did you do to minimize any possible harm?
Assange: We identified cases where there may be a reasonable chance of harm occurring to the innocent. Those records were identified and edited accordingly.
SPIEGEL: Is there anything that you consider to be a legitimate state secret?
Assange: There is a legitimate role for secrecy, and there is a legitimate role for openness. Unfortunately, those who commit abuses against humanity or against the law find abusing legitimate secrecy to conceal their abuse all too easy. People of good conscience have always revealed abuses by ignoring abusive strictures. It is not WikiLeaks that decides to reveal something. It is a whistleblower or a dissident who decides to reveal it. Our job is to make sure that these individuals are protected, the public is informed and the historical record is not denied.
SPIEGEL: But in the end somebody has to decide whether you publish or not. Who determines the criteria? WikiLeaks considers itself to be a trailblazer when it comes to freedom of information, but it lacks transparency in its own publishing decisions.
Assange: This is ridiculous. We are clear about what we will publish and what we will not. We do not have ad-hoc editorial decisions. We always release the full primary sources to our articles. What other press organization has such exacting standards? Everyone should try to follow our lead.
SPIEGEL: The problem is that it is difficult to hold WikiLeaks accountable. You operate your servers in countries that offer you broad protection. Does WikiLeaks consider itself to be above the law?
Assange: WikiLeaks does not exist in outer space. We are people who exist on Earth, in particular nations, each of which have a particular set of laws. We have been legally challenged in various countries. We have won every challenge. It is courts that decide the law, not corporations or generals. The law, as expressed by constitutions and courts, has been on our side.
SPIEGEL: You have said that there is a correlation between the transparency for which you are fighting and a just society. What do you mean by that?
Assange: Reform can only come about when injustice is exposed. To oppose an unjust plan before it reaches implementation is to stop injustice.
SPIEGEL: During the Vietnam War, US President Richard Nixon once called Daniel Elsberg, the leaker of the Pentagon Papers, the most dangerous man in America. Are you today's most dangerous man or the most endangered?
Assange: The most dangerous men are those who are in charge of war. And they need to be stopped. If that makes me dangerous in their eyes, so be it.
SPIEGEL: You could have started a company in Silicon Valley and lived in a home in Palo Alto with a swimming pool. Why did you decide to do the WikiLeaks project instead?
Assange: We all only live once. So we are obligated to make good use of the time that we have, and to do something that is meaningful and satisfying. This is something that I find meaningful and satisfying. That is my temperament. I enjoy creating systems on a grand scale, and I enjoy helping people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards. So it is enjoyable work.
Interview conducted by John Goetz and Marcel Rosenbach
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
185 Comments so far
Show AllJames,
Good post.
Chelsea
"Because you see evil is banal. In practical terms this means not only US citizens but Western people have supported these wars in full knowledge of the lies. They say they have never supported the wars and point to their dinner party conversations and their blogs to prove this but they do, for if they did not they would have already taken their leaders out of their beds, paraded them through the streets as idiots, locked them away and placed their 'defence forces' in chains."
This sounds like democracy at work...but a democracy on a much smaller scale than most of today's countries or societies. Maybe they could do it in Switzerland, but how would you pull such a thing off in the US? The CEOs of too-big-to-fail banks retire with golden parachutes, and the presidents and prime ministers of to-big-to-govern countries retire with riches and honors.
Anybody got any ideas about how we get back to the Articles of Confederation and start again from there? (And see how many different ways there are to do it right? Or at least better?)
Thank you, Julian.
America does not want to take a close look at itself, but it needs to. Sadly, it does seem that history repeats itself.
Below, a quote from Hitler's MEIN KAMPF
"The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence."
I always thought that the military was fixated on the Pelopponesian wars, apparently they are fixated on a single man.
There has been some attempt by the Obama Administration and the news media to suggest that under Obama the number of civilian deaths in the Afghanistan War have diminished as compared to the Bush Administration. Could this possibly be? Every case of Military excuses and misinformation have proven to be false. Let us not forget the horrendous slaughter by US aircraft with the help of German forces in Kunduz Province not very long ago. I offer two citations about an incident that happened last week. My point is that Obama is no better than Bush and possibly worse.
From Reuters: At least 45 civilians, many of them women and children, were killed in a rocket attack by the NATO-led force last week during fighting with Taliban insurgents in the southern province of Helmand, Afghan government spokesman Waheed Omer said. But Omer said there have been reductions in civilian deaths over the past year and a half and there was a common understanding about the negative impact such incidents have.
