Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange
Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.
Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.
We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.
So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth. The assault on them has been over the top:
**Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the Espionage Act."
**The New Yorker's George Packer calls Assange "super-secretive, thin-skinned, [and] megalomaniacal."
**Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."
**Democrat Bob Beckel (Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager) said about Assange on Fox: "A dead man can't leak stuff ... there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch."
**Republican Mary Matalin says "he's a psychopath, a sociopath ... He's a terrorist."
**Rep. Peter A. King calls WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization."
And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us!
WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets.
I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.
But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?
But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.)
Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?
Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.
Instead, secrets killed them.
For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the "official story." And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today.
Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed.
And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done. WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.
I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to continue unchallenged.
P.S. You can read the statement I filed today in the London court here.
P.P.S. If you're reading this in London, please go support Julian Assange and WikiLeaks at a demonstration at 1 PM today, Tuesday the 14th, in front of the Westminster court.
- 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...


342 Comments so far
Show AllThe "let it happen" theory doesn't explain how Building 7 collapsed into its own footprint without having been hit by an airplane. No steel frame building has ever collapsed that way as a result of fire alone.
If Wikileaks has some information I hope they'll publish it soon. But the existing information is enough to make nonsense of the official story.
Well, Larry, I guess you didn't hear that the heat was so intense from the other buildings that buidling #7 simply and scientifically unexplainedly "imploded" on itself.
There's no accounting for miracles! The Gods just work wonders!
Well said. I agree. I think you just earned a spot om the CD enemies list, however.
That 'dennab' seems willing to place all the folks on the left into one dumpster is simply silliness and perhaps even callow youthfulness, or maybe even agendized bullshite. That you leap to agree with such crap is simply sad.
Rather than approaching this as a matter of having the right beliefs about what happened, Moore is doing something concrete and proactive to actually find out the facts about what happened.
Why do you think so many people in power are flipping out about Wikileaks? Are we so naive as to think that there is nothing in the documents relating to 911 that has yet to be revealed?
Well, actually, they were pretty much ignoring wikileaks - which has been in operation for a few years now, until the diplomatic cable releases.
Unfortunately, the "let it happen" theory may never produce anything to leak, becasue stopping or diverting an ongoing investigation would only required a couple people high up in the DOJ close to the president, and what little paper trail ther might be would have the plausable denaibility that is the first step in any covert action.
That is why it is the most probable and the way the Bush family has always operated, a "let it happen" (War Machine needs a cover) and then cover up the cover.
The worst crimes are done without a paper trail on purpose because Leaks usually happen and the truth comes out eventually and usually too late.
Thank you Michael Moore.
ITs why Cheney went in person to Langley ( many more times than any other VP in history) so as to personally twist analysis's arms to get doctored intelligence for the Iraq invasion.
There is anecdotal evidence that there are many other sites like Wikileaks that have information on 911 as well as many files on Obama. Whether true or not, we will have to wait and see, but when Obama said that Wikileaks was " DEPLORABLE " it makes you wonder if he isn't worried about what they could reveal about him. Maybe he is an Manchurian Candidate...who knows.
How course, Moore totally left out of this article the Obama Administration response to Wikileaks. Regardless of this being a good thing -- and he wasn't the only one to offer bail -- let's portray the complete response, not just the Republican response. Unless of course Moore is expecting Obama to turn into the fictional Obama and do the right thing -- you know, like stand up for free speech and such. I mean they were even thinking about doing a Henry VIII-type move and change the law to get Assange on something.
What Moore is doing on this is much more important than trying to figure out whether or not he has the true beliefs about things.
Almost all CD posters push the idea that social and political change happens through partisan electoral politics. Once one embraces that belief, what difference does it make which candidates or parties one favors?
Maybe you are stressed because everybody has a theory and theories don't relieve stress like the true facts.
I have discovered like the ones you name that theories tend to cherry pick one photo or statement and leave the rest of the facts and context out of the picture.
Proof is not a theory unless you are brainwashed by the theory.
Deteriorata
"You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here
and whether you can hear it or not
the universe
is laughing behind your back."
More of the National Lampoon parody of Desiderata:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1NAwlepnSs&feature=related
As the original was just audio you might want to ignore the slideshow.
