Pillar Hillary Clinton, not Julian Assange. She subverted the democratic process by slandering Sanders and then has the chutzpah to blame the Russians , Trump and Assange. She's an untrustworthy kid saying the other kids did it , not her. Besides,she wants to start a war with Russia.
56
Can we trust Hillary and Donald?
31
[For many of those who know him well, Mr. Assange is afflicted by what the police call “noble cause corruption,” a belief that noble ends justify reckless or immoral means.]
If his powerful detractors accuse him of this, then the pot is calling the kettle black.
If his powerful detractors accuse him of this, then the pot is calling the kettle black.
20
Wikileaks gave us Climategate. Remember? No? Oh well.
6
Assange trustworthy? Is that a serious question? Of course he isn't!!!!!!
29
Funny, we dont see WikiLeaks or Anonymous doing any outing of Russian, Chinese, Iranian, Saudi, North Korean or ISIS documents.
53
So you liked them before he released the Hillary emails?
30
Assange is filling the void that the decline of journalism has opened. John Oliver explains this best: http://www.boston.com/culture/entertainment/2016/08/08/john-oliver-spotl...
42
Truly Amazing write-up!!
The best part of this article, was the fact that WikiLeaks is doing EXACTLY what journalists did (well minus the NY POST that is), Investigation of public officials!! It is a sad state of journalism, when "newspapers" call out what's "wrong" simply because...well....The publishers don't want the Truth coming out, else they might appear more corrupt & in the pockets of the Clintons than they already are...SO VERY SAD!!
The best part of this article, was the fact that WikiLeaks is doing EXACTLY what journalists did (well minus the NY POST that is), Investigation of public officials!! It is a sad state of journalism, when "newspapers" call out what's "wrong" simply because...well....The publishers don't want the Truth coming out, else they might appear more corrupt & in the pockets of the Clintons than they already are...SO VERY SAD!!
63
The disgusting Mr. Assange is NOT about transparency. He's about manipulation, threats, politics and phoney-baloney hyped as "transparency". Pffft!
44
NYT believed him before.
Snowden chastising Assange, really?
This couldn't be another "cover Hillary's story" could it?
Snowden chastising Assange, really?
This couldn't be another "cover Hillary's story" could it?
32
Will the mainstream media lift their behinds and go do journalism 101 when Wikileaks releases the bombshell of Hillary's relations with French company "LaFarge"? We already know she's corrupt, but war profiting from business dealings with ISIS is just too much, even for her standards.
33
I recommend that everyone employ critical thinking when getting information from any needs source - be that source Julian Assange, Alex Gibney or The New York Times. No news source is 100% reliable, and all owe somebody a favor somewhere. In this case. am disappointed to see Mr. Gibney making a personal attack on Mr. Assange here, and recycling some old smears like the Swedish " rape" case. Mr. Gibney should know it has never been a rape case,and, more important, that Mr. Assange has never been indicted. And if he could read Swedish as I do, he would know there are many Swedes who have found the entire case questionable - and that all charges but one were dropped last year. He would also know that an independent UN Human Rights panel issued a report in February, 2016, that was highly critical of both Swedish and UK actions in the case. Mr. Gibney continues in the same vein when he repeats the DNC McCarthyite smears about Russia being behind the DNC leaks. These smears were debunked by NSA whistleblower William Binney, who pointed out the NSA was a more likely source. And as a supporter of Bernie Sanders, I might add that the source is irrelevant. No one has disputed the authenticity of the material leaked. Mr. Assange may be arrogant and ruthless. and a hopeless womanizer - but that would hardly make him unique among journalists.He deserves scrutiny and criticism, but not this kind. If Mr. Gibney needs funding for a new project, I understand!
31
Assange is a fugitive from justice. The only thing he needs to see, seriously, is the inside of a courtroom! HOW DARE "the media" treat him as a "respected resource for news". Why has he not been arrested?
30
The problem the writer exposes is not that it is wrong that Julian Assange doesn't like Hillary Clinton, so releases material damaging to her, is that he might NOT release material damaging to others, like Donald Trump, or Putin. Let's see Donald's tax returns, for example!
16
Assange was a hero when he released the information provided by Chelsea Manning but now he is untrustworthy because he is about to release information that will harm Hillary? What's the ending of that old story - you knew I was a snake when you picked me up.
29
I find the article by Mr. Gibney ridiculous . . . He seems to blame the messenger rather then the DNC. How can the New York Times actually publish such trash?
34
Democrats terrified of October surprise. NYT knows Hillary is not mentally fit to hold office. she and Obama have torn throughout the world destroying Countries and turning them over to the Jihadi's. RESTARTED the Nuclear arms Race and are responsible for 100,s of thousands of deaths. I watched JFK cuba speech the other day. That was when Presidents didn't LIE to the American people. Dems now lie to make MONEY off American demise. CONFLICT CAPITALISM!
22
"reckless and agenda-driven": would that not describe Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and most members of Congress? Is fire not fought with fire?
13
The media knows how to manipulate the people. The fact is the media is not talking about what is in the emails that shines a negative light on Clinton. Instead the media slight of hand has you now talking about Putin's relationship with Trump (clearly a media manipulation), and whether Julian Assange and Wikileaks can be trusted and/or if Russia is manipulating our election.
Be very careful as it appears the media is guiding you on telling you how to think about certain issues. Get the facts by doing a search yourself and don't just read one source. The truth is out there if you take the responsibility to search as you should if you are going to vote. Get all the facts and think for yourself.
Be very careful as it appears the media is guiding you on telling you how to think about certain issues. Get the facts by doing a search yourself and don't just read one source. The truth is out there if you take the responsibility to search as you should if you are going to vote. Get all the facts and think for yourself.
34
No.My family :no.My friends:no...up until Adam and Eve.
Animals: no
What is left?Only an elegiac collection about distrust ,infidelities and more...?
What is left : the chosen.
That will do.
Animals: no
What is left?Only an elegiac collection about distrust ,infidelities and more...?
What is left : the chosen.
That will do.
2
I would agree with you completely if you hadn't published this in an election year when you've been cheerleading the Clinton Presidential run to the extent this paper has.
Everyone knows that there will be more bad leaks coming soon. Revisit this once the damage has been done, and the election is over and done with. Otherwise it is just blatant hypocrisy on the part of the Times after all there are a lot of young people who are asking "Can we trust the New York Times, it has become agenda driven"
Everyone knows that there will be more bad leaks coming soon. Revisit this once the damage has been done, and the election is over and done with. Otherwise it is just blatant hypocrisy on the part of the Times after all there are a lot of young people who are asking "Can we trust the New York Times, it has become agenda driven"
21
Lets see trust Assange, Clinton, Trump or Wasserman? Add to that trust Congress in general or the corporate news media? In looking at this list, no to all.
11
The New York Times is no doubt guilty of conspiracy against Sanders and against Tim Canova, who is running against Debbie Wasserman Schultz in Florida. Is it no wonder they would run an Op Ed like this against WikiLeaks.
It's like the mafia running an ad campaign against honest politicians and judges. No difference.
I look forward to reading headlines saying that the editors and op-Ed writers are indicted for treason.
The world is watching, you morons.
It's like the mafia running an ad campaign against honest politicians and judges. No difference.
I look forward to reading headlines saying that the editors and op-Ed writers are indicted for treason.
The world is watching, you morons.
34
Wouldn't it be nice if investigative journalists brought us this kind of vital information.
27
One of the "terrible" disclosures in the DNC emails was alluding to Bernie Sanders' faith and his Jewish heritage. I love Bernie, but now I'm an ardent Hillary supporter. The Republicans loved Bernie to death, but didn't ever mention his Jewishness. I am sure the honorable GOP campaigning would have been just a wee bit different had Senator Sanders got the nod. I can just see it now. Bernie the communist, the Christ killer, the antichrist. Yep, that's the GOP, always standing up for what's right. I hope Hillary beats Trump by twenty million votes...at least. My faith in the US will then be restored.
22
While I don't support Trump and certainly won't be voting for him, I detect some bias in this article. If these details had been about Trump, the NYT would not be throwing the term "agenda" around.
28
Mr Assange would be far more credible if Wikileaks had a history of releasing emails from Russia and China as well as from America. As it is he comes across as just another America basher.
31
Alex Gibney: So you don't control Wikileaks. Too bad you stand with the established media working hand and glove with our elected politicians and their minions to distort even the meaning of the word "is" or like Mrs. Clinton, who forgives herself by diverting accusations of mishandling state secrets by asking us to consider "context" of her offense. Sometimes you have to trust the public to evaluate information rather than have it "curated" by publishers with their own political agenda.
And Edward Snowden, by the way, is no paragon of how to leak government information of public interest. He would have given NSA files to Russia in return for political asylum. And you can't prove that Wikileaked government files have been compromised.
And Edward Snowden, by the way, is no paragon of how to leak government information of public interest. He would have given NSA files to Russia in return for political asylum. And you can't prove that Wikileaked government files have been compromised.
12
There is the real issue of what journalistic standards should govern leaks, a thorny one because leaks, whether in WikiLeaks or the New York Times, are illegal period, but much of the criticism here seems to depend less on principle than on whose ox is being gored.
7
It appears that the DNC has swung into pre-emptive damage-control mode and the NYT is serving as one of its tools for getting the job done. Questioning the motives and moral character of the leaker in an attempt to disparage what may be leaked? It is indeed lofty to exercise such a high standard of quality assurance when evaluating leaked information, but tell us, NYT: is this your new standard for journalism in general, or only for when the message causes discomfort to those who are ideologically inclined the same way that you are?
28
Wikileaks did us a huge favor by disclosing Hillary Clinton's State Departments involvement in bringing about an uprising in Syria. American voters deserve to know the truth before they pull the lever on November 8th.
27
What an amusing title! A newspaper that blatantly displays its bias toward the right wing of the Democratic party and serves up a steady stream of anti-everybody else hysterical propaganda has no business questioning the motives of anyone, much less people like Assange and Snowden who have preformed the most awesome service to humanity at great personal risk.
WikiLeaks is the only reason we know anything about the secret world of how our government is working to destroy the Bill of Rights, since papers like the NYT are only too happy to ignore the huge stories and let the truth go unpublished. It is all the more sad because the Times used to be a world class publication with the best writers. Now it is a refuge for prejudiced, mediocre apologists and lap-dog liberals.
WikiLeaks is the only reason we know anything about the secret world of how our government is working to destroy the Bill of Rights, since papers like the NYT are only too happy to ignore the huge stories and let the truth go unpublished. It is all the more sad because the Times used to be a world class publication with the best writers. Now it is a refuge for prejudiced, mediocre apologists and lap-dog liberals.
20
So far, everything WikiLeaks has reported is true. WikiLeaks doesn't take unverified government or corporate spin and publish it as "unnamed sources say..."
That must threaten major media outlets, because instead of focusing on the truth and substance of the stories WikiLeaks breaks, the focus is always on Julian Assange's foibles and personality flaws, and not more interesting topics, such as:
Is everything in the MSM true? Can we trust the MSM? Can we trust the NYT?
Yes, Assange is an unfortunate leader for such an organization. He certainly seems like a jerk. But he reason he runs WikiLeaks is that he built it himself, and on the whole WikiLeaks has done a lot of good in the world.
As for all the commenters saying the DNC emails don't show anything bad: they show a conspiracy within an organization that held itself out as neutral on the matter they conspired to influence. I don't mean a "conspiracy theory," I mean it was an actual, dictionary-definition conspiracy. It's a conspiracy even if nothing more was ever carried out, which is a naive thing to believe.
That's a major story whether partisans like it or not.
That must threaten major media outlets, because instead of focusing on the truth and substance of the stories WikiLeaks breaks, the focus is always on Julian Assange's foibles and personality flaws, and not more interesting topics, such as:
Is everything in the MSM true? Can we trust the MSM? Can we trust the NYT?
Yes, Assange is an unfortunate leader for such an organization. He certainly seems like a jerk. But he reason he runs WikiLeaks is that he built it himself, and on the whole WikiLeaks has done a lot of good in the world.
As for all the commenters saying the DNC emails don't show anything bad: they show a conspiracy within an organization that held itself out as neutral on the matter they conspired to influence. I don't mean a "conspiracy theory," I mean it was an actual, dictionary-definition conspiracy. It's a conspiracy even if nothing more was ever carried out, which is a naive thing to believe.
That's a major story whether partisans like it or not.
24
I appreciate the role of WikiLeaks and people like Edward Snowden; however, I think Julian Assange is beginning to display Trump-like tendencies, with personal vendettas and 'transparency at all cost' being more important than principle. Snowden's critique was exactly right; particularly since this leak was hardly shocking or relevant to the protection of our democracy. Did anyone really think that either the DNC or the RNC do not 'pick' a winner and throw their support behind that candidate? They are, after all, private political organizations. I am a Bernie supporter; however, in this case I think Assange's big reveal was a minor embarrassment to the DNC v some earth-shaking revelation. His recent interview with Bill Maher confirmed my sense of his arrogance and 'personalization' of the issue. He now believes he's bigger than his cause...
18
Of course not. They have their own agenda. Julian has a strong sense of revenge and he is acting on it. Power corrupts.
14
Can we just go get this guy and lock him up already? It's getting ridiculous how he tries to undermine an election he has no place interfering with, and continually put people's lives in danger by exposing undercover operatives, claiming he's doing a service to humanity. All the while, he insists there is no merit to the sexual assault claims against him. A bit of a hypocrite, isn't he? This character should not be allowed to be free to continue his operations. Time to bring him to justice and put him in jail where he belongs.
16
"We still don’t know who leaked the D.N.C. archive, but given Mr. Assange’s past association with Russia, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that it was a Russian agent or an intermediary. Mr. Assange insists this is a mere distraction ..."
How can the communications of the DNC be of public interest, but the communication of the emails to Wikileaks not be of public interest? The DNC had a secret agenda. Wikileaks is no mere messenger; it and its information provider have agendas too.
How can the communications of the DNC be of public interest, but the communication of the emails to Wikileaks not be of public interest? The DNC had a secret agenda. Wikileaks is no mere messenger; it and its information provider have agendas too.
11
Assange clearly has an axe to grind; he is far from impartial.
22
Thanks for this great opinion piece, Alex. Julian Assange was interviewed on Bill Maher Show this week. Maher is on balance a supporter of Assange. However, Assange had a trump-like tendency to take umbrage at difficult questions and to counter-punch at the questioner personally when he doesn't like the question. Like the Donald of course he does have real enemies and has a right to be paranoid. I agree that Assange has biases, but so does all media, including the vaunted NYT. Its human to have biases, and especially to have unconscious biases. Secondly, we cannot hold Wiki to the same standards as mainstream journalism. Wiki is a journalistic source and a rich one at that, with a proven track record of finding information that will change world history. He cannot be held to the same journalistic ethical standards as mainstream media, because his mission primarily is to get the information out; and with a very low budget. It is wrong to accuse him of not redacting, when the mainstream media can do that task based on its more fulsome journalistic ethics. If Assange is waiting for an opportune time to sabotage Hillary's campaign, so be it. We will just have to wait and see what he has. He did say to Bill Maher that he is working on getting the Trump tax returns, which shows somewhat of a journalistic even hand.
4
On the planet where I live, it was clear the Hillary Clinton had an unsurmountable lead in the primary at the time (April/May 2016) those anti-Bernie emails were written. It was time for Democrats to coalesce on the cause of winning in November. Bernie's foolhardy intrasigence was met with scorn by DNC operatives - big suprise. We are all shocked, shocked, to find out there are people trying to win elections at the DNC. The undeniable Russian cryptographic fingerprints on the malware of the hacekrs is the real story here.
15
There was little of any world-shattering value in this data dump. It only tarnished the reputations of a few political operatives; it wasn't necessary to world peace or anything so why did he do it? The simple answer seems to be to damage Clinton and, perhaps to remind everyone that he's still relevant. He may also be a little bit cozy with Russia. In his interview with Bill Maher, he came across as shifty and unwilling to answer basic questions.