Nato probes reports raid killed 45 Afghan civilians
BBC News, Kabul 25 July 2010
International forces in Afghanistan say they are urgently investigating reports as many as 45 civilians died in an air strike in Helmand province on Friday.
Nato's initial investigation found no evidence, but a BBC journalist visiting Regey village spoke to several people who said they had seen the incident.
A significant civilian loss of life would be rare this year as a new policy of restraint has reduced casualties.
My point is that Obama is no better than Bush and possibly worse.
Obama is possessed by the same demon of Heroism that possessed George Wanker Bush and Spitball Bill Clinton before him. Not too long ago, Spitball Willie declared that he wished there had been a major war during his years as World Viceroy and Grand Poobah so that he could have gone down in history as a great president. Obama is no different. He is, by his own making, full of these same adolescent heroic fantasies. And he is both totally confused and volcanically furious at the historical monkey wrench that has fucked up his chance at Glory. Sociopaths, all of them!
The Clintons were responsible for the terrible slaughter in Serbia. This was bombing civilian targets in Serbia (hardly a soldier was hurt). That was pure State Terrorism with targets such as bridges, power stations, civilian convoys, radio stations, old age home, apartment buildings, and more. Not one US soldier set foot in Serbia; it was all done with bombs from airplanes. The technique of terrorizing the populace has been refined somewhat by the use of Drones and artillery fire but missiles and bombing are still popular as well as helicopter gunships. This is an old technique when the perpetrator cannot easily get at the soldiers: massacre the civilians until the leaders give up. Hillary knows this and one of the leaders of the Democratic Party, General Wesly Clark, knows this.
I know there were principled objections raised to what Clinton was doing at the time, but they were few, far between, not widely reported, and hardly discussed.
It is only fairly recently that the role of the US, UN and NATO in what had been Yugoslavia has been called into question on a much wider front.
Now, what if there had been a Wikileaks dump on that situation? Would we even be in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Pakistan...and Yemen...and Somalia...and on and on) now?
The slaughter in Serbia at the hands of the Clintons was not widely known and is very similar to the present situation in Iraq, Afghanista and Pakistan. The information was available but as usual "the media" did not report it. Much of the info on the attacks on Serbia were available through Antiwar.com. I was following it quite closely at the time. There was much fake "atrocities" and phony "negotiations". Holbrooke was a major conspirator in those bombing attacks on Serbia. One interesting aspect was that during the negotiations at Ramboulet, France the US made unreasonable and impossible demands that Serbia throw open it's borders to US troops without qualifications; this was refused and the bombing began. There is a familiar pattern here with Iraq and, it looks like, Iran.
Here is an update on the story mentioned previously concerning Obama carrying out the same murderous strategy as Bush.
NATO rocket attack toll rises to 52
A rocket attack by NATO-lead foreign forces killed 52 civilians in southern Afghanistan, President Karzai's office said in a statement on Monday. "52 civilians, including women and children, were martyred in an attack carried out by NATO and ISAF forces in Helmand province," the statement said.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/NATO-rocket-attack-toll-rises-to-52/Article1-578251.aspx
Well stated.
C
Anyone who serves will be expected to believe that crushing innocent victims is part of defense. The soldiers are not to blame. The politicians and the people who push and pressure them into serving are to blame. If a man bows out of serving, he can't find friends while someone who comes back injured may get some respect. Ted Markow posted a good site on exposing the truth for free. How many will learn from the truth?
UHHH?
So let me get this straight. If a Politician told me to take a gun and shoot a 6 year old girl living next door to me and I did it...I would not be to blame?
It would seem to me whether I was wearing a Uniform or not, I should still say NO.
You are suggesting I should "go ahead" so I can be sure to find friends and that doing such will gain me respect?
> If a Politician told me to take a gun and shoot a 6 year
> old girl living next door to me and I did it...I would not be to blame?
A politician doing that would be playing you for ransom and that's just what they are doing. Soldiers are supposed to protect and serve but the politicians are using them for pawns. You think most people care? They'd salute the politicians and pat each others' backs before they knew what they pushed their soldiers into.
> You are suggesting I should "go ahead" so I can
> be sure to find friends and that doing such will gain me respect?
I'm not suggesting anything. I just say what happens. Let me try to help you understand. If your neighbors and your wife or girlfriend had peer-pressured you into serving and mistreated you if you had withdrawn, how would you have felt?
