WikiLeaks cables: Live Q&A with Julian Assange NOW!

reply to post by blupblup

He's provided a platform or avenue for people to get their info heard.
Whistleblowers the world over have sent stuff to them, encrypted stuff and so on.

Isn’t the platform that most people are getting this from Guardian, NY Times, Le Monde and Der Speigal?

Take wikileaks out and why couldn’t the information just have been handed to these outlets directly? It’s happened plenty of times before and I don’t think Manning (if it was him) would have just deleted everything if wikileaks didn’t exist.

He may be a glorified "middle man" but he's done far more than anyone on here... and to say that he's not really done anything is harsh and not even remotely accurate.

I didn’t say he hasn’t done anything at all I said that he hadn’t done anything of note in relation to these leaks and as far as I can see he hasn’t. If he was taken out of the picture we’d still have the leaks and if anything there’d be more focus on them and not him and his rape case, as I think someone pointed out in the Q&A.

But doing more than anyone on here still isn’t grounds for the heights he is being lofted to; it’s becoming less and less about evaluating what has been leaked and more a crusade with Assange as a messiah figure. That strikes me as dangerous.

He's risked his life to get info out and expose government and military cover-ups and conspiracies.

But again how and, if so, for what purpose? At what point was it necessary for him to put himself at risk in order for any of this information to get out?

He could have remained totally anonymous or in fact have had nothing to do with any of this and the information would still have made it into the public. The critical people are those who get the information and those who directly publish it; neither of which has required Assange to put himself into the spotlight at all let alone to the degree that he has

I think he is just a person who has had it up to the gills with all of
the lying, thieving, back-stabbing crooks running this world, and he
is going to tell it like it is whether it costs him his fortune or even his
life. Someone with almonds the size of grapefruit, finally. Thanks for him.

Wikileaks Redactions Are Cowardly Wikileaks should stop the redactions of names in the diplomatic cables and war files and release untampered documents. Name redactions are immensely deceptive -- like knee-jerk claiming there are valid grounds for some vital secrets -- they are used to hold hostages under guise of protection. Continue to obey or your name will be revealed. Redact or you will be pilloried in public. (Toot: The New York Times tried the "responsible redaction" scam on Cryptome with the CIA Mossadeq overthrow report.) Dozens, perhaps hundreds of people are being put at risk by believing they are protected by the phony redaction scam Wikileaks has cowardly joined under pressure to conform to authoritative demands to be "responsible." Far better to tell the truth that the names are already loose so the victims know what the cabal of secretkeepers knows. As if those who know the true names at redacting authoritatives, at Wikileaks and among the lawyers, editors and personnel at its new big media bedmates will never tell, will tightly control the original documents, will never be subject to betrayal or a burglary or a leak, will never have a trusted insider who acts to inform the world, will never write a tell-all best seller like Daniel Schmidt, will never aspire to be Time's Person of the Year, a Nobelist, a movie star, a sexual predator eager to cut a deal with the authorities. Assange's craven desire to be an important world player is destructive to the Wikileaks initiative to engage many participants equally with preference for documents not personal fame. Fortunately, multiple wikis for leaking are now being set up unbound by Assange's lack of courage -- presuming that lack of courage is not contagious to the newcomers. Never redact. No vital secrets. No deals with cheating dealers. No gulling of more Bradley Mannings.

Source = cryptome.org...

Originally posted by Mike_A
Isn’t the platform that most people are getting this from Guardian, NY Times, Le Monde and Der Speigal?

Take wikileaks out and why couldn’t the information just have been handed to these outlets directly? It’s happened plenty of times before and I don’t think Manning (if it was him) would have just deleted everything if wikileaks didn’t exist.

Well Wikileaks has made quite a name for itself with some of the "leaks" they've had on their site, the aforementioned "murder" of a news reporter being one. That garnered a lot of attention and made people who are not into conspiracies and "alternative" news sites, sit up and take notice.

A year ago nobody had a clue about wikileaks apart from people who frequent sites such as these... now many people do know and I think that in itself is a good thing. people are questioning what their governments are saying and governments are getting twitchy and are squirming at the thought of what else wikileaks may have, so much so in fact that the site has now been "blocked" or literally "taken off the air".

I didn’t say he hasn’t done anything at all I said that he hadn’t done anything of note in relation to these leaks and as far as I can see he hasn’t. If he was taken out of the picture we’d still have the leaks and if anything there’d be more focus on them and not him and his rape case, as I think someone pointed out in the Q&A.

But how would we have the leaks?
Just the fact that "Whistleblowers" know that they have an ally... somewhere to go, that in itself gives confidence and empowerment to those coming forward.