When, I wonder, are you going to realize that making stuff up is not going to stand and is certainly not going to give you the credibility you seem so desperate to earn? Learn your subject prior to espousing a position and you wont seem to be one who wears a bright red nose, floppy shoes and an orange wig while posting.
As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth,
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Hello Highkarate,
"I believe the point he was trying to make was that it didn't really matter to the extent that it was the bureaucratic state of affairs and it's agenda playing itself out."
It matters a lot. If anyone can prove beyond doubt that members of the government murdered 3000 of our people, more than one Bushite is going to get strung up or gassed or put up against a wall, and no one will trust our "establishment" until it has been completely replaced.
Chomsky, however, uses this very argument to prove that 9-11 couldn't have been an inside job. He says, in a 2009 video,
that the Republicans would never have done the deed because if caught they would be killed and the party destroyed forever; and anyway there are more important issues to pursue, so even if true, "who cares," just like who cares anymore who killed JFK; maybe an angry husband or the mafia. Yes, that's really what Chomsky says. Take a look.
... www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM
What 9-11 and the Kennedy assassination have in common is the issue of the secret government. If people came to understand that, it would make a very big difference, Chomsky notwithstanding.
The potential danger of Wikileaks is that as everyone rallies to support the Assange and Wikileaks if revelations come out that blatantly contradict common sense - e.g., the leaks support the fantastical Official Story of 9/11 - the left and other lovers of truth in America will be caught in the untenable and inescapable situation of having to support someone/thing that undermines their quest for justice.
For example, since last week, people on the right have been floating the rumor that Wikileaks confirms that Iraq did have loads of yellowcake uranium.
Now, that was just BS as far as we know, but what happens if indeed loads of disinfo are released that only SUPPORT the lies that we've been fed?
The majority of people here seem to believe that revelations from Wikileaks can only break one way - OURS - with NO thought as to the very grave consequences if WL begins to bolster the lies that our government has continually fed of for the last 10 years.
This is reason alone to wait and see what the leaks really reveal.
I mean, could someone design a better trap for the far-left if it does indeed prove to be so?
Good question about the "better trap" and I see this is an old trap of linguistics and how people think by the association of words and image.
For instance, isn't it a trap of "the far left" to worry that people on the right are gonna lie and start rumors?
That is a given and based on the over all, larger trap of the far left calling ourselves "the far left" and expect the majority to become the far left.
It is the oldest trick in language of the political spectrum to make every conflict a fight between the Left which means weak and sinister while only a small percent are left handed and even presidents who are left handed compensate by giving in to the conservatives while right means correct, true and powerful. The majority of people (right handed and like it that way) want to be associated with strength and winning not anything associated with the label "far left" or left in general.
The ruling class has cast the playing field of politics psychologically centuries ago...the political spectrum is cast in stone and we fall for it because we don't own our language, the ruling class always has.
it seems every debate on TV is about the left against the right and the Talking Heads never fail to reinforce it with the knowing smile as if they are so intelligent to observe the left against right conflict.
Left in the majority mind means to lose because experience proves who calls the shots every time.
It seems nobody wants to admit it even if they realize it because it seems so unfair and unsolvable.
This is the greatest trick of history hidden in plain sight and the most difficult of the majority to deal with because language rules the rules. I am trapped by it like we all are and probably more so because it always comes up in politics and conflicts.
I'm jus sayin
You raise an interesting point, a variation of which has occurred to me. What if the gov't, finding it can't shut Wikileaks down starts planting it's own stuff in places where it knows or suspects Wikileaks will find it? As it did in using the NYT, etc. to plant it's Iraq war and ever so much more stuff. That scenario would be much less obvious than the Times one - Wikileaks has a much cleaner rep now than the Times did then. This would require no collaboration on the part of Wikileaks , or any infiltration of their org. - they would simply continue to report on what they find. This potential wrinkle is in addition to the relatively superficial one of the media spinning the memos, as they did with those regarding the Arab leaders vis-a-vis iran .....
The fact that this is entirely possible tells me, not to distrust Wikileaks, which i think is a terrific org., but to insist on multiple sources from multiple sources before deciding where the "truth" lies .....