> It would seem to me whether I was wearing a
> Uniform or not, I should still say NO.
Good for you and so would I. Problem is anyone can say NO here on the forum but who would do really it in the real world if they had to choose between staying and losing their friends? I lost a couple of dates for not being pro-war. I got over it but most people don't do that.
Here's a true story. A woman was serving in the war. Her lesbian partner would break up with her if she withdrew from serving. The breakup would prove costly to their marriage so the soldier doesn't know what to do. Should she stay or should she go? Tough decision, eh? Come on over to CO Springs and I'll show you if we could meet.
>>Here's a true story. A woman was serving in the war. Her lesbian partner would break up with her if she withdrew from serving. The breakup would prove costly to their marriage so the soldier doesn't know what to do. Should she stay or should she go?
Not a tough choice at all. Goodbye see ya later. If thats the type of "friends" one must keep then the company you are in is something you had best leave behind. I question the charatcer of EITHER of them.
> Not a tough choice at all. Goodbye see ya later.
I'd say that too but what if they're married because of economic reasons? You live in Canada, have a great system, and your country is tough against immigrants coming to Canada. You should move to the US and see for yourself. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm generally with you on this one but telling soldiers to just say no isn't easy for them. I didn't serve in the military but I know people who did and I used to run into psychologists who ran into cases where ordinary people were peer pressured by their friends, their parents, politicians, et al to stay or get castrated. You can sit there and call for illegal immigration to flow into the US while your country is tough even on legal immigrants but how does it feel when those illegal immigrants are enlisted once they're disposed of after their jobs are up? Is that what you want? What's your choice on that one?
*sigh*
Do you even bother to check out whether the right wing propaganda that you are regurgitating is true?
Do you seriously believe that America isn't tough on immigrants, whether legal or illegal? Talk to a freaking immigrant, talk a non-US citizen studying or working in the US,and listen to all the hoops s/he has to jump through. There was a period after 9/11, during the early 2000s, when it got so ridiculous that quite a few (prospective) foreign students decided that hell, they aren't going to pay large amounts of fees to American universities, which BTW helps to keep down fees for Americans, and be treated like shit by when applying for a visa.
Do you realise that Canada has one of highest net migration rates in the world? The only "major" / larg(gish) country with a higher net migration rate than Canada, is Aussie. Other than Aussie, very other country with a higher net migration than Canada is a small(ish) country / city state, Singapore, Luxembourg, Macau, Monaco, San Marino, Kuwait, UAE.
Canada's net migration is HIGHER than that of the US.
> Do you even bother to check out whether the
> right wing propaganda that you are regurgitating is true?
Do you always have to say that with everyone you disagree with? I checked my sources before posting.
> Do you realise that Canada has one of
> highest net migration rates in the world?
Legal or illegal? You're mixing up numbers.
> Canada's net migration is HIGHER than that of the US.
Source please.
if this woman is in the u.s. and in the military, she would not be able to be legally married - even if she went to a state that has marriage equality. She would be discharged under the DADT legislation.
If the first fallacy were not present, the premise that a lesbian couple would marry for 'economic reasons' is a bit absurd, given the meager rights afforded those who are lucky enough to live in a non-Destruction of Marriage Act state.
I couldn't follow the thought migration from the mythical married military lesbian to 'dey took ur jawbs'
Julian Assange is one of my heroes, a true philanthropist, a humanitarian of highest order.
He (and all the myriads of helpers who should also not be forgotten) restores my faith in humanity.
gnken
Thank you Julian Assange!! Hopefully this will be a turning point.
Indeed!
Thank you Julian!
Chelsea
I recommend scanning various mainstream media accounts of this latest Wikileaks leak. It makes for very interesting reading. This interview is rather straightforward, with the reporter asking the kind of questions that a government authority might ask. Other accounts, like that of the Associated Press, make the assumption that public opinion won't affect public policy, even thought the reports were just released.
Just from a quick scan of articles, the mainstream media seems to hate the idea of people actually making up their minds from raw unfiltered information. It's quite a revealing portrait. We've got our erstwhile "fourth estate" defenders of democracy bending over backward in support of power interests. Their craven respect for authority is rather disgusting. Save your quarters if you're still buying the local dailies.
-TIA
That's very true. Manufacturing consent is crucial. But it seems it doesn't really matter if there is consent or not. And that is becoming more apparant.