17
Where is Mr. Gibney's moral compass? How does he decide what hacking is in the public interest and what is not? That's why we have a fourth amendment, a right to privacy, an elected legislative and executive branches of government, and a judicial branch to interpret the law. We don't allow documentary filmmakers or anyone else to just decide when it's OK to hack, and that includes Assange and Snowden. The danger to all of us is obvious, and scrubbing the information hacked doesn't justify any of it. Joshua
10
Mr Assange is a Citizen of western Democracy, i.e. Sweden ( Or Australia, Austria, whatever ).4 instance in the US even some convicted 4 murder long ago and were given life sentence their cause gets taken by a Law Prof and his or her Law students and their innocence got established eventually being freed( there r several such instances ).Countries mentioned above and UK have similar Justice system to that of the US.Why doesn't he get out and face the court outcome of what he is accused of.By infringing in the US Democratic process he has tried to jeopardize the World's oldest Democracy,his act is the internet age equivalent of The WG break in.His position all along is that he is doing what is doing to defend the Public's Democratic right to know and disrupting a democratic process doesn't prove that.Normal rebels they go to exile to where Democracies to lead a resistance against a tyrannical regime ( that is what my generation of radical student activists did ).A true fighter for a broader Democratic practice doesn't have to get holed up in S.American Country (Ecuador's Embassy Comp is a miniature sovereign Ecuador ) which is not a full fledged Democracy to sabotage an exemplary Democracy at work.It is long over due 4 him 2 step outside the Diplo Comp in London have his Miranda read for him. Myself and my comrades were taken as pol prisoners jailed indefinitely and outlived it and r still around he shouldn't b afraid that much.We got no hearing he will have a televised 1.TMD.
3
Justifying theft of the DNC e-mails is tantamount to approving the original Watergate break-in. We've come a long way, baby! It used to be that this stuff was frowned upon. A president once had to resign for trying to cover up what is now seen as a badge of honor.
5
It's interesting to me that so many of these comments are attacking the writer (and The Times) rather than responding to the fair points he makes. Do note that the Times published the story about the DNC leaks - a harsh story without mitigating commentary) - as soon as the emails were leaked. There have been a number of follow up stories with references to the content of those leaks, strongly unfavorable to the DNC.
But here again we see the phenomenon of "confirmation bias". If some Times readers see a critical article about a candidate they don't like (or the organization that supports her), that's good reporting. But if that paper publishes an Op Ed piece examining aspects of the individual disseminating that information, suddenly it's a "smear".
Good or bad, Julian Assange is a selective disseminator of information and deserves to be under the microscope as much as anyone else with power to influence us.
It's the Times readers who should examine themselves.
But here again we see the phenomenon of "confirmation bias". If some Times readers see a critical article about a candidate they don't like (or the organization that supports her), that's good reporting. But if that paper publishes an Op Ed piece examining aspects of the individual disseminating that information, suddenly it's a "smear".
Good or bad, Julian Assange is a selective disseminator of information and deserves to be under the microscope as much as anyone else with power to influence us.
It's the Times readers who should examine themselves.
11
Until someone shows me definitive proof that any of Wikileaks' documents on any matter are not pristine, then I will trust that the documents they provide are authentic.
The ethics of the sourcing of the leaks and decisions relating to timing of disclosure, inclusivity of material, etc are all matters worthy of debate. What is not debatable is that the DNC claimed to be even-handed while actually colluding with the press and the Clinton campaign to undermine Sanders. Most of his supporters understood this all along, but were roundly ridiculed as "conspiracy theorists", including (at a minimum obliquely) by the NYT. This particular Sanders supporter is thankful for being vindicated, and I would encourage the NYT to exercise greater humility and diligence in it's coverage of its chosen candidate.
The ethics of the sourcing of the leaks and decisions relating to timing of disclosure, inclusivity of material, etc are all matters worthy of debate. What is not debatable is that the DNC claimed to be even-handed while actually colluding with the press and the Clinton campaign to undermine Sanders. Most of his supporters understood this all along, but were roundly ridiculed as "conspiracy theorists", including (at a minimum obliquely) by the NYT. This particular Sanders supporter is thankful for being vindicated, and I would encourage the NYT to exercise greater humility and diligence in it's coverage of its chosen candidate.
14
Unfortunately, with SIX major corporations in America now controlling almost all of what Americans read, see or hear, like it or not with digital media, people like Snowden and Assange exposed important information, especially with respect to the gradual, hidden and unaccountable encroachment of civil liberties by government organizations, something mainstream media like the NYT, chose to ignore until, of course, after Snowden, they had no choice.
One can argue the timing of the release of these E-Mails, but let us not be misdirected away from their actual content and purpose. Now, because of their dismal reporting and total failure writing about these important issues, all of this is coming back to bite the mainstream media since the NYT and other media sources still think that they are the only ones that are allowed to have an agenda and still be considered trustworthy.
One can argue the timing of the release of these E-Mails, but let us not be misdirected away from their actual content and purpose. Now, because of their dismal reporting and total failure writing about these important issues, all of this is coming back to bite the mainstream media since the NYT and other media sources still think that they are the only ones that are allowed to have an agenda and still be considered trustworthy.
15
What a stupid question the headline asks: "Can We Trust Julian Assange?" The man is a thief who uses the information he steals for his own agenda, not for us, whoever "we" may be. The fact that the release of this stolen information may benefit some of "us" does not mean he is on "our" side or that we can trust him.
6
The leaks and Mr. Assange himself are offensive and in many cases dangerous. Sadly, sometimes the leaks are well deserved such as in the case of the DNC.
However, because of the leaks and the damage they have done to many innocent and undeserving people, I have a very low opinion of Assange and his whole apparatus. I will never see him as an honorable man.
However, because of the leaks and the damage they have done to many innocent and undeserving people, I have a very low opinion of Assange and his whole apparatus. I will never see him as an honorable man.
13
I can't trust someone who make it his business to steal private communications & documents and make them "public," ostensibly in the public interest. He is not a whistleblower, just a professional thief and a very dangerous person.
15
The only thing we need to be able to trust Assange and Wikileaks for is that the emails are genuine. I haven't heard anyone challenge that. The rest is just noise.
19
Wikileaks is transparent about everything but wikileaks... hmmm; a conflict Mr. Assange?
There are things about which to be transparent, and there are things about which transparency really makes no difference or has a negative impact. Mr. Assange has long demonstrated an inability to know the difference, or to care.
There are things about which to be transparent, and there are things about which transparency really makes no difference or has a negative impact. Mr. Assange has long demonstrated an inability to know the difference, or to care.
8
I disagree wholeheartedly.
First, it WAS in the "public's interest" to learn about the alleged conspiracy within the DNC MONTHS ago.
Absent proof that Hillary Clinton or her campaign was involved in the conspiracy, the public's interest has passed - as indicated by the polls.
Second, Russia's alleged involvement in the leak is a matter of national security interests, perhaps. As for the public, it's focus needs to remain on the candidates.
As for Julian Assange, his attempt to be anything more than a footnote in history has failed. He will be long forgotten - or confused with Edward Snowden - by the time he leaves Ecuador's shelter or dies, whichever comes first.
First, it WAS in the "public's interest" to learn about the alleged conspiracy within the DNC MONTHS ago.
Absent proof that Hillary Clinton or her campaign was involved in the conspiracy, the public's interest has passed - as indicated by the polls.
Second, Russia's alleged involvement in the leak is a matter of national security interests, perhaps. As for the public, it's focus needs to remain on the candidates.
As for Julian Assange, his attempt to be anything more than a footnote in history has failed. He will be long forgotten - or confused with Edward Snowden - by the time he leaves Ecuador's shelter or dies, whichever comes first.
5
Mr Assange is about Mr. Assange and what Mr. Assange loves more than anything is power. Nothing new there. He's a kind of megalomaniac who uses information as a weapon to further his own ends. What those ends are, I'm not sure, but I think its less about doing something for the betterment of mankind than it is a kind of fetishistic glee in watching how the world reacts to the leaks his organization put out and watching the leaked scramble to find ways to deal with the breaches. He hates the United States, thats very clear as we seem to be his number one target. On the other hand I've never seen a significant leak of highly sensitive material out of Russia for example. Or China. Which tells me that either those countries are much better at protecting their data networks than we are or you don't bite the hand that feeds. My feeling about the DNC hack is that we all know that Donald Trump is Mr. Putins choice for president. Mr. Putin also knows that Julian Assange loves nothing more than needling the United States so enlisting him and the services of his hacker brownshirts was logical.
13
I saw Assange on a couple of "the shows" recently (with his idiotic logo dripping behind him). He made a very poor impression on me. His answers were diffuse and evasive, his manner arrogant. He struck me as a self-promoter, a troublemaker pure and simple, & I doubt that his employees (if there are any) have any great respect for him.
6
It seems that more is coming and this is a prophylaxis.
The focus again is on the messenger instead of the mesage(s). Putin doesn't need to be discredited in the eyes of Americans, so an association is sufficient. With Julian Assange, the establishment also needs to discredit him (which doesn't seem too difficult.) But the truths that are becoming exposed need to be evaluated, regardless of how it occurs.
The focus again is on the messenger instead of the mesage(s). Putin doesn't need to be discredited in the eyes of Americans, so an association is sufficient. With Julian Assange, the establishment also needs to discredit him (which doesn't seem too difficult.) But the truths that are becoming exposed need to be evaluated, regardless of how it occurs.
10
"There is no evidence that any of those people were killed. But people could have been hurt."
Actually you don't know that they weren't killed or hurt, and to phrase it the way you did is to buy into the blogosphere notion of proving "no harm" -- if you can't post a link to it, we didn't hurt anyone.
International law, in particular, sees it quite differently. You will find that documents that protect civilians from war or governments believe that once, say, a war crime has been alleged, you First bring the suspects into custody and only Then do you ask those who have been victimized to come forward Cf. the Geneva Conventions, cf. the Torture Convention, etc.
Those with more experience in protecting confidentiality to protect safety in the world's worst situations know that the internet/press assertion that if it wasn't reported, harm never happened is a smokescreen for irresponsible handling of other people's private information. Read the ICG's report on casualties in South Sudan, and then try to tell us if you can't find a report of a death or atrocity it never happened but only "could have".
Actually you don't know that they weren't killed or hurt, and to phrase it the way you did is to buy into the blogosphere notion of proving "no harm" -- if you can't post a link to it, we didn't hurt anyone.
International law, in particular, sees it quite differently. You will find that documents that protect civilians from war or governments believe that once, say, a war crime has been alleged, you First bring the suspects into custody and only Then do you ask those who have been victimized to come forward Cf. the Geneva Conventions, cf. the Torture Convention, etc.
Those with more experience in protecting confidentiality to protect safety in the world's worst situations know that the internet/press assertion that if it wasn't reported, harm never happened is a smokescreen for irresponsible handling of other people's private information. Read the ICG's report on casualties in South Sudan, and then try to tell us if you can't find a report of a death or atrocity it never happened but only "could have".
2
Assange is on a personal vendetta, a reckless one at that. His targets are numerous. And his glee ("great fun," "very happy") with the damage he and his Russian associates inflicted on the DNC and the Clinton campaign is self-serving and juvenile.
But so far as the DNC hacking is concerned, a greater failure has been the media's inability to analyze what really took place. Some understandably non-neutral griping and dark thoughts passed on occasion back and forth among DNC functionaries, even most notoriously the tasteless one of asking if Bernie Sanders might be an atheist and not a faithfully religious Jew. But apart from bias of sentiment nothing was actually done by the DNC that would disadvantage the Sanders campaign. (The number and scheduling of Democratic candidate debates had long previously been set before anyone thought Sanders would be even a flash in the pan.)
But the hacked emails could be made to feed into the "rigged" narrative the the Sanders people--and the Trump people on the other side--were pushing. And the press swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
So Assange had his gleeful triumph. And his reward: a remote appearance in behalf of Jill Stein at the Green Party convention. Applause all around.
But so far as the DNC hacking is concerned, a greater failure has been the media's inability to analyze what really took place. Some understandably non-neutral griping and dark thoughts passed on occasion back and forth among DNC functionaries, even most notoriously the tasteless one of asking if Bernie Sanders might be an atheist and not a faithfully religious Jew. But apart from bias of sentiment nothing was actually done by the DNC that would disadvantage the Sanders campaign. (The number and scheduling of Democratic candidate debates had long previously been set before anyone thought Sanders would be even a flash in the pan.)
But the hacked emails could be made to feed into the "rigged" narrative the the Sanders people--and the Trump people on the other side--were pushing. And the press swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
So Assange had his gleeful triumph. And his reward: a remote appearance in behalf of Jill Stein at the Green Party convention. Applause all around.
13
Just where are these accusations of voting fraud coming from? It sounds like the Republican's who see voter fraud around every corner in every election and thus consider it their duty to disenfranchise as many voters and possible and to gerrymander districts to protect their elected ones. So in the primaries the dead are supposed to have voted and ballots were stolen? News to me and I try to read widely in several newspapers and on line. I do know that in my South Carolina county the only primary listed in the newspaper was a Republican one. If there had been a Democratic one, I would have voted for Mrs.Clinton because Senator Sanders is too far left to have gotten elected.
3
Sadly, Mr. Assange is not the wise, selfless, altruistic and humanistic advocate for human society he pretends to be. He is simply another highly intelligent, self-serving, and paranoid pathological narcissist. Like, Mr. Trump he firmly believes that he alone ("I am Wikileaks") has the solution to humans' and societies' selfish corruption and dysfunction. All those that do not agree to give him free reign to tinker in our institutions and lives and bow down to his magnificence are "jerks and idiots" and deserve a punch in the face, public humiliation, assassination ("they deserve to die") or worse. He is so deluded by his own grandiosity and need for admiration he cannot be the the wise "one" that can solve the world's problems. He is simply an irresponsible thief, and perhaps a rapist. However, he does not believe that anyone has the right or ability to objectively judge "him." So he hides and exerts his dangerous power and revenge electronically.
10
Data are data.
Always consider their source, its interests, priorities and purposes before reaching/drawing conclusions.
In other words, a grain of salt with everything...
Always consider their source, its interests, priorities and purposes before reaching/drawing conclusions.
In other words, a grain of salt with everything...
4
Benefit to the public at large not withstanding - Mr. Assange appears to suffer from the same ego-motivated behavior that drives many crusaders who hide their selfish-desires for attention behind the aegis of "the public good."
Absolute power corrupts - absolutely. Mr. Assange wants us to believe his righteous cause gives him permission to determine who "deserves to die." Ultimately, he is certain his cause is just, and even more certain we should canonize him.
Unfortunately - despite any and all good for us common people via WikiLeaks, in his search for a spotlight he's become a simple criminal.
Absolute power corrupts - absolutely. Mr. Assange wants us to believe his righteous cause gives him permission to determine who "deserves to die." Ultimately, he is certain his cause is just, and even more certain we should canonize him.
Unfortunately - despite any and all good for us common people via WikiLeaks, in his search for a spotlight he's become a simple criminal.
6
What was particularly egregious was the timing of the wikileaks the weekend before the convention. The inference is that Mr. Assange wanted to cause maximal harm to Mrs. Clinton and the Democratic party.
4
hmn...the index of inflected inteviews shows assange trailing clinton by 30 points among all demographics save the k street/media/college of corporations ilk...the recklessness quotient, which include naming names in emails, (double points if the named names are executed), also goes to hrc, hands down, even the fbi says so.
as for animus, perhaps mr. assange overstates the case with his plural ("wars") but he's on firm ground so far with "stupid" (check the vote) and "endless," to date anyway, credit she must share (along with the special citation for "spreading terrorsim," with a boatload of collaborators - cheney, bush, powell and the suddenly credible morell among them.
as to a "responsible tradition" of redaction, please, no scripture is cited though anectotal examples are offered, in effect, "this or that is responsible 'cause we say so."
assange has his flaws but if we wait for the any of the complicit, (see above), especially hrc at this critical time, to come clean, we'll be as dried up and cobwebbed as miss havesham's wedding cake.
as for animus, perhaps mr. assange overstates the case with his plural ("wars") but he's on firm ground so far with "stupid" (check the vote) and "endless," to date anyway, credit she must share (along with the special citation for "spreading terrorsim," with a boatload of collaborators - cheney, bush, powell and the suddenly credible morell among them.
as to a "responsible tradition" of redaction, please, no scripture is cited though anectotal examples are offered, in effect, "this or that is responsible 'cause we say so."
assange has his flaws but if we wait for the any of the complicit, (see above), especially hrc at this critical time, to come clean, we'll be as dried up and cobwebbed as miss havesham's wedding cake.