For purposes of discussion, let's include more of the phrase your quote is part of: "starts planting it's own stuff in places where it knows or suspects Wikileaks will find it?"
Considering that I noted in my post that the gov't already has, e.g. in the case of Iraq/NYT, planted stuff, your critique of my post on the basis that it contains a suggestion that such a tack with regard to Wikileaks would be a "start" of ANY such behavior, is, it would appear, to be a bit off the mark.
As for the Iran "justification" i suggest you read the article On CD that discusses it a bit more in depth and cuts the spin that the admin and the MSM have put on it. The fact is that Arab, especially Sunni Arab, monarchy leaders may well consider Iran a threat to their own personal interests, but, as noted in the article, these views are not shared by their People. The spin was to conflate the interests of the particular gov't with the interests of the people, or do you think that such an equation is legitimate?
So, do you think those memos were planted? And if so, then Wikileaks usefulness as a truth teller has already been compromised and the point of defending Assange becomes one, not of retaining Wikileaks function as a truth teller but of simply defending a guy who insisted on publishing stuff he thought the Gov't didn't want us to see. That in and of itself is a very worthy cause, but it would, IMO change the rhetoric a bit, don't you think?
Moore could have just observed or even applauded Assange and Wikileaks from the sidelines. Instead he is proactive, and I admire this.
~~
Anybody know what's up with "12 Comments so far. Comments will be closed for a few hours starting at 2AM EST" ??
Dear dus7:
I can't log in to some areas, and many posts show "flags on everything. I noted this on my "Raging Bull" comment at 9:53 at, CA time, ( although this one hadn't been flagged, yet .) I objected to whoever is doing this. Not all posts have all comments flagged, but many do. Perhaps, CDi s working in this., and therefore a cut off time. for comments I first saw it on Assange wins TIME award.
Someone, or many someones don't seem to care for freedom of speech. A "wimpy" attack?
Some kind of attack or technical issues with the upgrade? This morning my system was slowed to practically zero by "scripts" on CD - one after the other. CD was unnavigable. It crippled my slow dialup. Seems OK now except for no commenting on some articles.
AVAZZ online petition in support of Assange
http://www.avaaz.org/
Thanks Goat,
I just signed. A thrill to watch names flash over the screen from all over the world.
Hey Goat, thanks. I had heard of AVAZZ but had not gotten into it. Will continue to explore. Sounds like a good organization. Sort of like the new party discussed above in this blog, only global in scope. Oh, by the way, nice to be a fake new blogger on the fake site!
By the way, Thanks, MM. You do still slip into some hyperbole and exaggerated stuff. I agree with the comments that you probably edged close to the edge with the comment about WL being a T org. Watch your tongue. Others will. But you do seem to be maturing, and I applaud your new self. Unless this whole thing is invented by the CIA to fool me. And the corner grocery store too. All spooks. Eek.
I liked this one a lot: http://www.avaaz.org/en/highlights--human-rights.php
The Uganda human rights thing re. proposed law to execute gays. Good grief. If working with AVAZZ can stop that, we should all get involved.
"The wisdom of Moore is in now being challenged by half of society, as a survey just showed that 50% of Americans want WikiLeaks closed down"
To me this survey would suggest that Wikileaks has meant an epiphany for many amongst the other 50%.
Do you have to write like such an utter twat? These pseudo-profundities and spews of nonsense you litter the place with are an enormous waste of everyone's time. It's like watching some stoned onanist placidly setting down a blanket in order to jerk off in font of all of us; embarrassing, in bad taste and self-indulgent. I really think you've confused wankery and wisdom.
Either that or you're just a trollish dickhead polluting these comment threads in order to drive away readership.
In either case, I think it's just about time for you to fuck off.
Well that was certainly helpful.
Why do you read his comments if you are so offended by them?
You are welcome to ignore any commentary including mine.
I shall certainly ignore yours.
You think to be the conscience of CD, self appointed and completely unwanted of course.
Ellis posts drivel, endlessly in fact. His statistics are borderline insane and completely made up, on the spot I think. No matter how many times links are provided to show that very fact he continues to plow ahead posting time wasting nonsense and made up facts to support that nonsense.