Seems it is the goal of legislation. To make it less necessary. I guess that one very primary element of a monarchy. Or dictatorship. By whom? Many ways to frame it....And they could all be valid - from differnt persectives.
Yeah well good luck stopping those in charge of the war. Should have voted for Perot and Nader like me. Too late kids. The empire's crumbling.
So you wanna play names? Two can play at that game. Good afternoon, Sioux Rose. Take that you piece of shit ! LOL !
Wow, this dude is a movie wating to happen. Having an apartment in Iceland, traveling to Kenya, Siberia, Vietnam, lecturing at the UC Berkeley and the 'Chaos Communication Conference,' surfacing for interviews in London or Berlin. Looks like Jim Carroll in his heyday. Treated with suspicion in his native Australia, and probably on some major shitlists of older, sadistic Americans with tinted windows, steel-rimmed glasses and heavy briefcases.
With this rockstar profile, the Leftist media are likely to adore him for a while, then get jealous and snide, while the Rightist media will likely be amused for a while, then label him a terrorist. Either that, or some personal eccentricity or history may catch up with him.
In any case, he's done a major amount of good, and has a massive capacity to do more, with the publicity he's got now. Let's hope the focus stays on that, so he can go on crushing bastards.
Zell, very intriguing post. Thanks for that.
I hope he does not fly anymore. Remember some timely aircraft accidents? Remember Wellstone? But, any aircraft he does take should be accompanied with the head mechanic of that aircraft-for insurance purposes only.
This is my comment to Der Spiegel article (translated):
WikiLeaks is the brilliant logical response to the American invention of "Embedded Journalism" - the manipulative, hero-horny war reporting.
While the speakers of the Obama administration show off as guardians of sacrosanct state secrets, the biggest American committers of treason enjoy their unchallenged freedom: George W. and Dick Cheney. Are they not reponsible for leaking to the press the name of agent Valerie Plame in revenge to her husband's speaking out the truth? - The American judiciary is bendable and forgetful.
Early this month, Cryptome made some allegations about Assange implying that he was skimming Wikileaks money.
http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-buck.htm
Does anyone know what this was (is) all about?
Yeah...but this one came from (I think) the co-founder of Wikileaks. Is the internal squabbling just an embarassing family display we should discreetly close the door on...or does it want our attention?
Nope. I admire Assange...and it was an honest question.
Michael F, she's really "Sioux Rose" pretending to be "katrine". You can tell if she doesn't wanna answer a simple question. SNARK, SNARK !
good response, K.
peacekeepertwo: Those who profit from War, will do all the can to hide what happens on the Battle Field.People who support War need to see how ugly War is. Its sad the way modern warfare allows soldiers, to Detach themselves from the results of their actions.I think their should have been A Wikileaks a long time Ago.
If one is a patriotic American, one should consider Julian Assange a hero.
This closing quote sums up a beautiful life mission statement:
We all only live once. So we are obligated to make good use of the time that we have, and to do something that is meaningful and satisfying. This is something that I find meaningful and satisfying. That is my temperament. I enjoy creating systems on a grand scale, and I enjoy helping people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards. So it is enjoyable work.
MicheleMoore-Happy1 July 27th, 2010 4:46 pm -- I'll second that.
One has the impression that this mission is totally incompatible with working for anyone desiring to suppress truth, regardless of their political persuasion. That Assange has accomplished so much in 39 years of life reminds me of what Martin Luther King accomplished in his 39 years.
Julian Assange has been a publicly known and respected individual since at least the mid nineties.
That he is one smart guy is beyond dispute but where he needs to tread carefully is if anything is perceived as a threat to Israel.
It is impossible to remain public and avoid Israeli hit squads indefinitely and with the latter it won't be a quiet disappearance but a very well published message, after the execution.
And the world will do nothing but mumble and make empty posturing noises.
THANK YOU WIKILEAKS-----IM SURE BEING THE REALIST YOU ARE THAT YOU ARE WELL AWARE YOU ARE ON MANY PEOPLES HIT LISTS--MOST OF WHOM HAVE NO REAL IDEA OF YOUR TRUE IMPORTANCE---BUT WITH THEIR ILLOGICAL FEARS OF THE WRONG PEOPLE, THEY LASH OUT AT WHATEVER AND WHOEVER THEY CAN
THEN YOU HAVE THE REAL DANGEROUS PEOPLE----ISRAEL--BLACKWATER--CIA---ETC WHO ARE JUST PRINCIPAL-LESS GOONS OUT TO SATISFY PRIMAL URGES.
