WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Daniel Ellsberg, a former Pentagon analyst best known for leaking key memos about the Vietnam War 40 years ago, led a packed forum at London's Frontline Club last night to discuss the fallout over the non-profit group's disclosure of approximately 400,000 US Army files documenting the Iraq War. While the two men predictably levelled forceful criticism at the Pentagon, their main target for most of the evening was actually the New York Times.
Assange fumed openly about John Burns and Ravi Somaiya's expose from this past Sunday's Times that characterized the WikiLeaks mastermind as increasingly paranoid, erratic, and dangerously egotistical. "It's a smear piece, and more tabloid behavior by the Times," Assange said of the article. "Is it that only journalists with bad character work for the Times?" he added, before quickly shifting gears to argue that that the paper is beholden to the US military-industrial complex and, as a result, too often confuses a false sense of balance with accuracy. WikiLeaks, Assange maintained, is free from the political constraints that tie the hands of a mainstream media organization like the Times, and so does not have to make editorial concessions to the Pentagon that could compromise its accuracy.
For Assange, the Times's allegedly compromised sense of accuracy clearly extends to the "terrible" article by Burns and Somaiya that seeks to analyze -- though, he would say impugn -- his character and motives. "Mr. Assange has come a long way from an unsettled childhood in Australia as a self-acknowledged social misfit who narrowly avoided prison after being convicted on 25 charges of computer hacking in 1995," reads the beginning of one damning passage.
Assange has acknowledged, and even accepted, that he has become part of the story he was trying to tell. "There is a market demand for information about us, that's not surprising," he said, seeming to acknowledge the level of secrecy in which the WikiLeaks operation is shrouded. But then he quickly returned to the Sunday Times article. "And, into that vacuum," he said, referring to the limited information about him and his organization available in the public domain, "steps people who make that up."
"And if you make stuff up about dissidents and lone heroes whose going to stop you?" Assange said. "You don't need to fact check when writing about that," he added, before turning the microphone over to Ellsberg.
Ellsberg, a source for the Burns and Somaiya article, was unequivocal in his support of Assange and what he sees as his mission to expose the dirty underbelly of a "lying" Pentagon (and, one could assume, of the Times).
Ellsberg is, of course, most famous for having distributed the so-called Pentagon Papers to the Times in 1971 -- and he did not miss an opportunity to join Assange in ridiculing the news organization. Going off on one of many tangents, he chided the paper for failing to support him when he was being prosecuted for treason by the US government, and for their policy of not revealing sources even after a source has outed himself. "Everyone knew it was me; I was being prosecuted!" Ellsberg joked.
The Times, of course, as it did with the Pentagon Papers, has proved to be an instrumental and influential outlet for WikiLeaks, bolstering the group's leaked documents -- including this most recent batch of Iraq War Logs -- with both context and a broad readership.
While Assange did not deny this, he suggested that the Times had pursued a political agenda in the way it had reported on war documents provided by WikiLeaks. In the case of the Afghan War Diaries, Assange noted that the two other news organizations that were leaked the reports, Der Spiegel and the Guardian, led with stories about Task Force 373, a NATO special forces unit charged with hunting down and killing senior Taliban officials. The Times, meanwhile, initially focused on those documents pertaining to Pakistan's involvement in Afghan conflict.
This did not stop WikiLeaks from using the Times for its most recent dispatch of war memos. Though, Assange was again disappointed in the way the paper reported on the material. He argued that the Times's coverage of the Iraq documents centered on the sections that highlighted Iran's funding of Iraqi militias, rather than the revelation that thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties had gone unreported. (For the record, on October 22 the paper published an articled entitled "Leaked Report Details Iran's Aid for Iraqi Militias," as well as one called "A Grim Portrait of Civilian Deaths in Iraq.") Assange did not comment on whether he would work with the news organization when circulating other leaked documents down the road, but rather emphasized that WikiLeaks would try to work with "broader coalitions" comprised of mainstream media, non-profit organizations, and human rights groups.
More to the point, as a result of the barrage of media attention directed at him and WikiLeaks since the release of the Afghan War Diaries in June, Assange may no longer need a news organization like the Times to help him get his message out.
In danger of being prosecuted by the US government under the Espionage Act, Assange is a man "on the run," as Burns and Somaiya noted on Sunday. But unlike most fugitives, he has a giant megaphone -- and he's not afraid to use it. "It's always a privilege to speak and have people listen," Assange said in response to a question about how he has been affected by criticism in the media.
"In so far as these attacks have given more of an audience, that's a good thing," he added.
Follow Christopher Alessi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisAlessi
During Vietnam relatively elite draft-age American youth very closely examined (and ultimately angrily rejected) the rationalizations for war being fostered by the “usual suspect” politicians and military-industrial complex.
With such rebellion foreclosed in the 1990s, the times called for a large increase – not decrease – in the conscientiousness of American leaders before resorting to war. The opposite occurred of course.
Which brings me to WikiLeaks. The world is not going to sit still for America “acting out” militarily as a rogue superpower. Here, information technology and conscience-stricken dissidents are serving as a corrective to the “carte blanche” that accompanied the end of conscription and politically freed multiple (conservative and neoliberal) war-like American presidents to turn our country into the equivalent of a regimented continent-wide aircraft carrier. A corps of rationalizers including fallen lawyers and judges have trashed civil society and (shades of Roland Freisler) helped America revive anew what LBJ called the “Murder Inc.” we were running in the Caribbean in the early 1960s, now writ large and world-wide. Enough is enough!