Speaking of time wasting, your continual need to chastise others for displaying impatience with insanity or hypocrisy comes immediately to mind. Look to yourself, post political opinion if you wish, but please attempt to refrain from showing us the den mother inside of you.
This could indicate that close to 50% of the population can see past the smoke and mirrors/manufactured consent of the MSM/corpritocracy. That would be a revolution in itself.
Did you flag your own comment? ... and you think it was thought provoking?
Thanks I needed a laugh.
If you read your own comment you said to Sabo:
"To: SaboCat
I flagged my comment and it was destroyed -- why?"
--------
That is why I asked.
How do you know who flagged your comment?
Why did you flag Sabo's comment?
Why was it "thought provoking?"
That sounds foolish.
Better yet, now that we kicked out over 60 Blue Dogs, maybe Nader will join the progressive Democrats and take our party back from the cons that bought it. Changing the winning party is a better strategy than joining a losing third party.
Well said Dennab! There is only one party in Congress and that is the WAR PARTY,that has sold out the American people for at least the past 100 years or more.
But what does kicking out over 60 Blue Dogs tell you?
Policitians can be bought, even those in third parties, but direct democracies can't be bought when people decide the big issues, not compromised politicians. DD comes through progressive government, never from regressive government. All we need for progressive government is to kick out the rest of the Blue Dog conservatives in the Democratic party. http://ni4d.us/
Check out Senator Gravel's website and see how we can have direct democracy in spite of the two party system:
http://ni4d.us/
The Democratic Party has openly disowned the Left. The Blue Dogs aren't the only problem that party has and it's foolish to think that removing Blue Dogs will fix everything.
The Democratic Party is thoroughly corrupt and is no better than the Republican Party. In fact, your blind support for the Democratic Party contradicts your supposed support for direct democracy. Backing the two-party system reinforces our heavily illiberal democracy.
Blind partisanship and cults of personality will preserve the status quo, not change it.
"The Blue Dogs aren't the only problem that party has and it's foolish to think that removing Blue Dogs will fix everything."
The only problem the Democratic Party has is conservative Democrats--Blue Dogs and others. They're being voted out, which is a much faster process than starting from scratch with a third party that caters to left wing conservatives only. The earth can't afford eight or twelve more years of conservative rule.
"In fact, your blind support for the Democratic Party contradicts your supposed support for direct democracy. Backing the two-party system reinforces our heavily illiberal democracy."
I can relate to your anger, but it clouds the issues. The road to direct democracy is progressive, not regressive. Trading Hitler for Stalin will not achieve direct democracy.
Good going, MM! I especially appreciate the part about "publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving..."
More and more evidence that Assange is CIA. Whatreallyhappened.com. What does it mean that Michael Moore is pitching for this fake shill for war with Iran?
Dear "cascadian":
I think you are CIA...
Sorry, what?
WTF?
FTR, when Julian was taken into custody in London more than a week ago, several wealthy supporters came forward to provide bail money, if it would be accepted. It was not.
Heads Up: for those persons who want to better understand the legal situation of Julian Assange WRT to USA charges, here is a link to a 24 page pdf file. It was produced 6 Dec for CONGRESS by the Congressional Research Service - and was intended for them only, but the Electronic Frontier Foundation scored a copy.
Obtaining it is a 2 step process.
1) the EFF URL is as follows:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/information-antidote-fear-wikileaks-law-and-you
2) Go down the page to some RED PRINT that says: =CRS' latest memo on the Wikileaks= and clicking that will pull up the pdf file for viewing/saving. I've sent this file to some lawyer friends, for their consideration.
Trylon
Amazing. What governments really need to work for all the people is sunshine. Thanks Mike. We're with you and Julian.
..and with Bradley Manning.
Michael, you are my hero again. I was disappointed by your work on behalf of the despicable Democratic Party, but I guess errare humanum est. You've made your mistakes, as we all have. But your decision to support Assange verbally and financially shows your true character. I respect and admire you, Michael.
For the love of Dog, WTF are you talking about?
If you could read, you'd notice the difference between "pleasant" and "peasant." But that's a big "if". Get back on that turnip truck.