I APPLAUD YOUR FORESIGHT AND COURAGE IN BRINGING OUT THE TRUTHS OF LIFE AND DEATH ON EARTH----CANT WAIT FOR YOUR PAPERS ON BP OR SOMEONE ELSE
KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK.
Tough call.
On one hand, you release and give the names of hundreds of innocent civilians who will then be killed by terrorists.
On the other hand, who wouldn't help get hundreds of innocent civilians killed to damage American war efforts?
I mean sure some people think this guy is an anti-war pacifist; I think we can see that isn't true. he's perfectly ok with helping get innocent civilians killed, so long as it damages America. he's not anti-war, he's on the other side.
I arrived late and don't post here often. It would really be nice if some of the regular posters would discuss the issues in the article rather than gobbling up 2/3rds of the posting space with their mental masturbations and attempts at erudite observations. Common Dreams needs to put a limit on how many times you can post to one article. If you have doubts, go back and check how many posts are about who might be a troll or how many trolls are posting and then all the stupid posts that go along with it.
Everyone who engages in waging war and violence against another is insane. Attack is insanity. Keep outing the crazy makers wikileaks.
Obviously we won't all have the same opinion, but hope people read my comment with an open mind.
I think many people aren't really seeing the ramifications of accepting a society where sites like Wikileaks and people like Julian Assange don't exist.
You need to consider that someone inside the US army wanted this information to be disclosed because he or she felt bad about what was happening.
For the record, I support the US war in Afghanistan and Iraq. For one reason and one reason alone. We can't let this nations become safe harbors for terrorists. And by the way, I think nations in Europe, Russia, China, and all others that don't share the fundamentalist mind set really need to step up their efforts or else they may end up being targeted too.
But I won't sacrifice any of the freedoms and liberties that took so many centuries to build because of this or any other conflict.
I think Americans know this words well and I think they as well as others in the world need to think about them:
"The price of freedoms is eternal vigilance". "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost."
We may not like what has been disclosed but truth is that many officials also hid and denied to the American people what was happening. And the people have the right to know. And quoting Julian, secrecy is needed but there is no excuse in democracy to use secrecy to conceal abuses. Or should we let our democratic elected governments use state secrecy to conduct any kind of abuse they wish? What happens when they abuse you instead?
By the way. Some people may have heard of Wikileaks only because of this high profile disclose. But truth is Wikileaks has been releasing very valuable information regarding abuses all over the world from any government, organization or whatever.
Lets face it. Many people want their heads.
Comet July 29th, 2010 5:57 am:
"For the record, I support the US war in Afghanistan and Iraq. For one reason and one reason alone. We can't let this nations become safe harbors for terrorists."
Please inform me which terrorists were being safely harbored in Iraq pre-March 2003? To my knowledge there were none. Now after a pre-emptive invasion and occupation there are many.
Also to my knowledge, the government of New Zealand is currently providing safe harbor to no terrorists. Does that mean the US should invade and occupy New Zealand to prevent it from potentially providing safe harbor to terrorists?
Please explain to me again why you support these wars?
Dude, you are the reason "truthers" or whatever the fuck you're called are not taken seriously, and this post is a perfect example.
You just took one simple comment by Assange and through heaps and heaps of speculative bullshit you conclude that he's a covert agent of the CIA, manipulating public perception with planted leaks to justify an official invasion of Pakistan. You could theoretically take a quote from anyone, apply equal amount speculative bullshit, and end up at a similar conclusion.
Instead of purporting theories wildly and irresponsibly extrapolated from facts, you would much better serve your purpose by sticking to the facts, and using those facts to ask questions, which will hopefully bring to light new facts as opposed to answering those questions based on conjecture.
For example, there are major and glaring facts that are diametrically opposed to the findings of the 911 Commission. We need fact-based answers to why these discrepancies exist, not wide-arching speculative theories. It's these theories that allow the people hiding the truth to dispel and marginalize those asking the questions.
They don't do logic here.
The trouble with allowing Moderator-out-to-lunch, anarchial free-form overpermissiveness here is that it turns this often incomparable, often illuminating Thread into a Trolls Delight resembling a verbal "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" at best!
As a sage scribe here eons ago above asked, Is it possible to limit over-the-top sagacious "contributors" to two or three ejaculations at most? Why, this naive neophytes is thinking: "There Goes the Neighborhoood!" ...but also that's free speech at its freest! Ugh.