3
It seems quite bizarre that Mr. Assange is so willing to assume that the Russians are acting out of pure concern that the truth about all the bad actors in the USA be told, yet seems not to have the slightest suspicion that the Russians' motives might not be the purest, nor the information they provide not manipulated. Methinks the butcher's thumb is on the scales right before our eyes, and we smile and say thank you, kind sir.
8
I'm stilll flummoxed by the fact that most people are not paying enough attention to what happened during the Democratic primaries. Top officials within the Democtratic Party dilligently worked to undermine the campaign of a fellow democrat. They even colluded with some media outlets. This is serious business. It is a serious threat to democracy. In my opinion, an immediate and thorough investigation on the DNC it's even more important than figuring out if the Russians are behind the hack or if Mr. Assange has a personal agenda against the United States.
13
1. Assange is a liar, a thief, a cyberthug, and quite possibly a sex criminal. He appears able to justify all his actions from an egotism that does not admit of conscience any more than of curation. He and his organization have no credibility, despite whatever findings, random or contrived, they may disseminate.
2. Like it or not, the DNC did exactly what it was supposed to do: prevent the nomination of a candidate who was neither a member of the party nor in any way electable. I personally believe that the Democratic party serves the interests of the people better than any other organization of any consequence in this country. It is, however, NOT an organization of the population as a whole. If this party or this reality is unacceptable to you, you may join the party and change it, or work to change the system. But do not expect the DNC to do something other than its job.
2. Like it or not, the DNC did exactly what it was supposed to do: prevent the nomination of a candidate who was neither a member of the party nor in any way electable. I personally believe that the Democratic party serves the interests of the people better than any other organization of any consequence in this country. It is, however, NOT an organization of the population as a whole. If this party or this reality is unacceptable to you, you may join the party and change it, or work to change the system. But do not expect the DNC to do something other than its job.
14
What chilled me to the Bone when reading this op-ed was hearing Assange say that he was fine with releasing the name of Afghan civilians because they quote unquote "deserve to die" if they were helping Coalition forces. That is astounding--And I'm surprised that nobody else commenting here has really picked up on it. What Assange is saying is that he thinks he's entitled, to play judge jury and executioner. Dear lord. This man is a dangerous criminal, and no amount of useful information that he releases is Justified by the harmful information that he realeases.
4
Indeed, the answer to the question is, "No, not even if we want to; not even if we are on the side of transparency." I addressed this question at some length a few years ago. It's a lengthy piece, but I doubt I left anything out of the analysis. In essence, despite the worthiness of Assange's goals, his lone ranger approach to addressing government corruption, and WikiLeaks's own lack of transparency, should direct us toward the proper members of the Fourth Estate to uncover rot, however imperfect the results. You can read my analysis here - http://www.davidemcclean.us/114.html
1
To me Julian Assange is on the same level of narcissism as Donald Trump. Like the latter, he will do anything to anyone whom he feels have offended hime or even might offend him. His acts are desperate efforts to have Swedish charges of rape dismissed against him, free him from his containment in the Ecuador Embassy in London and avoid his extradition to the United States. In plain terms he is attempting to blackmail all who oppose him to avoid being brought to justice. His efforts are not at all about Freedom of Information, but rather only about his own Freedom from Prosecution. I say let him spend his remaining days in his current location, which is the best punishment we can inflict on him. However, we should ensure that his electronic actions are closely monitored and, even better, they are subject to the same disruptions that he is inflicting on our democracies.
3
Someone needs to explain better than the op-ed writer, Alex Gibney, and certainly better and more honestly that Julian Assange, why the mission of WikiLeaks is so vital and urgent that names are disclosed of persons assisting the American intelligence services, knowing full well that such persons will be tortured and executed (and, perhaps, also their families).
If Assange believes that the United States is so evil that its intelligence gathering must be stopped at all costs, then he has chosen to be our enemy.
If Assange acts out of a feeling of indebtedness to Russia and Vladimir Putin -- who has expressed a preference for dealing with Donald Trump, instead of Hillary Clinton -- then we owe neither Assange nor his sponsor any favors.
If Assange has a personal bias against Hillary Clinton of his own creation, independent of his trying to help Putin and Trump – which seems unlikely – that gives him no license to interfere with American politics.
If Assange’s threats of more disclosures are intended to pressure American law enforcement, security and diplomatic personnel to assist him in his efforts to avoid prosecution for criminal sexual behavior or other crimes, we can never succumb to such pressure.
If Assange believes that the United States is so evil that its intelligence gathering must be stopped at all costs, then he has chosen to be our enemy.
If Assange acts out of a feeling of indebtedness to Russia and Vladimir Putin -- who has expressed a preference for dealing with Donald Trump, instead of Hillary Clinton -- then we owe neither Assange nor his sponsor any favors.
If Assange has a personal bias against Hillary Clinton of his own creation, independent of his trying to help Putin and Trump – which seems unlikely – that gives him no license to interfere with American politics.
If Assange’s threats of more disclosures are intended to pressure American law enforcement, security and diplomatic personnel to assist him in his efforts to avoid prosecution for criminal sexual behavior or other crimes, we can never succumb to such pressure.
6
Gibney is just pushing the official spin: The Russians supplied the emails; Assange is a man with questionable motives & a Russian pawn/agent; The DNC leaks reveal merely discussions of "...how to undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders..." [& are therefore no big deal] although "They are clearly in the public interest."
Even Mr. Gibney admits that we "...still don't know who leaked the D.N.C. archive." In any case, Assange's source is irrelevant. No one has questioned the authenticity of these documents. Further, they point to far more than intra-party dirty tricks. They could form the basis of several criminal indictments for campaign money laundering & violations of Federal law concerning political appointments. They also reveal a thorough-going contempt for the electorate.
As far as Assange's motives are concerned, they are irrelevant too. (If Hilary Clinton wanted my head on a pike, I'd also have an animus toward her.)
I believe that Assange is entirely right to call this concerted media campaign a distraction. The story is the story & what the leaks reveal are the story. The provenance of the leaks, the flaws --real or imagined-- in Assange's character & any any misdeeds or misjudgements he may have made in the pass are just red herrings & character assassination.
Even Mr. Gibney admits that we "...still don't know who leaked the D.N.C. archive." In any case, Assange's source is irrelevant. No one has questioned the authenticity of these documents. Further, they point to far more than intra-party dirty tricks. They could form the basis of several criminal indictments for campaign money laundering & violations of Federal law concerning political appointments. They also reveal a thorough-going contempt for the electorate.
As far as Assange's motives are concerned, they are irrelevant too. (If Hilary Clinton wanted my head on a pike, I'd also have an animus toward her.)
I believe that Assange is entirely right to call this concerted media campaign a distraction. The story is the story & what the leaks reveal are the story. The provenance of the leaks, the flaws --real or imagined-- in Assange's character & any any misdeeds or misjudgements he may have made in the pass are just red herrings & character assassination.
15
An predictable attempt by a Clinton supporter to impeach the messenger of news harmful and embarrassing to Hillary and Company. The fact that Wikileaks' recently released emails from the DNC resulting in the swift firing of 4 executives, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz, it's combative chairwoman, attests to the integrity of the organizations's product.
Assange has been under attack by Western powers for more than a decade and has been holed up in an embassy in London for years. He may well have crossed lines and be an unlikable character, but a baseless attack on the accuracy of the leaks looks like a political hatchet job.
Assange has been under attack by Western powers for more than a decade and has been holed up in an embassy in London for years. He may well have crossed lines and be an unlikable character, but a baseless attack on the accuracy of the leaks looks like a political hatchet job.
13
Just as with these data drops, one must practice critical awareness to fully appreciate the intent of Mr. Assange.
Certainly we must acknowledge public interest is being served, but how and when and why is also in the mix.
It would also be wise to understand we in America have a right to speculate about these revelations, while in other nations including Britain, the press may not speculate about ongoing investigations. In Russia, you might be killed for doing so.
So, please be careful and appreciate the liberty we have to come to understand what's been done, and how those who revealed it hope to massage the way it comes out.
Assange is not only looking for justice, he wants revenge and cares not who gets hurt, so he's as much of an icehole as his targets.
Certainly we must acknowledge public interest is being served, but how and when and why is also in the mix.
It would also be wise to understand we in America have a right to speculate about these revelations, while in other nations including Britain, the press may not speculate about ongoing investigations. In Russia, you might be killed for doing so.
So, please be careful and appreciate the liberty we have to come to understand what's been done, and how those who revealed it hope to massage the way it comes out.
Assange is not only looking for justice, he wants revenge and cares not who gets hurt, so he's as much of an icehole as his targets.
3
Re: comparisons with Daniel Ellsberg.
Daniel Ellsberg was meticulous about the information he released and for his actions faced the music. Assange, meanwhile, a narcissist of Trumpian proportions, cowers in an embassy pursuing his current agenda of disrupting the US presidential election by any means, including collaboration with the Putin disinformation machine.
Absolutely, positively no comparison.
Daniel Ellsberg was meticulous about the information he released and for his actions faced the music. Assange, meanwhile, a narcissist of Trumpian proportions, cowers in an embassy pursuing his current agenda of disrupting the US presidential election by any means, including collaboration with the Putin disinformation machine.
Absolutely, positively no comparison.
6
While Snowden is a hero, Assange is a contemptible and dangerous man. Whatever the flaws of western democracies, and there are many, he in no way deserves our respect.
Assange works to undermine democratic governments, while consistently giving a pass to dictatorships of all kinds. Shamir, acting as Wikileaks' representative, went to Belarus in 2010 to deliver thousands un-redacted documents that revealed US Embassy contacts with the democratic opposition to Lukashenko, who cracked down on the opposition after his "election" that year, citing the documents as a justification. Leading opposition leaders and journalists were imprisoned, some were tortured, and one was even killed, as a direct result. Shamir is described in this article as "shady journalist", but this is not nearly strong enough; for one thing, both he and his son are notorious anti-Semites -- a vile theme we have lately started to hear from Assange's own mouth.
Of course the DNC is guilty of trying to shape the the primaries, but it is nothing compared to what Assange has done here: worked hand in glove with Russian intelligence to shape our national elections to assist an authoritarian demagogue come to power, one who has by the way publicly promised to give Putin a free hand in crushing democracy in Eastern Europe, and maintaining his grip on Russia.
What Trump, Putin, and Assange all have in common is an unlimited self-regard, an unrestrained will to power, and an abiding contempt for democracy.
Assange works to undermine democratic governments, while consistently giving a pass to dictatorships of all kinds. Shamir, acting as Wikileaks' representative, went to Belarus in 2010 to deliver thousands un-redacted documents that revealed US Embassy contacts with the democratic opposition to Lukashenko, who cracked down on the opposition after his "election" that year, citing the documents as a justification. Leading opposition leaders and journalists were imprisoned, some were tortured, and one was even killed, as a direct result. Shamir is described in this article as "shady journalist", but this is not nearly strong enough; for one thing, both he and his son are notorious anti-Semites -- a vile theme we have lately started to hear from Assange's own mouth.
Of course the DNC is guilty of trying to shape the the primaries, but it is nothing compared to what Assange has done here: worked hand in glove with Russian intelligence to shape our national elections to assist an authoritarian demagogue come to power, one who has by the way publicly promised to give Putin a free hand in crushing democracy in Eastern Europe, and maintaining his grip on Russia.
What Trump, Putin, and Assange all have in common is an unlimited self-regard, an unrestrained will to power, and an abiding contempt for democracy.
8
Thank you for such an important piece. Agree fervently with all the letters I read which were the Readers Pick and the NYT's picks. One very important thing is lurking there now. Assange said a few weeks ago that he had enough information to send Hillary Clinton to jail. Assange is coddling more of the Russian stolen emails and editing them for further release. Someone has hypothesized that Assange will release them in October when they could do the most damage. Seems so important that somebody anticipate what information he could have against Hillary, pre-empt assange, and put it in perspective. And, sorry guys. This whole thing about illegally high jacking confidential, completely private information and releasing it as a destructive force should be addressed by law. Hacking should be illegal, and releasing hacked information, no matter what the source, should be equally punishable.
7
Political subterfuge has been a part of human interaction in all of recorded history. When exposed, it causes a momentary shock, somewhat akin to discovering that your quart of milk has soured. Assange, Snowden, Manning and their lesser-known acolytes believe they have a calling to undermine and eliminate the essence of what can reasonably be expected to be private communication. That's, at best, a misguided calling. At worst, it is an unwarranted attempt at interfering in the affairs of state.
When unsavory facts are brought to light as a result of legitimate investigative reporting - which at least grant the right of rebuttal and clarification to the intended target prior to publication - we should rightly celebrate the power and the freedom of the press. When they are the result of shadowy and potentially illegal activities, the actors involved and their motives should be subjected to the harshest scrutiny. Mr. Gibney's article is a good start.
When unsavory facts are brought to light as a result of legitimate investigative reporting - which at least grant the right of rebuttal and clarification to the intended target prior to publication - we should rightly celebrate the power and the freedom of the press. When they are the result of shadowy and potentially illegal activities, the actors involved and their motives should be subjected to the harshest scrutiny. Mr. Gibney's article is a good start.
7
Equally relevant is the question "Can We Trust the New York Times and the Democratic National Committee?" concerning furnishing citizens with reasonable truth and accuracy. The NYT's approach to blacking out much of the Bernie Sanders campaign and now blacking out the Green Party seems to follow the Debbie Wasserman Schultz playbook. If we had a separation of government and press similar to our separation of government and religion, a return to real investigative journalism would remove any need for a Wikileaks.
21
Don't see how that is "equally important ".
1
Stealing e mails in no different from any other theft. I fail to understand those who justify a crime by claiming the public right to knowledge. How far do we go with this logic, breaking into people offices to retrieve documents for the public good?? Does it mean that Watergate was justifiable? What if the RNC broke into the e mails of the DNC or vice versus does the public right to know still apply. Justifying a crime by invoking the public right to know is a crime by itself.
9
I am not a fan of Wiki Leaks and Julian Assange sounds like an absolutely dreadful person. If he wants to do some good in this world then unleash Trump's tax returns for the world to see!
17
Makes a film titled, "We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks" Then author includes this, "(Later, Mr. Assange and his followers attacked both me and my film.)"
9
A simple test:
Imagine that the stolen emails & data incriminated or embarrassed Donald Trump and the RNC. In that scenario, would the NY Times run a story asking if we can trust Julian Assange?
If your answer is "yes", please contact me as soon as possible. I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.
Imagine that the stolen emails & data incriminated or embarrassed Donald Trump and the RNC. In that scenario, would the NY Times run a story asking if we can trust Julian Assange?
If your answer is "yes", please contact me as soon as possible. I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.
15
I've just realized the problem with leaking documents is the that one has to assume a lot. That the documents are an actual representation and have not been doctored with, that they have not been cherry picked, or taken out of context.
And we have to assume the altruistic, heroic minded mindset of the leaker. That they do not have an axe to grind, or a special interest that they want to see rise to power.
From what I've observed about Assange lately, he is not that person, with his thinly veiled threats and slanderous allegations against any detractors, as shown in his interview on Maher.
And we have to assume the altruistic, heroic minded mindset of the leaker. That they do not have an axe to grind, or a special interest that they want to see rise to power.
From what I've observed about Assange lately, he is not that person, with his thinly veiled threats and slanderous allegations against any detractors, as shown in his interview on Maher.