Thank goodness for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Godspeed to them.
Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California
http://www.libdems.us
Although some may be quick to denounce those of us who protested Vietnam back in the 60s and 70s, I know from personal experience that it was not all to "save our skin." Many looked deeply into the issues and saw through the lies and were unwilling to be sent to risk their lives for goals we did not believe were consistent with our national purpose.
As you have written, today there are not the same vested interests in looking further into the reasons behind such military interventions. We are too easily swayed by our own propaganda. A Chinese friend of mine, who grew up under Mao, says there is much more propaganda in the U.S. these days than there was in China. Sadly, I think she is right.
My government's actions, assertions and the rationals given for them need to be assessed by all since they represent us on the world stage. Frankly, I do not like what has been done "in our name" in many cases and feel they are a radical departure from the wonderful ideals our Founding Fathers laid down. We need to listen more carefully to Washington (foreign entanglements), Jefferson (on questioning government as our right and duty) and Eisenhower (on the military-industrial complex).
Not one document in that document-dump is alleged to be fraudulent.
Little has changed from the heady days in the 1970s when Mr. Elsberg released the 'confidential' Pentagon Papers - a historical treatise of the 'Indo-China Wars'. The goal? MURDER THE MESSENGER.
Our criminal president, Richard Nixon, set up the 'Plumbers Unit' which set out to discredit Mr. Elsberg. First stop? Mr. Elsberg's psychiatrist.
Back then, the NYT had some cajones. It was the 'fourth-branch' of government whose goal was to keep the 'government of the people' honest with its citizens.
What Pentagon Papers showed: the lies and deceipt of the government prosecuting this war.
What John Burns of the NYT shows today: The NYT has lost its cajones, and has become the stnographic arm of the government.
Burns' and NYT smear of Mr. Assange is truly despicable.
As the lies, deceipt, war crimes, killings of innocents, torture by the U.S., torture permitted by our client government of Iraq, etc. etc. sink in, Mr. Assange will occupy a position of honor and respect - just as is the case for Mr. Elsberg today.
So, why the smear upon Mr. Assange?
Absolute garbage; WikiLeaks is not 'using' the NYTimes. They disseminated the documents to media outlets around the world. It was the NYTime's prerogative to publish or not to publish. However, their attempt to publish with innuendo and slander is just as telling as the documents, because it also highlights their hypocrisy in the drum beat for the criminal war against innocent people.
When the NYTimes is ready to admit their own complicity in the war crimes against the Iraqi people then they will again be regarded as a unbiased distributor of news for intelligent people. Until then, their 'reporting' has the same effect as any other supermarket tabloid.
Isn't it about time that we stop with the tea party nonsense, the endless bashing of Palin-types and really take a look at who we support? The left wing AND the right wing are pro-war, pro-corporatism, pro-lobbyist--the entire system is corrupt inside and out.
IMHO we need to eliminate financial and "gift-based" lobbying by all (corporations, unions and even environmental organizations). If lobbyists of all types cannot convince our representatives of the correctness of their positions without material benefits, then they have no real basis for espousing them. Politicians who accept such material rewards should be punished to the fullest extent of the new laws (through loss of position and incarceration for violation of the public trust).
Given the above, we need to develop ways to use public funding for political campaigns. Use OUR public airwaves (and the private print media) to give legitimate candidates of all political persuasions an even playing field by having them present their positions and debate them on equal standing. Include in that process a means of objectively fact checking statements by each candidate and publicly revealing erroneous claims through the same media.
Stop the practice of riders on bills and have each issue voted on independently based on its merits, not on the trade-offs used to build so-called "consensus" today. It's essentially the same as paying someone else for their vote.
Until "we the people" decide we need to bring about REAL change ourselves, I'm afraid nothing really significant will happen.
Why doesn't anyone want to admit or face the truth?
"Zombie journalists eat their own" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html?_r=1
"Iraqi's brutally tortured as Psychotic War mongers take over the world"
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/26/wikileaks_founder_julian_assange_on_iraq
"Obama uses Nobel Peace prize award to pay off journalists for his War crimes"
VERY SCARY!!!
americans don't really care that their troops aid and abett murder, rape, torture etc.
So long as I can drive my SUV, eat Maccas and vote for repugs.......stuff everyone else.
Destroy the messenger, and ignore the message.
No matter his motives - the leaks are factual.
So, take notice of what your country and its military really are doing, americans!
We know what this publication did in the lead up to war with Iraq - we cannot let this happen with Iran. It is high time people started cancelling subscriptions and logging off their website.
I also respected journalists like veteran Middle East correspondent David Hirst, who has always sided with the people and lambasted the ruling dictators. Unfortunately, the New York times editorial people rarely make that distinction.
Maybe if you'd listened to people like Ritter we wouldn''t be in this mess, but nooooooooo, you elites think you know everything, when most often you are so full of arrogance and hubris you totally mess up. But waging a war thousands of miles away and cutting taxes for the rich at the same time is really a no brainer, about as stupid as thinking you could occupy any people without resistance.
They're going to greet us as liberators, didn't you know? It's going to happen any day now.
I get it: when you dont like the message - just shoot the messenger!
Its okay to kill and torture Iraqis by the busload as long as you DONT GET CAUGHT DOING IT. And if you do get caught, blame the guy that caught ya!