Where would you suggest these people go?

The press in the UK are scared and bullied by Rupert Murdoch.... There's corruption in every Government and news corporation the world over.... should these people go to Fox News or Sky news with their info/evidence or whatever?

I think just facilitating this kind of thing is a noble thing in itself.

Maybe he could have remained anonymous but I'm not sure if that's possible..

But again how and, if so, for what purpose? At what point was it necessary for him to put himself at risk in order for any of this information to get out?

I'm not sure to be honest and you may well have a good point.
I don't know how and why he has made himself public or if he was actually "outed" by some news agencies or what?

I have been trying not to follow him and what he says, and have been trying to digest the info.... and see what I make of it all.


As I said on the last page... we may well be being played, the whole thing could be a front and they're just trying to collect the names and data of all the whistleblowers and in doing so, have to release little bits here and there.

I honestly don't know.... but for now, I say fair play to the guy and his organization.


It's the kind of thing that ATS could and maybe should be doing.

Although we did have that horses thing right?

God Damn it.

I wish I had seen this earlier...

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.

I'll be regarding most of his leaks as co-authored by TPTB, no one would have this info and say such a completely uninformed thing, unless they're apart of the same smear campaign I see in my the sitcoms, my kids watch. Thye so want to bury their technology in a world with billions starving. And that one statement made him one of them.

crave.cnet.co.uk...

Mercedes-Benz Biome concept car is "grown from DNA-modified seeds"

This is disclosure and most aren't getting it, they don't have eyes to see, ears to hear, or a mind to think deeply with.

This is also how crafts are grown in space. Apparently military were given this as well.

I guess his informants are a little lacking.

reply to post by blupblup

Well Wikileaks has made quite a name for itself with some of the "leaks" they've had on their site, the aforementioned "murder" of a news reporter being one, that garnered a lot of attention and made people who are not into conspiracies and "alternative" news site, sit up and take notice.

But it wasn’t wikileaks that actually took the video though and Manning could have sent it to many other news agencies that would have published it. It can’t be denied that serious incidents like that have been leaked before without anything like wikileaks being available. But even so this requires wikileaks which involves more people than just Assange so does he really deserve this glorification (or of course the anger) that he’s getting?

A year ago nobody had a clue about wikileaks apart from people who frequent sites such as these... now many people do know and I think that in itself is a good thing

A good thing for wikileaks but I don’t see how more people going to that site is of particular importance. It’s the information not where they get it and the information would be available regardless.

But how would we have the leaks?

We’ve always had leaks before. From Watergate in the US to the Parliamentary expenses scandal in the UK leaks have come out though traditional avenues for centuries.

You can’t really fall back onto the media corruption/bias argument because all of wikileaks releases have so far been publicised by that same media. If they’re willing to work with wikileaks to publish the information why wouldn’t they do so if they had direct access?

I would also go back to the fact that wikileaks is keeping information from the public in the form of its “history insurance” file which must have information that they believe to be very important. So trusting wikileaks is no better than trusting the media imo.

Wikileaks as a whole isn’t really doing anything new anyway; save for the medium and that they are doing it in bulk (but arguably at the expensive of quality, clarity and impact), but Assange in particular hasn’t personally really contributed much to freedom of information. So all this “I want to marry him” and “he’s a beautiful person” stuff is a worrying form of hero worship imo and could be dangerous down the line.

I don't know how and why he has made himself public or if he was actually "outed" by some news agencies or what?

As far as I know he put himself out as a spokesperson for the site but that could have been done anonymously and he’s certainly gone beyond that role. So if he has put himself at risk he has done so for his own reasons and not for the cause of truth.

I say fair play to the guy and his organization.

Nothing wrong with fair play it’s the marriage proposals that scare me.

I don’t think we’re being played I just think Assange has an ideology and an ego.

reply to post by Tholidor


If Wikileaks committed a crime by publishing leaded top secret documents and information, so has the Washington Post and the New York Times for doing the same during the Bush Administration and currently. The government must not be permitted to have double standards for internet reporters versus "mainstream" reporters.

This discussion is quite interesting as it gives insight into Julian's character and personality. Since the government now classifies everything as secret and our reporters are way to tame about secrecy, it's gettting to the point where if we want to know anything that is going on, it will have to be leaked to the public.

"people1st
Tom Flanagan, a 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
It is correct that Mr. Flanagan and the others seriously making these statements should be charged with incitement to commit murder."

Yet, if because his leaks someone does get killed, he'll say he's not responsible for their death. This guy is a cheesedick.