8
Assange has proven to have no real morals. The only thing I will give him is his right to leave the Ecuador Embassy for medical care without fear of arrest, which Amy Goodman has criticized in Democracy Now: 20 Years of covering stories that change the world. As for rape charges, she claims 'some' of the woman involved did not charge him with rape, they'd come out to ask him to get HIV testing as they had consensual sex with him, I am not sure if this is the case with 'all' the women he has been accused of raping or inappropriate sexual contact with. Some of his reporting as to military crimes may bejustified, however it would be best taken up with military and government officials capable of prosecuting those responsible for the unwarranted killings of Afghan or Iraqi civilians, instead of leaking it to the world and inciting more anger towards America which results in more killing of innocent people by lone wolf types. Goodman's book is worth reading or listening to, but I do not agree with all her defenses of Assange except that he needs medical care and should be able to safely leave the embassy to attain it.
4
Anyone who directly or indirectly aids in the election of Drumpf is my enemy. Putin's got his fingers in a lot of pies, hasn't he?
8
These guys are crooks, pure and simple. They traffic in stolen information and release it according to their whims. This is not journalism, it's theft. They think they are doing it to benefit humanity, but all they are doing is promoting lawlessness. I would take anything they release with a grain of salt!
9
"We still don’t know who leaked the D.N.C. archive, but given Mr. Assange’s past association with Russia, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that it was a Russian agent or an intermediary."
That's some A1 journalism right there! Impugn the source based on the completely unsubstantiated supposition that was put forth by the Clinton Camp to distract us all from the contents of those emails.
I was a lifelong Democrat until this election, and now I have to agree with the pithy remark by Reince Priebus on this one: "Russia didn't write those emails."
That's some A1 journalism right there! Impugn the source based on the completely unsubstantiated supposition that was put forth by the Clinton Camp to distract us all from the contents of those emails.
I was a lifelong Democrat until this election, and now I have to agree with the pithy remark by Reince Priebus on this one: "Russia didn't write those emails."
17
"The release of a cache of emails from the Democratic National Committee by WikiLeaks last month has raised a great many questions — about the role of the D.N.C. in trying to influence the primary..."
When will the NYT turn to answering those great many questions?
When will the NYT turn to answering those great many questions?
20
Trust Julian Assange. An accused rapist escaping extradition by hiding in an embassy in London whose organization makes a living out of stealing private information from governments and businesses. Revile maybe....trust not.
6
I carry no particular brief for Julian Assange, except that I am glad someone is pushing back against the government-corporate media info lockdown. Is it perfect? No. Yet any claims by mainstream media that their own coverage and editorial choices aren't heavily determined by corporate paymasters and even government agencies are false. Their reporting is biased, as Gibney notes. And their reporting is not necessarily in the public's interest or based on the public's need-to-know. As to Assange engaging in devious methods, recall the founders of America (complicated characters) were traitors to King and country, who probably would have been put to death had the war for independence been lost. I'm grateful they rebelled, based on their own self-interest, and grateful that France, guided by its self-interest, sided with the colonies rather than England. In their own time, rebels are disruptive and devious. Perhaps one day the world will look back on Assange as a complex, heroic figure.
14
The man broke the law. I want to know who the money behind him is. These "hackers" are well-funded. Please investigate New York Times and tell us who paid/pays him. Inquiring minds want to know.
15
I recall several stories about NewsCorp working with hacks to undermine their competition. NJ AG Chris Christie did not pursue a criminal complaint against the crew, but a civil settlement of 29$ million silenced victims here at home. Could that be because it is nearly impossible to pin the tale on the hacker, or because Christie was always in Ft. Lee running for Gov'na Foxy?
Outside the US, NewsCorp is said to have hired hacks to get into ITV's Satellite TV company and steal card codes to post online for pirated access. That spelled the end of ITV's bid to take a slice of the Sky pie.
I assume these people in the press are actually the most savvy about who knows what and how to hack at it. Many of their best PIs are retired civil and criminal authorities who also know how it works inside the box.
Why don't we just get a simple answer from them. Does NYTs use personal servers? I would if I could afford to. The Telephony Company doesn't give a rat's about our security; this is their protection racket, too.
Seriously, it's getting to hard to see who's doing the deceiving because everyone's got an agenda and a network hook up, but they cross signals occasionally.
Outside the US, NewsCorp is said to have hired hacks to get into ITV's Satellite TV company and steal card codes to post online for pirated access. That spelled the end of ITV's bid to take a slice of the Sky pie.
I assume these people in the press are actually the most savvy about who knows what and how to hack at it. Many of their best PIs are retired civil and criminal authorities who also know how it works inside the box.
Why don't we just get a simple answer from them. Does NYTs use personal servers? I would if I could afford to. The Telephony Company doesn't give a rat's about our security; this is their protection racket, too.
Seriously, it's getting to hard to see who's doing the deceiving because everyone's got an agenda and a network hook up, but they cross signals occasionally.
4
Everyone knows how reckless and agenda-driven that Daniel Ellsburg was.
19
There is literally no comparing Mr Ellsburg with either Assange or Snowden.
1 Mr Ellsburg actually was the author of many of the papers he released and had read all of the other papers as well.
2 Mr Ellsburg consulted with a lot of people in government and out before deciding to release the papers.
3 Mr Ellsburg purpose was specific and focused on only that which he knew to be true and did not involve in any way any information he had not seen or personally read before releasing it.
None of those standards apply to Snowden or Manning. They were both reckless criminals acting based on personal motivations & intending personal benefits for themselves by using grandiose and false rhetoric about helping.
1 Mr Ellsburg actually was the author of many of the papers he released and had read all of the other papers as well.
2 Mr Ellsburg consulted with a lot of people in government and out before deciding to release the papers.
3 Mr Ellsburg purpose was specific and focused on only that which he knew to be true and did not involve in any way any information he had not seen or personally read before releasing it.
None of those standards apply to Snowden or Manning. They were both reckless criminals acting based on personal motivations & intending personal benefits for themselves by using grandiose and false rhetoric about helping.
1
I have zero trust in, or respect for, Assange. Of the close to 20,000 DNC emails, how many actually had info related to hurting the Sanders campaign? Only a handful, based on the coverage I've read. (And as far as I know, DNC members were only *talking* about actions they might take; I haven't seen any proof that any of these actions were actually taken.)
In the name of "truth," Assange dumped thousands of emails, some of which contained personal email addresses and the names, social security numbers, and credit-card info of contributors. How is exposing this info in the public interest? Assange loves violating the privacy of people under the cloak of his egotistical crusade for "transparency."
The doxing of Turkish women (said by some to be in the millions) is even more appalling, but since Assange is wanted for sexual assault, perhaps he doesn't care about women being stalked or assaulted.
Assange hates Hillary Clinton and is clearly seeking to derail her candidacy. He called her a "war hawk," but I guess he's not bothered that Donald Trump has talked of the U.S. not supporting its NATO allies, or suggesting that Japan and South Korea obtain nuclear weapons.
I've never trusted Assange; he's a vindictive egomaniac with probably more than an handful of psychological disorders.
In the name of "truth," Assange dumped thousands of emails, some of which contained personal email addresses and the names, social security numbers, and credit-card info of contributors. How is exposing this info in the public interest? Assange loves violating the privacy of people under the cloak of his egotistical crusade for "transparency."
The doxing of Turkish women (said by some to be in the millions) is even more appalling, but since Assange is wanted for sexual assault, perhaps he doesn't care about women being stalked or assaulted.
Assange hates Hillary Clinton and is clearly seeking to derail her candidacy. He called her a "war hawk," but I guess he's not bothered that Donald Trump has talked of the U.S. not supporting its NATO allies, or suggesting that Japan and South Korea obtain nuclear weapons.
I've never trusted Assange; he's a vindictive egomaniac with probably more than an handful of psychological disorders.
20
Julian Assange and his fellow cyberterrorists are not heroes, but men with the minds of a five year old having a temper tantrum.
Before you think this is a comical depiction ask yourself do you know any five year child that puts innocents in harms way or does the bidding of depositic, murderous world leaders?
But of course, if you are childlike fanatic just like Julian Assange, having innocent Turkish women or a covert government operatives lose their lives because we must take a "righteous" stab at transparency is no big deal, right?
Before you think this is a comical depiction ask yourself do you know any five year child that puts innocents in harms way or does the bidding of depositic, murderous world leaders?
But of course, if you are childlike fanatic just like Julian Assange, having innocent Turkish women or a covert government operatives lose their lives because we must take a "righteous" stab at transparency is no big deal, right?
12
Individual's need to have control of their personal information and the ability to determine what personal information they are comfortable with existing in the public domain and what personal information needs to remain private. Read the writings of Benjamin Franklin. He believed that the "right to privacy" was s pivotal factor and foundation of any healthy democratic society. Americans from all generations need to begin having serious discussions re: the web and social media not only what private information is currently "legal" but more importantly what private information needs to be protected for ethical and moral reasons. Too many technology firms, businesses, social media giants are making fortunes from data-mining individuals personal information. In many cases, they are currently not doing anything "illegal". Whether it is ethical or moral cultivate serious questions we all need to reflect upon. I believe that Edward Snowden was and is sincerely concerned about protecting individual freedoms. He sacrificed a great deal to alert the American public about how their individual privacy was being violated. Although Assange has alerted the public of important privacy and security violations, clearly he is self-motivated, an opportunist and a narcissist. Again, individuals need to have the ability to determine to whom, when and where their private information is released. Without the ability to do this, democratic societies are severely threatened.
7
I glad to see liberals spinning the facts as adroitly as a conservative pundit in order to support their support of Hillary in the face of some seriously shady business. Ultimately, the answer always is, "kill the messenger".
9
Listening to Trump's Detroit speech I'm laughing out loud, thinking of something Jackie Gleason's character Ralph Kramden said in one of his hilarious bits, " I am the chef of the future. You are the chef of the past."
The Trumpet, speaking in the halted voice of someone who is not used to reading, from a script or reading in general, just said, " I am the candidate of the future. Hillary is the candidate of the past." Yes, he sure did. Watch this idiot speak and revel in his stupidity. He reads lines like a child perhaps in grammar school who has a reading impediment. He haltingly enunciates each word unable to form a seamless flow throughout. No wonder Trump loves to go it alone without a teleprompter. He is hopelessly as dumb as a bag of rocks. Rocks by Trump of course.
DD
Manhattan
The Trumpet, speaking in the halted voice of someone who is not used to reading, from a script or reading in general, just said, " I am the candidate of the future. Hillary is the candidate of the past." Yes, he sure did. Watch this idiot speak and revel in his stupidity. He reads lines like a child perhaps in grammar school who has a reading impediment. He haltingly enunciates each word unable to form a seamless flow throughout. No wonder Trump loves to go it alone without a teleprompter. He is hopelessly as dumb as a bag of rocks. Rocks by Trump of course.
DD
Manhattan
12
Sounds like he hasn't improved since his last speech. He lost that crowd reading out loud. They had to find their own reasons to chant slogans. Only when he went off script to diss Hillary or kiss a gun butt did they find union. They really loved his suggestion Hillary's detail should be disarmed leaving the floor open to interpretation...that made me sad. Really sad.
If he's still grinding gears like that, from hollow recitations to off the cuff comments about torturing terrorists and Hillary, this is over.
If he's still grinding gears like that, from hollow recitations to off the cuff comments about torturing terrorists and Hillary, this is over.
1
I've always felt Assange's devotion to transparency went only as far as serving his own self interest. I followed him for a while early on but quickly realized he always has an agenda and I believe he has one here as well. I also think he's someone whose ego could very easily be manipulated by a third party (i.e. Russia, who clearly has something to gain here), so, no, I don't trust Assange and haven't for a while.
10
After decades of the US meddling overtly AND covertly in the elections and elected governments around the world, all in the name of "protecting US interests," it is disingenuous to even imply that it is "illegal" and "yucky" to have the "Russians try to tip" the election to Mr. Trump. Anything we accuse "the Russians" of doing is NOTHING we haven't done hundreds of times in dozens of countries! What's good the gander is good for the goose! What comes around, goes around. Karma is a "beach~!" If the steel-toed fǽces-kicking All-American military boots of oppression vote- and politician-buying and vote-rigging overseas fit, by all means America, bend over for some of our own medicine!
10
I see the Times is still at it. I almost cancelled my subscription after you proposed a pardon for Snowden. This colun shows you have not learned a thing. Assange is a criminal and Snowden is a traitor. Whatever juicy secrts they believe they have uncovered, they have done untold harm to thousand poeple for their egotism. The Times needs to wake up to the fact that by supporting these people, it is abetting treason and terrorism.
3
Hackers ferret out information and journalists try to cover it up? These are strange times.
19
WikiLeaks is a non-transparent, unaccountable and unelected international organization that has decided to involve itself in American democracy. It's led by a man with highly questionable moral character, given that the sex charges against him allege that he tears open condoms to violate agreements regarding protected sex with his partners. It has been alleged by people supposedly in the know that he allegedly does this in hopes of getting women to propagate his DNA without him being present or accountable as a father.
Should we let him decide who are next President will be? When pigs fly. And I don't mean in an airplane.
Should we let him decide who are next President will be? When pigs fly. And I don't mean in an airplane.
9
Obviously, Mr. Assange's "radical transparency" doesn't include transparency on the part of WikiLeaks itself or Mr. Assange personally.
And I disagree with the author of this article. The DNC is a private agency. If the Democratic National Committee was promoting a decades-long Democrat over someone who was a Democrat for barely a year -- just long enough to run for the party's standard-bearer -- who would blame them? You think that the RNC's emails weren't full of suggestions for how to get rid of The Donald? And maybe even Ted Cruz.
If Assange is so interested in radical transparency, he should release the RNC's emails as well. And while he's at it, The Donald's tax returns.
And I disagree with the author of this article. The DNC is a private agency. If the Democratic National Committee was promoting a decades-long Democrat over someone who was a Democrat for barely a year -- just long enough to run for the party's standard-bearer -- who would blame them? You think that the RNC's emails weren't full of suggestions for how to get rid of The Donald? And maybe even Ted Cruz.
If Assange is so interested in radical transparency, he should release the RNC's emails as well. And while he's at it, The Donald's tax returns.
11
“Noble cause corruption,” a belief that noble ends justify reckless or immoral means...a succinct description of the New York Times entire coverage of the election so far.
15
Julian Assange has made his contempt for Hillary clear on the basis of his belief that she will engage in senseless wars, and he is obviously determined to undermine her presidential bid. Trump is Putin's choice because Trump gave him a green light on Russia's reoccupation of the Crimea, continued reoccupation of the Ukraine, direct political support, and Trump all but promised to not honor our NATO treaty obligations based on whether or not he thinks member states have paid their bills, which is the likely state of the former Soviet satellites and now members of NATO. Putin would be a fool to not support Trump, so he's using the skills he learned as a member of the world's most effective espionage agency, the KGB, to outwit Trump (not difficult) and to give direct support to Mr. Assange. It makes me wonder if Mr. Assange is also also OK with Russian expansionism?
7
Assange is a two-bit hypocrite. He couldn't care less about Hillary's "war-mongering" -- she has said he should be indicted and if she becomes president he may well be extradited. No government, not even Ecuador, wants Russian hackers playing fast and lose with their data.
4
Seems as if you are wedded to US, NATO, ISraeli expansionism.
1
So what if the DNC favored one candidate over another? Political organizations -- that's what they do. There's no assumption of neutrality. The GOP only wishes they'd put their thumb on the scale in time to keep Trump off the ballot.
8
As long as they don't mind losing supporters of honest contenders for the party nomination. The DNC are crying like children over the refusal of Sanders supporters (many of whom identify as Independents anyway) to enthusiastically bow to a thin and questionable majority of Clinton supporters. This is how we get to a point where both parties vie for the highest unfavorable ratings.
3
JimBob, the DNC by-laws say explicitly that it must be neutral with respect to the candidates. Article 5, Section 4 of the DNC charter: "In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and
campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party
Presidential nominating process."
So there you went, saying there was no assumption of neutrality, when clearly there is. Why do that?
campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party
Presidential nominating process."
So there you went, saying there was no assumption of neutrality, when clearly there is. Why do that?
8
Typical Wall Street/DNC ethics (it can't be wrong if everyone else is doing it!).
8
The people, who didn't like the taliban rule in Afghanistan, became victims AGAIN, this time of Assnage? Or rather of Assange's lack of empathy, or normal emotions, or if you will human attitude towards the victims? Because these folks were victims already - to the taliban rule. There are other victims of that particular leak, of whom we don't read in the NYT - in countries, where talking to a US diplomat, and/or about human rights, alone, is a good enough reason for serious consequences. But, then, Assnage doesn't care about such people, and the media doesn't cover them, because they cannot be interviewed... any longer.
6
Lately, many disturbing things about Mr. Assange have come to my attention. Today, it is the quote that certain Afghan civilians "...deserve[s] to die." If this quote is accurate, Mr. Assange is no better than those he condemns for starting wars. He believes he knows who deserves to die and why.
10
I trust Wikileaks more than I trust the NYT.
Talk about agendas, NYT reporting of the primary season was a disgusting program of pandering to HRC, and we are now faced with the possibility of a Trump presidency.
You have alot of nerve printing this article.
Talk about agendas, NYT reporting of the primary season was a disgusting program of pandering to HRC, and we are now faced with the possibility of a Trump presidency.
You have alot of nerve printing this article.
33
Sadly this is true. A better Democratic candidate would have certainly have led to someone other than Trump on the GOP side. By going all-in with Clinton, they skewed the process on both sides. Now we have two of the worst candidates to ever run for President.
8
I don't know how much we can trust Wikileaks but when they produce accurate emails according to the dnc we can trust that info more than this obviously biased nyt publication.
25
Not a fan of "leaking", I dislike the methods and motives of both Assange and Snowden, and whatever organizations they represent. I don't see the point of disrupting the DNC, unless it was done for personal reasons, which appears to be the case. Assange and Snowden, and others like them, consider themselves heroes for what they have done. I consider them little more than electronic peeping Tom's. Hacking is hacking, no matter what the proposed end result might be.
9
"I dislike the methods and motives of both Assange and Snowden, and whatever organizations they represent."
Whether you agree, or disagree with him, Snowden is a true believer. Assange, is a self-serving punk.
Whether you agree, or disagree with him, Snowden is a true believer. Assange, is a self-serving punk.
2
Careful, Chris Wild man - you are denigrating the biggest hackers of Americans and world citizens...the USA. Thank goodness for Snowden and Massage. But WarPimps and preservers of the elites have every reason to be panicked. Hugs. ISH.
2
If the Richard Nixon had been Hillary Clinton then the New York Times would have tarred and feathered Woodward and Bernstein.
This is ridiculous. The DNC got CAUGHT red-handed with its pants down for all to see. The source is not the issue. Perhaps if the NYTimes had been more ALERT they would have actually investigated the complaints of the Sanders supporters instead of shilling for Hillary.
Yes, I know this is an op-ed and opinions are part of that format. But this persistent drive to promote a single candidate for the presidency has made the NYTimes lose all its credibility. It no longer reports the news, it simply spins it.
I'm not sure what is more frightening, the corruption of yet another major news source or the fact that the comment thread is full of sheeple who have swallowed all the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
This is ridiculous. The DNC got CAUGHT red-handed with its pants down for all to see. The source is not the issue. Perhaps if the NYTimes had been more ALERT they would have actually investigated the complaints of the Sanders supporters instead of shilling for Hillary.
Yes, I know this is an op-ed and opinions are part of that format. But this persistent drive to promote a single candidate for the presidency has made the NYTimes lose all its credibility. It no longer reports the news, it simply spins it.
I'm not sure what is more frightening, the corruption of yet another major news source or the fact that the comment thread is full of sheeple who have swallowed all the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
28
The vengeful nature of Mr. of Assange may be understandable, but when he says he has more Clinton emails to share with the world but he is waiting to release them, we need to ask what's up? Why wait? Opportunity? Chance to ding HRC and influence the American elections by an October disclosure? If JA does not have the emails yet, who does? Putin/Russia?! If this is the game, isn't it time Ecuador abandoned diplomatic courtesy & shielding Mr. Assange? Or, perhaps it is time for Britain/the world to revisit its rules for "diplomatic immunity" and sanctuary for those who would disrupt the world to drive vindictive goals.
4
I had sent a letter to my local paper's editor a few weeks ago, speculating on what the Russians, and/or Wikileaks were holding back for future use. I'm sure that the DCC database was not the only one that they hacked...
I've never seen the concept of "The ends justifying the means", bringing a good result over time.
I've never seen the concept of "The ends justifying the means", bringing a good result over time.
2
not really.
1
It should have been clear from the beginning of Wikileaks, that an un-elected organization, which is secretive and not transparent, cannot succeed in the long term with a goal of making all information transparent.
It seems to me that Wikileaks is a cover for people who have a set of superior computer skills, which give them an advantage most of us do not have. They use these skills (hacking) to justify a noble goal, but like any organization, they are a bunch of individual with personal opinions or character weaknesses.
Assange, a self proclaimed leader is ethically challenged, and not at all transparent regarding his sources of funding, ties to certain countries (Russia). Wikileaks and Assange believe that they are above or outside the normal set of laws governing us all. By being non-transparent they seem to allow themselves to avoid responsibility of any negative outcomes of their actions.
On a personal level, Assange comes through as a narcissist person. One day he will have to leave his embassy protection. I just wonder who pays for his stay in the embassy of such a poor country?
It seems to me that Wikileaks is a cover for people who have a set of superior computer skills, which give them an advantage most of us do not have. They use these skills (hacking) to justify a noble goal, but like any organization, they are a bunch of individual with personal opinions or character weaknesses.
Assange, a self proclaimed leader is ethically challenged, and not at all transparent regarding his sources of funding, ties to certain countries (Russia). Wikileaks and Assange believe that they are above or outside the normal set of laws governing us all. By being non-transparent they seem to allow themselves to avoid responsibility of any negative outcomes of their actions.
On a personal level, Assange comes through as a narcissist person. One day he will have to leave his embassy protection. I just wonder who pays for his stay in the embassy of such a poor country?
7
So, I always approach subjects such as this as ‘how does it affect me in ‘itsmildeyes-world?’
Am I so different from anyone else? In this comment forum, I’ve been assured anonymity. I’ve previously outed myself as a woman-of-a-certain-age; an agnostic; pro-choice; a liberal; an apologetic anti-bikini-waxer. I try to be truthful and thoughtful. The New York Times graciously allows me this platform predicated on anonymity. I don’t think I’d be too happy if WikiLeaks obtained hacked data from the commenters’ forum database and published it on their website. I might expect the anti-my-views crowd to accost me every time I leave my apartment building. I may be shunned at the corner grocery. It may have a self-censory effect on future comments. I may retain one issue with which to continue publicly, but may decide to keep my mouth shut about abortion and depilatory hygiene. I may pepper future posts with a shallow ‘God bless’ because I think it’s expected of me. Is it the job of WikiLeaks to reshape my thought menu?
How about everybody’s conversations go public? Do I reasonably think my daughter and son-in-law (who love me – I think) don’t ever text back and forth, ‘Don’t you think Mom’s a little old for Blink-182?’ ‘And those bangs? Is this 1962?’
Be careful what you wish for when you wish you could read other people’s minds. And ask yourself, is there something so special about Mr. Assange that you would choose him as the editor and curator of your private musings?
Am I so different from anyone else? In this comment forum, I’ve been assured anonymity. I’ve previously outed myself as a woman-of-a-certain-age; an agnostic; pro-choice; a liberal; an apologetic anti-bikini-waxer. I try to be truthful and thoughtful. The New York Times graciously allows me this platform predicated on anonymity. I don’t think I’d be too happy if WikiLeaks obtained hacked data from the commenters’ forum database and published it on their website. I might expect the anti-my-views crowd to accost me every time I leave my apartment building. I may be shunned at the corner grocery. It may have a self-censory effect on future comments. I may retain one issue with which to continue publicly, but may decide to keep my mouth shut about abortion and depilatory hygiene. I may pepper future posts with a shallow ‘God bless’ because I think it’s expected of me. Is it the job of WikiLeaks to reshape my thought menu?
How about everybody’s conversations go public? Do I reasonably think my daughter and son-in-law (who love me – I think) don’t ever text back and forth, ‘Don’t you think Mom’s a little old for Blink-182?’ ‘And those bangs? Is this 1962?’
Be careful what you wish for when you wish you could read other people’s minds. And ask yourself, is there something so special about Mr. Assange that you would choose him as the editor and curator of your private musings?
6
Assange is in cahoots with the Russian secret service, which has as part of its agenda undermining US security and the relationship we have with our government. Note how no emails from the RNC or the Trump campaign are leaked. Putin supports Trump because he is an easy mark for the KGB and plays into Putin's foreign policy strategies.
7
Julian Assange is nothing more than a convicted criminal (hacking in Australia) and a current fugitive from justice. We should not forget that. Nor should we forget that because of his criminal bent, his computer skills merely abet chaos, not resolve it.
8
I think that "trust" is the wrong word to ascribe to Julian Assange: he is completely and totally untrustworthy in every definition of the word. Assange is a mean spirited, petty dictator lording it over those who have wronged him in some way and blackmailing them in his own chosen format.
12
I wonder how this paper would respond if they were Republican emails and not Democratic.....
Anyway, Assange is a deeply loatheful individual. Listening to him speak for more than a few moments should make that perfectly clear. None of that, however, is really more than a distraction away from what the DNC did (same with focusing on the Russia angle, rather than what the emails actually suggest).
If you think the truth hurts your preferred candidate then maybe there is a problem with the candidate, not the truth. If Hillary Clinton were not running against the most dangerous presidential candidate this country has ever had then she would get absolutely crushed (as well she probably should). It is only the risk of fascism and potential nuclear war (!) that seem to keep her afloat.
Anyway, Assange is a deeply loatheful individual. Listening to him speak for more than a few moments should make that perfectly clear. None of that, however, is really more than a distraction away from what the DNC did (same with focusing on the Russia angle, rather than what the emails actually suggest).
If you think the truth hurts your preferred candidate then maybe there is a problem with the candidate, not the truth. If Hillary Clinton were not running against the most dangerous presidential candidate this country has ever had then she would get absolutely crushed (as well she probably should). It is only the risk of fascism and potential nuclear war (!) that seem to keep her afloat.
15
The DNC, a political organization, was exposed for engaging in politics. Ho hum.
5
The DNC leaks targeted the corrupt activities of a few in the organization. They are gone. It was released months before the November election, minimal damage to the candidate. Assange is diligently working on Trump, including his heavily protected tax return. In time there will be a balance as he drops files on the Trump family.
Trump is like one of those western towns in the old cowboy movies, a bunch of plywood, painted to look like real buildings. He has his naming rights on buildings to give the impression he built and/or owns them. He borrows money to create the illusion of wealth.
Trump is like one of those western towns in the old cowboy movies, a bunch of plywood, painted to look like real buildings. He has his naming rights on buildings to give the impression he built and/or owns them. He borrows money to create the illusion of wealth.
2
NO we cannot trust him or them.
3
Several of my best friend's coworkers were "outed" on Wikileaks. They worked on a project that has a huge amount of civilian use, and a very small amount of national defense use, and no war use. They have no right to find a decent job and no "innocent until proven guilty".
Julian Assange and Wikileaks are like the ubiquitous true neutral characters in fantasy role-playing games. They make believe that they have morals, but they believe in neither good nor bad, laws or no laws. They honestly just want to hurt people they are jealous of or feel they have moral high ground on.
But they also do not care at all about the very same collateral damage they accuse others of causing. Julian Assange and Wikileaks make the world a less safe place for everyone.
Julian Assange and Wikileaks are like the ubiquitous true neutral characters in fantasy role-playing games. They make believe that they have morals, but they believe in neither good nor bad, laws or no laws. They honestly just want to hurt people they are jealous of or feel they have moral high ground on.
But they also do not care at all about the very same collateral damage they accuse others of causing. Julian Assange and Wikileaks make the world a less safe place for everyone.
9
I have mixed emotions. Governments keep secrets that should be exposed but if the release harms individuals who are innocent of any wrong doing than that's going too far. The trick, however, is to decide what needs exposing.
1
We don't need Assange or Wikilieaks to judge how the misnomered Democratic party behaves. Anyone who thinks the Democratic machine has somehow changed its spots over the decades is deluding themselves, and Wikileaks isn;t required to get one to grasp there is ALWAYS something fishy within the party innards. A re-read of "Plunkett of Tammany Hall", or recollection of the famous Chicago battle cry: "Vote Early, Vote Often", or noting that the moved the hillbilly Clintons to New York to preserve Moynihan's seat in the Senate, should suffice....
7
Julian Assange is a fugitive from justice. He seems blind to his own hypocrisy. From his redoubt in the Ecuadoran embassy, he judges others, but he is holed up there because he holds himself to be above the scrutiny of a court of law. The arc of justice is long, however, and the cosmos has a keen sense of irony. For each new trove of documents Assange liberates in the name of transparency, he reveals more of himself, and the more we see of him, the better we understand why he is hiding, and from whom.
3
If we are to have a free press (always seemed like a good idea to me) we have to accept that we won't always be pleased with what they publish. Was Deep Throat a traitor? How about Paul Revere-publishing the troop movements of his king? Had Britain won, he would certainly have been hanged for treason. Two things: Maybe we shouldn't be sending e-mails we would be ashamed of. Maybe if our security is so bad Assange can get this stuff then all the foreign governments have it already.
9
"Maybe we shouldn't be sending e-mails we would be ashamed of."
Hear hear! Watch what you say! The true rallying cry of a free people.
Hear hear! Watch what you say! The true rallying cry of a free people.
2
This is a silly, poorly argued hit piece. Releasing the DNC emails was in the public interest but shows the recklessness of WikiLeaks, Wikileaks is biased but so are many news organizations. In one case of a wikiLeaks release no one was killed but they could have been (with italics to emphasize the "could"). In another case Assange had concern for others' safety but had little technical ability to assure it on a tight deadline. Edward Snowden is better at it (Is there anyone better at it than Snowden?). And of course the kicker, ". . . given Mr. Assange's past association with Russia . . . It wouldn't surprise me to learn [the DNC hacker] was a Russian agent." (Will Joe McCarthy never just give it?)
4
Glad the author admitted his own run-inswith Assange,
"Contained in the D.N.C. archive were Social Security numbers and credit card data of private individuals,..."
Our social security numbers and credit card data plus much more are being sold as merchandise as we speak. It is already in the public domain.
"Contained in the D.N.C. archive were Social Security numbers and credit card data of private individuals,..."
Our social security numbers and credit card data plus much more are being sold as merchandise as we speak. It is already in the public domain.
6
History has shown us what can happen when lies, disinformation, and propaganda prevail. An informed (and engaged) populace is necessary for effective Democracy. I, for one, want to know how my "representative" government really works.
It seems those who oppose Wikileaks (and Edward Snowden), are either those who directly benefit by keeping the masses ignorant, or those who are comfortable with their own ignorance.
I'm not sure which is more dangerous.
It seems those who oppose Wikileaks (and Edward Snowden), are either those who directly benefit by keeping the masses ignorant, or those who are comfortable with their own ignorance.
I'm not sure which is more dangerous.
13
First of all, the DNC emails show that there was NOT a coordinated effort to trash Bernie. It shows there was one employee that wrote snarky emails that no one followed up on. Hardly a conspiracy. The media has taken the Donald Trump approach. Say something often enough and many people will believe it.
Second, Assange and Russia are clearly favoring Trump. That is very interesting, especially since Trump seems to be egging them on. Does Assange release all his emails? The RNC's?
Second, Assange and Russia are clearly favoring Trump. That is very interesting, especially since Trump seems to be egging them on. Does Assange release all his emails? The RNC's?
7
I looked at the Wikileaks website. The links to the data mostly relate to the United States, some to Germany, one about the EU, and a couple to Saudi Arabia. What's completely absent is anything on Russia or China. Is there nothing going on in these countries? South America? Nothing that I can see on their web site. To me, this clearly means it is an agenda-driven organization, possibly out to harm the U.S. and support Russia (and or China).
8
The ends justify the means cuts both ways, and invoking this slogan to defend who depends on the invoker's politics. Wikileaks punches up, so interests holding the power want to destroy Assange. But power punches down and likes its secrets as much, if not more than, it feels entitled to steal yours. Secrecy is a nasty game when it is used to deceive. It is particularly nasty when it is used to subvert democracy.
15
'Can We Trust Julian Assange and WikiLeaks?'
Bit late to as now, isn't it? You were happy enough to do so a while back. If you can't trust him in this instance, how can you trust Hilary with the Presidency?
aS to interfering in another nation's elections or (here) referenda, how about Obama swanning down in Air Force One to the UK, then telling the people there that if they dare vote Brexit, they'll 'go to the end of the line' so far as post-Brexit trade negotiations go. Is that, or is that not, an attempt to coerce British voters?
Had Obama merely confined himself to expressing a view - that the UK should stay (my own view, and vote) - that's one thing , tho arguably ill-advised. I suspect he was put up to the threat by the (politically) late Dear Dave Cameron
As to the emails, you'll note nobody is impugning their truth. Surely that's far more significant than their provenance?
Bit late to as now, isn't it? You were happy enough to do so a while back. If you can't trust him in this instance, how can you trust Hilary with the Presidency?
aS to interfering in another nation's elections or (here) referenda, how about Obama swanning down in Air Force One to the UK, then telling the people there that if they dare vote Brexit, they'll 'go to the end of the line' so far as post-Brexit trade negotiations go. Is that, or is that not, an attempt to coerce British voters?
Had Obama merely confined himself to expressing a view - that the UK should stay (my own view, and vote) - that's one thing , tho arguably ill-advised. I suspect he was put up to the threat by the (politically) late Dear Dave Cameron
As to the emails, you'll note nobody is impugning their truth. Surely that's far more significant than their provenance?
17
Democrats criticize authoritarian opacity until that transparency illuminates the DNC. Perhaps if journalists did a better job (e.g., Elizabeth Warren's recent expose on Think Tanks - as an aside why was SHE breaking that news?) we wouldn't need organizations like Wikileaks and it's rapist leader.
13
Warren's expose?
More like more of the same type of partisan garbage that has gridlocked our national government.
Because, if Warren wanted to truly rid Washington of think tanks, she would call for a rejection on ALL think tanks, not just those she has philosophical differences with.
More like more of the same type of partisan garbage that has gridlocked our national government.
Because, if Warren wanted to truly rid Washington of think tanks, she would call for a rejection on ALL think tanks, not just those she has philosophical differences with.
3
Can We Trust Billary and the Dems?
13
Granted there are problems with Wikileaks. But consider where we would be without them. Are the major media able to penetrate the walls of secrecy built around our government and its related parts, to expose the often corrupt (DNC) or criminal (NSA) behavior of the organizations? The answer is no.
12
More accurately than are they able to penetrate the walls of secrecy, do they want to? But the answer is still no.
2
Unfortunately we need people like Assange.Whatever his motives and whether he was or wasn't careless in what he released,the fact is that we are all aware of WikiLeaks,an organization that more often than not releases important and damning information that would not otherwise get into the public domain.
yes there may be collateral damage but the importance of exposing often nefarious and sometime illegal activities trumps the negatives.
yes there may be collateral damage but the importance of exposing often nefarious and sometime illegal activities trumps the negatives.
16
Violating a person's right to privacy is rarely "in the public interest." What nonsense. One wonders what the author of this piece will say when it happens to him.
4
When the NYT doesn't like the message, they try to kill the messenger. Par for the course.
25
Sorry but, the I trust the conveyance of information by Wikileaks far more than the biased reporting we get from the embedded US media and by the New York Times.
22
There are two possible takeaways from this latest leak: Assange considers the DNC and Clinton to be a greater threat to the public trust and security than Donald Trump. That or he is more interested in drawing blood than in the public trust or security. He must be either a stupid man, or a cruel one. I believe in the essence of his work but I absolutely do not believe in him; I have about as much to admire in Mr. Snowden, who is not proud enough of his crimes to face their consequences, and instead cozies up to a petit roi who murders men like him. It is discouraging that the biggest names in transparency are such scoundrels themselves.
8
Actually, if you go to Democracy Now!'s website and listen to their interview with him, Assange in his own words explains that his objective in the case of the DNC emails leak -- which, btw, includes far more information than the emails and that he considers it far more useful than the emails to historians and political scientusts -- is to provide a window into the structures and processes that drive the selection, by a closed organization, of candidates the entire nation gets to vote on in general elections.
13
It seems that before Wikileaks published the DNC emails, which exposed the truth, the liberals were all for it. But now since it casts the light on liberal double standards and dirty dealings, they are against it. Assange, who the liberals once championed as a beacon of free speech and thought, is now a villain.
15
Nonsense. Did you even read the essay? "Liberals" (like myself and, presumably, Gibney) are not "against" WikiLeaks or Assange. Many (most?) were glad that the dirt came out on the DNC. Gibney explicitly states that he believes that the DNC leak was fully justified. He merely points out that Assange's judgment may be clouded by his zeal. Why publish SSN and credit card info if it can be avoided, as is apparently the case? Your comments say more about your reductionist all/nothing, good/bad view than about "the liberals" or Gibney.
2
The release of the documents was most definitely NOT in the national interest, and you need to look up what that phrase means. It was extremely harmful, as is anything that weakens the Democratic nominees right now. The national priority must be to prevent a Trump presidency.
On top of that, people need to stop being naive and starry-eyed about the president. Yes, there is a certain level of corruption. There always has been. It doesn't mean people are incapable of governing and drafting intelligent policy. No, the president doesn't have to be someone you like or want to have a beer with.
As for Assange, he is a sociopathic, egomaniacal narcissist who releases documents with no sense of responsibility or caution, totally unlike Edward Snowden. "Radical transparency" is ridiculous. Chinese dissidents who were working with the West have disappeared since the release of various Wiki Leaks. Who knows how many others have been harmed. "Responsible transparency" is the standard any whistleblower should be held to.
On top of that, people need to stop being naive and starry-eyed about the president. Yes, there is a certain level of corruption. There always has been. It doesn't mean people are incapable of governing and drafting intelligent policy. No, the president doesn't have to be someone you like or want to have a beer with.
As for Assange, he is a sociopathic, egomaniacal narcissist who releases documents with no sense of responsibility or caution, totally unlike Edward Snowden. "Radical transparency" is ridiculous. Chinese dissidents who were working with the West have disappeared since the release of various Wiki Leaks. Who knows how many others have been harmed. "Responsible transparency" is the standard any whistleblower should be held to.
7
Lying, deceiving, subverting democracy is pretty extreme but fine if it is for a "good" cause. Sounds like Senator Goldwater in 1964.
5
So the first time you thought to raise these questions was when Assange turned his sights on Democrats? What media bias?
22
Interesting, now that Wikileaks might hurt the Democrats the NY Times starts to question its integrity. Really. Where were you before? The self-serving nature of the NY Times is really very stark for folks to see. You will question Wikileaks until the next time it hurts your adversaries. Then, of course, you will claim that Wikileaks is doing us a valuable service. In the end, it really isn't that much different than Trump. Anyone that praises Trump is great. Anyone that criticizes the man is an idiot. Is the NY Times really that different? Answer, I think not. Anyone that does anything that the NY Times is against is bad. Anyone that does anything that the NY Times likes is doing us all a valuable service.
16
Assange and WikiLeaks have become agents of the Russian government and Vladimir Putin.
4
It seems to me that, rather than worrying about Assange and his tendency toward a private dictatorship, we should be looking for ways to secure servers containing national intelligence and private information. This should be our moonshot. We're focused on the wrong problem.
5
"If an Afghan helps coalition forces, he deserves to die." That just lost my support of Assange forever.
6
The WikiLeaks website is WikiLeaks.org. I would suggest that the NY Times include that source in any articles about its curator, presumed sources or content. Then readers can search the content and form their own opinions.
13
With regard to the Russian government we should expect more damaging leaks to come over the next 82 days. That said, if the FBI has in fact ID'd the Russians as key culprits behind all this and the Russians opt to leak more news publicly, they might opt to use another different intermediary rather than Wiki whose reputation has been tarnished for the purpose of influencing the election. That said, perhaps the Russians don't need Wikileaks if they simply give the intel. directly to the Trump Campaign. Trump and his senior advisors and representatives are clearly sloppy, lack moral compunction and are probably just dishonest enough to try to use ammunition slipped their way. Maybe they already have it. Trump seems to have more to say about Bill Clinton than I could have imagined. Does Trump have the Russian gov's dossier on Hillary's husband?
1
Odd title. What about "Can we trust HRC and the DNC?"
21
I've been screaming about this since the mid-90s when the ethic of "information wants to be free" was born.
It's all fun and games when the information that yearns for freedom is the song you don't want to pay for, some evidence of corporate misdeeds or secrets embarrassing Bush imperial ambitions. However, following this ethic to its only logical conclusions will always lead to a very dark place. It envisions a paranoid and scared society, one where no one is confident to put pen to paper or express thoughts, opinions or plans that may someday prove embarrassing or harmful. It is one where people cannot experiment with ideas without fear of exposure and ridicule. It is one where governments cannot ensure privacy of citizens' information or private organizations guaranty confidentiality of candid discussion. It is a world with people constantly looking over their shoulders with speech chilled by the threat of a press gleefully willing to print any and everything that may be obtained (through whatever means, legal or illegal).
...and the arbiters and dictators of this world? It is the likes of Mr. Assange - petty, vindictive people who will carelessly and heedlessly advance the agendas of dictators and fascists to settle personal scores. It is men like Edward Snowden, hiding behind the cloak of Vladimir Putin's protection to avoid facing the consequences of his "civil disobedience". And more and more, it is the NYTs that will print anything these others serve up.
It's all fun and games when the information that yearns for freedom is the song you don't want to pay for, some evidence of corporate misdeeds or secrets embarrassing Bush imperial ambitions. However, following this ethic to its only logical conclusions will always lead to a very dark place. It envisions a paranoid and scared society, one where no one is confident to put pen to paper or express thoughts, opinions or plans that may someday prove embarrassing or harmful. It is one where people cannot experiment with ideas without fear of exposure and ridicule. It is one where governments cannot ensure privacy of citizens' information or private organizations guaranty confidentiality of candid discussion. It is a world with people constantly looking over their shoulders with speech chilled by the threat of a press gleefully willing to print any and everything that may be obtained (through whatever means, legal or illegal).
...and the arbiters and dictators of this world? It is the likes of Mr. Assange - petty, vindictive people who will carelessly and heedlessly advance the agendas of dictators and fascists to settle personal scores. It is men like Edward Snowden, hiding behind the cloak of Vladimir Putin's protection to avoid facing the consequences of his "civil disobedience". And more and more, it is the NYTs that will print anything these others serve up.
3
Well, we know we can't trust our government or our politicians. And we can no longer trust our MSM, including the NY Times. I'd say that our MSM is controlled by the CIA, but the reality is that our MSM already knows how the CIA would want events reported and they comply. You really have to go to the alternative media to go to the bottom of things.
17
About as much as we can trust the main stream media and their reckless, partisan advocacy on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
24
You all sound like poor sports who lost a game, hoping the other side made enough mistakes to cry foul to the referee and win by default.
Nice try with the hatchet job on Assange, but all of your assumptions ring subjective and biased. Poorly written article, you seem to be taking his efforts on a personal level. Can we trust Assange? Please...
It's not the right question to consider. Are the documents released able to be trusted? Are the facts verifiable? Has WikiLeaks ever been proven to release a tranche of false information or documents?
Now that he took down DNC/Wasserman Shultz, everyone's butt is sore. This is the problem with neoliberalism. You have all lost your objectivity in place for the same divisiveness that you claim to despise from the other side.
Be fair to yourselves. It's not about Assange. It never was, despite Julian's healthy sized ego. It's about the information.
Don't bifurcate the truth when it doesn't fit your world view.
Nice try with the hatchet job on Assange, but all of your assumptions ring subjective and biased. Poorly written article, you seem to be taking his efforts on a personal level. Can we trust Assange? Please...
It's not the right question to consider. Are the documents released able to be trusted? Are the facts verifiable? Has WikiLeaks ever been proven to release a tranche of false information or documents?
Now that he took down DNC/Wasserman Shultz, everyone's butt is sore. This is the problem with neoliberalism. You have all lost your objectivity in place for the same divisiveness that you claim to despise from the other side.
Be fair to yourselves. It's not about Assange. It never was, despite Julian's healthy sized ego. It's about the information.
Don't bifurcate the truth when it doesn't fit your world view.
24
How about submitting Social Security numbers to the public? Is that such a noble cause?
1
The NYT is repeating over and over that probably the Russians did hack those e-mails. But nobody knows yet. Repeating an assumption until everybody believes it as a fact is a classical method of propaganda. The NYT has its own agenda driven reporting.
26
Can't imagine how the writer justifies stealing other people's (or organization's) emails and publishing them "in the public interest." The DNC is interested in winning elections for its party, and its backing of the best candidate to accomplish this is utterly unsurprising, and not illegal--the RNC was frantically trying to stop Trump and nobody batted an eye. Assange is a useful idiot for Russian intel, can't imagine why WikiLeaks hasn't been taken down by our cyberwarriors.
2
Beats the useful idiots that keep repeating the Putin meme. There has not been an election or coup anywhere on this planet in the last 60 years not influenced by the US. Putin is not on any ballot. Linking Trump to Putin and running against Russia is a transparent and losing tactic which has implications for the future I can't vote for.
2
Assange was on Bill Maher's show Saturday. Maher questioned him about the hack of the DNC and essentially asked what his "agenda" was. It seems Maher asks tougher questions than the media. Maybe Maher should get a full time job at one of the major networks. Maher also asked him about Trump's tax returns and asked him if Wikileaks was going to go after Trump. Assange replied "We're working on it."
15
Like many other top quality journalists who posed provocative questions to anyone about the entire system, they, like Bill Maher, were dismissed from those mainstream media organizations. If reporters were allowed to ask questions and do actual unbiased, in-depth investigative reporting where the viewer actually could learn something, there would be little need for an Assange/Wikileaks or Edward Snowden.
I'm sure all the Assange defenders here are the same people who condemned Bill Crosby and Roger Ailes for their crimes against women. Funny that Assange gets a pass but then again the hypocrisy of liberals can be just as noxious as conservatives. In my view, Assange is nothing more than a creepy egomaniac who sexually assaults women. If he was innocent of those crimes as he says, stop trying smear the victims and stop hiding in the embassy of yet another authoritarian ruler.
4
I have long contended that Mr. Assange, like Donald Trump, is a childish megalomaniac, bent only on accumulating power and avenging perceived slights against him, large and small. I think he would wither away without the media attention he so craves. I do not trust him, his motives and the information he "leaks".
8
Alex, the author seems more like a DNC lackey playing damage control than an unbiased journalist with integrity.
20
My thoughts exactly. The conversation has been about everything but the fradulent way the DNC stole the nomination from Sanders. It is clear that the establishment media supports HRC.
14
I do find it rather odd that after the DNC E-Mails were exposed, within a matter of 24 hours, in order to deflect the issue away from the actual content, the principles at the DNC stated unequivocally that it was the Russians fault. Of course, what has been either downplayed or not reported at all is that a few of the DNC upper members have resigned or been fired and one, non -reported rather bizarre story that another one of these DNC surrogates was found murdered.
4
Nearly everyone acts for personal motives. People in the press, after all, write article and essays because someone is paying them to do so. Calling some leaks "good" and others "bad," talking about "responsible" redaction, and so on is dependent entirely on one's subjective viewpoint. The questions we need to ask are "Is this stuff true," and "Does it give us a reasonably accurate picture of what was going on?" If the answer to both is "yes," as it is with regard to the DNC, then disparaging the leaks is just spin and attempted distraction. Of course, the same thing can be said of giving people an accurate picture of what's going on with Assange and Putin. Truth is a multi-directional street.
9
Agreed that we should not take Mr. Assange at his word, but the content of the emails, most definitely.
18
I would trust Wikileaks - or any other courageous media - to have the motive to reveal secreted information that is in the public interest over any politician, no matter how liberal or libertarian that politician might be. The fourth estate should only be limited or regulated to revealing the truth.
12
He sounds at least a little like Donald Trump.
5
More than a little!
1
How does personal information like credit card info get mixed into email caches?
7
Preparation for the release of HCR's emails concerning the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State ? Yes I will vote for her, but Bernie's campaign and supporters said the DNC was undermining his campaign, only to be ridiculed by the likes of the NYTs, and the HRC fan club. Assange may be self serving, but I welcome the truth. Arguments that Bernie was an independent, and thus the antics of the DNC were fair, don't wash. HRC needs independents and the "progressives" to win this election.
17
What antics? What do you think they did to Bernie except direct some snark his way, and dismiss some unsavory suggestions as to how to deal with him?
1
If something is in the public interest, then it is in the public interest. Were Assange's motives 'pure?' Probably not. That doesn't change the fact that the DNC engaged in behavior that was a violation of its own rules and was directly counter to its own specific statements on the matter. That should appall anyone who cares about the integrity of our electoral system, irrespective of party affiliation.
We have, on the one hand, Trump, who, for his own political advantage, is actively encouraging a foreign government to spy on a U.S. presidential election, and on the other, the Clinton campaign, which seeks to divert focus from the content of the emails and make it all about the messenger. As I recently said to a Trump supporter: "If you think it's okay for a presidential candidate to encourage a foreign government to spy on a U.S. presidential election, you probably need to check your patriotism; if you are more concerned about the motives behind the email disclosures than about the revelations they contain, you probably need to check your integrity."
We have, on the one hand, Trump, who, for his own political advantage, is actively encouraging a foreign government to spy on a U.S. presidential election, and on the other, the Clinton campaign, which seeks to divert focus from the content of the emails and make it all about the messenger. As I recently said to a Trump supporter: "If you think it's okay for a presidential candidate to encourage a foreign government to spy on a U.S. presidential election, you probably need to check your patriotism; if you are more concerned about the motives behind the email disclosures than about the revelations they contain, you probably need to check your integrity."
11
If I want to check my integrity I'll concern myself equally with the disclosures and the motives behind them. If I don't do that I'm letting my preferences corrupt my reason and my morality; which is to say, I'm being an intellectually dishonest hypocrite. You?
The response to the question posed by the title is simple: no. Anyone who claims that they have the right to steal and then manipulate intelligence information for a personal agenda cannot be trusted.
12
The Ecuador embassy should throw him out for interfering with US elections while in their custody. He should not allowed to such things while in their sanctuary.
4
Jullian Assange is a criminal, pure and simple. He has not only received stolen goods, he has created a market for them, even if the currency is political rather than monetary. The UK should shut down all communication access to or from the Ecuadorian Consulate until they hand him over for trial.
8
I will repeat, once again, the question I have about this issue and hope that someday someone will actually address it.
If these were not stolen emails but instead, someone physically broke into DNC headquarters and stole boxes of documents and left them in some public location, would the NY Times send a reporter out to leaf through them and publish the contents? If not, why not?
I do not see how it is any different, from an ethical point of view, to publish private information stolen from a private organization merely because the public might be interested in it. This is not information being hidden from the public by the government. Like them or not, the DNC is a private organization and hacking their computers is a crime. And I would say the same about the RNC or Sony Pictures for that matter.
If these were not stolen emails but instead, someone physically broke into DNC headquarters and stole boxes of documents and left them in some public location, would the NY Times send a reporter out to leaf through them and publish the contents? If not, why not?
I do not see how it is any different, from an ethical point of view, to publish private information stolen from a private organization merely because the public might be interested in it. This is not information being hidden from the public by the government. Like them or not, the DNC is a private organization and hacking their computers is a crime. And I would say the same about the RNC or Sony Pictures for that matter.
9
Did you forget about those Pentagon Papers? They were physically removed and made available to the NYT.
1
I seem to recall liberals embracing Wikileaks when it helped their cause(s). Is it painful now that the shoe is on the other foot?
12
The reason Assange has an animus against the liberal Clinton is because she has said he should be jailed.
6
Admit it, NYT: you're just setting us up to disbelieve/discredit the coming big leaks on Hillary Clinton. And they will be coming. And no pre-emptive spin by the NYT is going to lessen the explosive effect on your One Percenter-Chosen Candidate.
21
The DNC emails are not state secrets. They revealed a fundamental level of dishonesty and manipulation that is typical of entrenched politicians trying to preserve the Status Quo. What they did was no small thing; they tried to subvert the democratic process. The Republicans have done that on a larger scale by trying to pass local laws to limit minority voting. Both parties are convinced that given the dreaded alternative of having their opposition candidate win the election that such un-American activities are acceptable and that the ends justify the means. No wonder our political system has degenerated to the point that Trump and Hillary are their standard bearer.
22
Short answer: No! Why on earth would we trust Julian Assange? In order for any release to be truly transparent you need to know what potential conflict of interest the leaker has, what his motivation might be for leaking the information, whether the information was selectively curated, as well as some assurance that the information hasn't been tampered with. Assange offers none of these. He is a stooge.
Our traditional press, however, normally does do at least a reasonable job of fleshing out and vetting the complete story and protecting innocent people from unnecessary blow back when given sensative and relevant information. In fact, I think anyone who is found to have given any secret information to wikileaks in this country, or any country with a reasonably free press, should automatically be stripped of the right to claim any whistle blower protection if caught. WikiLeaks, because of gross irresponsibility should be a considered complicit in criminal activity and espionage and treated as such. In short, WikiLeaks is the Napster of the journalist world: an interesting concept that masks a fundamentally criminal enterprise.
That being said, WikiLeaks, or rather a service like WikiLeaks does a valuable service in regimes without easy access to a free press. But there is no reason why traditional press in the Western World couldn't fill the vacuum
Our traditional press, however, normally does do at least a reasonable job of fleshing out and vetting the complete story and protecting innocent people from unnecessary blow back when given sensative and relevant information. In fact, I think anyone who is found to have given any secret information to wikileaks in this country, or any country with a reasonably free press, should automatically be stripped of the right to claim any whistle blower protection if caught. WikiLeaks, because of gross irresponsibility should be a considered complicit in criminal activity and espionage and treated as such. In short, WikiLeaks is the Napster of the journalist world: an interesting concept that masks a fundamentally criminal enterprise.
That being said, WikiLeaks, or rather a service like WikiLeaks does a valuable service in regimes without easy access to a free press. But there is no reason why traditional press in the Western World couldn't fill the vacuum
5
When Assange and Wikileaks starts leaking anything that is embarrassing to Russia and Putin, or the Chinese for that matter, then, and only then, will I even consider trusting them.
8
I would also include the RNC emails and Trump's tax returns....
But, don't hold your breath expecting this level of truthiness from Vladimir Putin' s lapdog....
But, don't hold your breath expecting this level of truthiness from Vladimir Putin' s lapdog....
Radical transparency might sound like a noble cause, but upon examination it is just a euphemism for espionage. Governments need to have secrets. In conducting military exercises and international diplomacy, generals and diplomats must be able to confidentially communicate with each other, their governments and field commanders.
It has long been the law of every nation that penetration of confidential communications is punished harshly with good reason. In times of war, such espionage is often a capital offense. Whether such secrets are obtained by physically breaking into an embassy, bribing an insider, blackmail, or hijacking a courier, the deed of taking the information is a serious felony, and the deed of sharing such information is a serious felony. The fact that the information was stolen using the internet makes no difference. And the motivation of the actor makes little or no difference. Radical transparency is espionage. Assange is nothing but a spy.
It has long been the law of every nation that penetration of confidential communications is punished harshly with good reason. In times of war, such espionage is often a capital offense. Whether such secrets are obtained by physically breaking into an embassy, bribing an insider, blackmail, or hijacking a courier, the deed of taking the information is a serious felony, and the deed of sharing such information is a serious felony. The fact that the information was stolen using the internet makes no difference. And the motivation of the actor makes little or no difference. Radical transparency is espionage. Assange is nothing but a spy.
6
The 'secrets' at issue here ar4e not government secrets. They were emails that gave lie to the DNC's representations that it was impartial in the primary race. Most of us accept that governments, in some cases, need to have secrets. Anyone who has been conscious for the last decade or so should also understand that, often as not, secrecy and classifying information are tools used by corrupt officials and governments to prevent the public from being aware of corruption and wrongdoing.
1
You're writing in the NY Times. I wonder if you would have this argument if it was Trump's missing emails that were being provided to the public. I've never seen this paper, the bastion of the liberal press, lean so outside of ethical reporting as you have with this election. It's a disgrace!
13
John,
Assange is nothing more than a hack, willing release anything in the sake of supposed transparency, If it were Trump's email with your Name SSN and credit card data. Would you want it released?
Assange is nothing more than a hack, willing release anything in the sake of supposed transparency, If it were Trump's email with your Name SSN and credit card data. Would you want it released?
4
Assange and Snowden are and were driven by agendas not necessarily in our or their best interests. Neither have changed the world nor will they. Happily, both are in a purgatory they do not want.
4
It doesn't matter whether you trust Julian Assange or not, Alex.
What matters is free speech.
Ms. Wasserman-Schultz, and her cohorts at DNC would benefit from the maxim that I taught my sons: Never write anything in an email that would be embarassing if published on the front page of The New York Times.
What matters is free speech.
Ms. Wasserman-Schultz, and her cohorts at DNC would benefit from the maxim that I taught my sons: Never write anything in an email that would be embarassing if published on the front page of The New York Times.
17
Lol. I was raised more down scale, being told never do anything you wouldn't want your mother to read on the cover of the Daily News.
3
Yep, same instrument of "free speech" that also puts lives in danger.
But, I guessed that bit of calculus never dawned on your dogmatic mind, did it?
But, I guessed that bit of calculus never dawned on your dogmatic mind, did it?
"As for Mr. Assange’s animus against Hillary Clinton — he has written that she 'lacks judgment and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism' — that is evidence of bias, but no more than that. After all, many news outlets are clearly, and sometimes proudly, biased."
Mr Assange's recognition of Hillary's support for military actions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria is not evidence of "bias", Mr. Gibney. His opinion is based on fact.
For an example of real bias, read the contents of the DNC emails that are coming to light because of Wikileaks...
Mr Assange's recognition of Hillary's support for military actions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria is not evidence of "bias", Mr. Gibney. His opinion is based on fact.
For an example of real bias, read the contents of the DNC emails that are coming to light because of Wikileaks...
14
Amazing, there's always a sexual angle portrayed by the opposition when someone tries to do the right thing, whether Assange, or Spitzer and Weiner before him. If you can't beat them on merit dig up or plant the dirt, pathetic.
8
I think the point people are making about the "sexual angle" (a curious term for sexual assault) is that since he's been accused of sexual assault and ran away rather than face charges, his ethics and motives are rightfully being questioned.
7
So typical for a clueless guy to downplay the charges of rape by a fellow bro.
If you don't like the message, shoot the messenger.
I'll bet that someone with a bone to pick with Mr. Gibney could conjure up all sorts of anecdotes and psycho-babble to discredit him.
The DNC claimed that Sanders' calls of foul balls was unjustified. The DNC publicly and repeatedly assured the Sanders' crowd that they were being treated fairly. The Wikileaks emails suggested that the DNC was being disingenuous. The DNC reaction to the Wikileaks emails was to claim that their release was a Russian conspiracy to corrupt the Presidential elections and put the Putin Puppet in the White House.
Like Nixon, the DNC and the Democratic Establishment took the low road and refused to defuse the situation by admitting that they didn't want a pretend Democrat, Mr. Sanders, to play in their sandbox. That would have ended this escalated farce.
They need Sanders' voting bloc, so the denial and smearing goes on.
I'll bet that someone with a bone to pick with Mr. Gibney could conjure up all sorts of anecdotes and psycho-babble to discredit him.
The DNC claimed that Sanders' calls of foul balls was unjustified. The DNC publicly and repeatedly assured the Sanders' crowd that they were being treated fairly. The Wikileaks emails suggested that the DNC was being disingenuous. The DNC reaction to the Wikileaks emails was to claim that their release was a Russian conspiracy to corrupt the Presidential elections and put the Putin Puppet in the White House.
Like Nixon, the DNC and the Democratic Establishment took the low road and refused to defuse the situation by admitting that they didn't want a pretend Democrat, Mr. Sanders, to play in their sandbox. That would have ended this escalated farce.
They need Sanders' voting bloc, so the denial and smearing goes on.
9
These days my news comes from hackers and is told to me by comedians. I look forward to Redacted Tonight on Youtube. Readit is also very helpful.
Sorry NY Times. I don't trust you very much anymore. What you report does not match the world that I see.
Sorry NY Times. I don't trust you very much anymore. What you report does not match the world that I see.
13
Some of us never did take him at his word.
3
I saw Assange on "Real Time", recently, talking to Bill Maher about Snowden's tweet re: "curating private info": " Democratizing information has never been more vital, and @Wikileaks has helped. But their hostility to even modest curation is a mistake." Basically, I agree with Snowden. I think Wikileaks is valuable and that we need it in a world controlled by corporate interests and Assange needs to separate his justified anger about his own situation from his important work.
2
His own situation is of his own making. The only people who wish to speak to him are the Swedes but he knows he did commit a sex crime so he, as he has always done, invented an excuse that blames the US for travails of his own making and created this high drama.
To me it is hilarious that he has committed crimes which make it impossible for the British to let him go even if he comes out of his self made prison in that Embassy.
To me it is hilarious that he has committed crimes which make it impossible for the British to let him go even if he comes out of his self made prison in that Embassy.
2
Many believe the Swedish accusations against Assange are trumped up.
1
One might just as well ask, 'Can We Trust the Current Owner of (insert which media conglomerate here) ' ......? There's basically no difference. One may actually be deseminating actual news.
8
Nothing new with the Dems. Corrupt, corrupt, corrupt.
10
Its the system and the Clintons have mastered how to milk the system to its fullest.
9
The worm has turned. The beloved antiestablishment martyr to conscience and transparancy has suddenly transformed into Satan himself after attacking the DNC instead of hateful Republican warmongers.
5
I always assumed he was acting out of personal interest, just as is true of all people.
1
The prob with Assange, as with those clowns who did the film attack on Planned Parenthood, is that there is no accountability.
4
Funny how we're seeing this OpEd just when the emails show that at least one writer working for the New York Times was in collusion with the DNC to slant their coverage against Sanders.
12
Would you kindly point me to that information, please.
Thank you.
Thank you.
4
Trust a man hiding in a foreign embassy to avoid rape charges?
NO WAY!
NO WAY!
7
Deflect attention from leaked contents to possible Russian hack. Check!
Malign the character and motives of the messenger. Check!
All prepared for the next release of emails damaging to Hillary. Check!
Malign the character and motives of the messenger. Check!
All prepared for the next release of emails damaging to Hillary. Check!
12
Mr. Assange, in a recent interview with Bill Maher, stated that he only released the last 4 digits of the credit card information of donors, not the actual numbers. As i have not perused the entire document cache, I do not know who is telling the truth on this, but if the NY Times is going to make such a claim, I feel that they need to provide some evidence that it is so.
The attacks on Mr. Assange, like previous attacks on Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning, are intended to divert attention from the message to the messinger. The only reason for anyone to do so is that the message strikes too close to home to be comfortable.
The attacks on Mr. Assange, like previous attacks on Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning, are intended to divert attention from the message to the messinger. The only reason for anyone to do so is that the message strikes too close to home to be comfortable.
8
"I was struck by how insistently he steered the conversation away from matters of principle to personal slights against him, and his plans for payback."
It sounds like Assange and Trump are birds of a feather.
It sounds like Assange and Trump are birds of a feather.
3
Yes. Assange and Trump are birds of the same feather. They, however, spin their tale in an opposite direction than does the Democratic party; its called politics.
2
The information, said to be in the public interest, was derived from criminal activity in active complicity with Russian state sponsored or enabled hackers.
O what a revolution, Alex! Think about this a little harder.
Best.l
O what a revolution, Alex! Think about this a little harder.
Best.l
4
Wikileaks is no different from any other source. Its people have their own agendas, and what it functionally solicits and then chooses to publish (and when) is a matter of choice made by individuals. It is functionally a corporation, and the public should view it as such, with its people held individually accountable, Citizens United mentality notwithstanding.
In anything more than 2+ 2 = 4, context is 90% of meaning, and both Wikileaks and the subsequent headlining by secondary sources of those leaks leave context pretty much in the background, usually in favor of the most sensationalistic or partisan editing and interpretation. While "dog bites man" is not an attention grabbing headline, "man bites dog" certainly is. If a Wikileaks release notes that but absent is the context that the man was literally starving to death or came from a culture that routinely ate dogs, we would not know the real meaning of what was reported.
By and large, people are not merely drawn to the sensational but, more importantly, they look at events with a strong sense of confirmation bias, molding their interpretation of "facts" to fit their own preconceived narrative of how the world operates. There is a large difference between facts and information. Wikileaks is merely a source of facts Though collectively some of what it publishes does provide information, it is by no means a reliable source of meaning.
In anything more than 2+ 2 = 4, context is 90% of meaning, and both Wikileaks and the subsequent headlining by secondary sources of those leaks leave context pretty much in the background, usually in favor of the most sensationalistic or partisan editing and interpretation. While "dog bites man" is not an attention grabbing headline, "man bites dog" certainly is. If a Wikileaks release notes that but absent is the context that the man was literally starving to death or came from a culture that routinely ate dogs, we would not know the real meaning of what was reported.
By and large, people are not merely drawn to the sensational but, more importantly, they look at events with a strong sense of confirmation bias, molding their interpretation of "facts" to fit their own preconceived narrative of how the world operates. There is a large difference between facts and information. Wikileaks is merely a source of facts Though collectively some of what it publishes does provide information, it is by no means a reliable source of meaning.
2
Julian Assange has become an egomaniac narcissist sadistic person. He thinks he is a kingmaker. He intervenes in American election and wants change the outcome in favor of Donald Trump and Putin. This creep should be tried for breaking law.
5
Success as a leaker does seem rather to have gone to Mr. Assange's head. The media organizations that work with him will need to exert greater oversight.
6
I think we Americans should all be personally grateful to Wikileaks and Mr. Assange, for providing us with the truth of the DNC actions in influencing the Democratic Party primary elections in favor of Ambassador Clinton. Certainly un-ethical, if not criminal actions. But what is this business about "trust"? Certainly Wikileaks does need or want Alex Gibney's trust, or that of anyone else, for that matter. Their work is to present facts, which speak for themselves, and cannot be responsibly ignored. They don't ask for or need any "trust". But based upon evidence, it seems to me that Wikileaks is certainly more trustworthy than say, the Democratic National Committee.
13
Commentators have written over and over that the DNC is a private organization. The same is true for the RNC. They are therefore entitled to keep their internal business secret from the public. But the DNC and RNC have a lock on candidates for the presidency and for most other public offices. The candidates are (with the exception of Trump this year) pre-selected by the party hierarchy, and we get to vote way downstream (or, like as not, have our votes suppressed). Moreover, the candidates are funded by private corporations and wealthy individuals. The ideal of government of, by, and for the people seems to have died with Lincoln's assassination.
I don't care whether Assange is an egotist or a womanizer. The halls of Congress are stuffed with same. I wasn't planning on having him over to dinner. IMO, he has done a public service by exposing the internal machinations of our rulers. I wish we had more like him, and fewer lapdogs in the media.
I don't care whether Assange is an egotist or a womanizer. The halls of Congress are stuffed with same. I wasn't planning on having him over to dinner. IMO, he has done a public service by exposing the internal machinations of our rulers. I wish we had more like him, and fewer lapdogs in the media.
11
We can't trust our own government and the only people responsible for pulling back the curtains of government and military secrecy is WikiLeaks. We have learned to Trust Julian and WikiLeaks judging solely on the roar coming from his critics in government.
10
Make no mistake, Julian Assange is a ego maniac in Trumpian mold. His real interest is promoting himself as a savior of humanity, much like Trump purports to be. But they are both self-promoters who care about adulation and affirmation more than anything else. Julian Assange has no real friends and just like Trump, few people have liked working with him. He couldn't care less about humanity.
Unfortunately, both left and right are blinded by their own agenda. They have no recognition of monsters they are birthing. Anyone who embraces their extreme causes is heralded as a flag bearing hero with no regard for consequences. No long term good will come from empowering these capricious and callous individuals. Donald didn't create the demagogue he has become, his supporters did. It's the same with Julian Assange. Left, ditch this demagogue, before this so-called savior becomes your next living nightmare.
Unfortunately, both left and right are blinded by their own agenda. They have no recognition of monsters they are birthing. Anyone who embraces their extreme causes is heralded as a flag bearing hero with no regard for consequences. No long term good will come from empowering these capricious and callous individuals. Donald didn't create the demagogue he has become, his supporters did. It's the same with Julian Assange. Left, ditch this demagogue, before this so-called savior becomes your next living nightmare.
2
Here's hoping Assange releases anything he can find regarding Clinton emails, speeches, Clinton Foundation as well as Trump's taxes or DNC misdeeds; and please let it be enough to get both the candidates off the political stage.
Let it evoke a constitutional crises which would necessitate two new candidates; anyone except the two sleazy candidates before us now.
Let it evoke a constitutional crises which would necessitate two new candidates; anyone except the two sleazy candidates before us now.
7
"The D.N.C. emails were in the public interest but they also show how reckless and agenda-driven WikiLeaks has become"
Much like the NYTimes I would say.
Much like the NYTimes I would say.
11
Whenever an organization or individual is outed by a whistle blower, it is a standard response to try to discredit the whistle blower.
What a shame that the Times has abandoned investigative reporting, left the revelation of embarrassing facts to organizations such as Wikileaks, and then becomes part of the effort to discredit the whistle blower.
This is a sad end to the Times, which in 1971 had the integrity and courage to publish the Pentagon Papers. It now takes a Wikileaks to bring critical information to the public, and a cowering Times falls in line to attack the messenger.
Sad. Just sad.
What a shame that the Times has abandoned investigative reporting, left the revelation of embarrassing facts to organizations such as Wikileaks, and then becomes part of the effort to discredit the whistle blower.
This is a sad end to the Times, which in 1971 had the integrity and courage to publish the Pentagon Papers. It now takes a Wikileaks to bring critical information to the public, and a cowering Times falls in line to attack the messenger.
Sad. Just sad.
18
Wikileaks is not the Pentagon Papers, and Assange is not a patriot attempting to inform the public of facts not known about the Vietnam War. Assange is not an American; he is a refugee from Sweden hiding in a 3rd world country embassy to avoid rape charges in his home country, Sweden. He has allied himself with Putin, an old KGB guy, because Russia gave him passage to his current place of exile. Why are we paying attention to this man? If he has any information about Trump's sons and their business interests with Putin's Russia, that would be interesting. No doubt Trump would prefer to never have to release his tax returns which might show suspect payments. This is now moot, due to Trump's crash in the polls and his certain defeat in November. When Assange can no longer play that card, he will lose any value he had to anyone important. A small man who raped a girl and ran from the charges. The big reveal of DNC e-mails? Bernie lost to Clinton because of those e-mails? No, Bernie didn't even carry his home town, Brooklyn. His staff couldn't even figure out when they had to register voters as Democrats to vote in a closed Democratic Primary. Bernie got his platform into the Democratic Party platform. The RNC platform, a Tea Party nightmare even Paul Ryan can't campaign on, will be the end of the 21st century Whig Party.
1
Assange is very good at keeping the focus on everyone else and off his own criminal behavior. If he's so ethical, and so certain of his righteousness, he should stop hiding under his rock and face the music.
2
Lacking in ethics and morals would be a more appropriate description. Or just because you can doesn't mean you should. That so-called "expose" proved nothing. It was talk. All campaigns talk. One in particular has actually proven to alter an outcome and it certainly want the DNC. So given computer hackers have no ethics or morals either, what is the answer for a civilisation that chooses to pretend the internet is confidential?
3
When Wikileaks released confidential information from U.S. Embassies around the globe, I thought that it was a good thing to send a warning signal to governments that they were being watched and were no longer under closed doors. Now, after all what happened with its found, Julian Assange, I always felt that he was some kind of sociopath (and numerous person who worked with him can tell you this).
Assange mission is to destroy Clinton so Wikileaks' "impartiality" is no longer in place. Now we have instead a man who seeks revenge and no is longer preoccupied by world affairs but mostly by how to damage people who damaged his image.
Assange mission is to destroy Clinton so Wikileaks' "impartiality" is no longer in place. Now we have instead a man who seeks revenge and no is longer preoccupied by world affairs but mostly by how to damage people who damaged his image.
4
The real issue is the content of the emails. Had they been innocuous they never would have been released. As far as hacking goes, every government on the planet is hacking each other . World War III is being fought online.
7
To not see that Assange has been and still is waging a personal war against the US is to be willfully blind.
“The D.N.C. emails were in the public interest but they also show how reckless and agenda-driven WikiLeaks has become.”
No. This is what wikileaks always has been and it was obvious from the start with how they edited the video. It has always been absolutely obvious for anyone with eyes to see that Assange hates the US and will do anything he can to harm it including lie and alter the “evidence”.
“It also raised long-debated questions…., about how an organization dedicated to radical transparency….. And the episode reveals some of the weaknesses of WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, like their recklessness with personal data and their use of information to settle scores and drive personal agendas.”
There is no such thing as “radical transparency” and it has also been clear from the start that Assange meant for transparency to be a case of “Do as I say not as I do.”
This person who is not in any way shape or form a journalist is a criminal using the gain of his criminal enterprise to attain his personal goals. The whole transparency thing is the cover for his con and any “service” that might be rendered by him (I have seen nothing yet) is a tertiary unintended happenstance he makes sure to take full advantage of.
This is his true nature; “If an Afghan civilian helps coalition forces, he deserves to die.”
Snowden stole and ran, he is a criminal and a liar.
“The D.N.C. emails were in the public interest but they also show how reckless and agenda-driven WikiLeaks has become.”
No. This is what wikileaks always has been and it was obvious from the start with how they edited the video. It has always been absolutely obvious for anyone with eyes to see that Assange hates the US and will do anything he can to harm it including lie and alter the “evidence”.
“It also raised long-debated questions…., about how an organization dedicated to radical transparency….. And the episode reveals some of the weaknesses of WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, like their recklessness with personal data and their use of information to settle scores and drive personal agendas.”
There is no such thing as “radical transparency” and it has also been clear from the start that Assange meant for transparency to be a case of “Do as I say not as I do.”
This person who is not in any way shape or form a journalist is a criminal using the gain of his criminal enterprise to attain his personal goals. The whole transparency thing is the cover for his con and any “service” that might be rendered by him (I have seen nothing yet) is a tertiary unintended happenstance he makes sure to take full advantage of.
This is his true nature; “If an Afghan civilian helps coalition forces, he deserves to die.”
Snowden stole and ran, he is a criminal and a liar.
3
I wouldn't trust anything coming from Assange. He is too buddy buddy with the Russians, too anti-American, and too much of a sociopath to be trusted. Everything touched by Wikileaks needs to be discarded as trash.
4
The New York Times doth protest too much.....perhaps because Wiki Leaks has hurt this paper's anointed candidate Mrs. Clinton.
17
As agenda-driven as this article and The Times!
16
Consider an October surprise for Clinton by this coy, agenda-driven, man a given. Note that I left the name 'WikiLeaks' out of the equation. It shound be renamed to AssangeAgendaLeaks or the like. Assange's motives for personal revenge against Clinton, and his utilization of information apparently provided to him by Russia has completely compromised the organization, and defined it as a merely tool owned by a narcissistic counter punching megalomaniac with a thin skin. Recognize anyone else with those characteristics?
I don't think that I was the only one that noticed that Assange refused to answer Bill Maher's question when asked if Russia had provided Assange with the emails from the DNC.
I don't think that I was the only one that noticed that Assange refused to answer Bill Maher's question when asked if Russia had provided Assange with the emails from the DNC.
3
"Dedicated to radical transparency..."
Responsible "journalists from The Guardian ..."
Really?
Though so many issues are oversimplified, not all things are as complex as we make them.
Mr. Assange and associates are little more than technologically gifted thugs. And "Wiki-Leaks" is a cyber-terrorist organization.
Responsible "journalists from The Guardian ..."
Really?
Though so many issues are oversimplified, not all things are as complex as we make them.
Mr. Assange and associates are little more than technologically gifted thugs. And "Wiki-Leaks" is a cyber-terrorist organization.
2
I would be far more sympathetic to Assange and Wikileaks if they practiced what they preached. They are reckless in publicizing private information of others in their quest to go after governments and other entities but are notoriously private about information concerning their own organization and individuals who support them. In the DNC case for example, if the original theft of info (this was not a LEAK but a theft) was organized by another country i.e. Russia with the intent of interfering with our elections, that information is just as important - if not more so - than the routine emails of DNC employees (and certainly more important and in the public interest than the social security numbers and credit card numbers of DNC donors). But when pressed on this issue, Assange shows his arrogance and his disdain for anyone else. Only he has the right to decide what the public should know.
2
Trust no one. Investigate and verify.
The fact that our political parties and government cloak themselves in secrecy is disturbing to any citizen that values personal privacy. Assange is just the canary in the coal mine, a symptom of a more serious problem.
The fact that our political parties and government cloak themselves in secrecy is disturbing to any citizen that values personal privacy. Assange is just the canary in the coal mine, a symptom of a more serious problem.
12
Assange is a strutting, self-righteous narcissist whose thin skin and vengeful impulses make him the natural ally of egoists like Putin and Trump. Our reflexive disgust at the government's Big Brother tendencies should not confuse anyone into putting this man on a pedestal. Individuals playing God are just as disgusting as governments.
3
It couldn't possibly be that the emperor has no clothes. Our party really has become that corrupt.
10
Many thanks to Julian Assange and Wikileaks for sharing with the American public the crucial information that high DNC operatives actively and secretly worked to throw the Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton.
Snowden, Manning, Assange -- these folks all have their flaws and missteps. But can anyone seriously argue that their actions have not been a crucial supplement to the mainstream media, in informing American citizens about what our government is really up to here and around the world?
Snowden, Manning, Assange -- these folks all have their flaws and missteps. But can anyone seriously argue that their actions have not been a crucial supplement to the mainstream media, in informing American citizens about what our government is really up to here and around the world?
10
Philip, please elaborate. What nefarious plots to you refer to that "our government is really up to here and around the world?" Then we could have a discussion. Thanks.
C.L.S.,
The U.S. government is up to many things around the world: some secret, some out in the open; some worthwhile, some less so. Readers with more knowledge than myself could quote you figures on what our government spends annually under budget items that are essentially "black boxes" as far as any public scrutiny is concerned.
Assange et al. have torn the veil of secrecy off a few of these activities. I'm grateful for that. In my view Snowden and Manning are true patriots.
The U.S. government is up to many things around the world: some secret, some out in the open; some worthwhile, some less so. Readers with more knowledge than myself could quote you figures on what our government spends annually under budget items that are essentially "black boxes" as far as any public scrutiny is concerned.
Assange et al. have torn the veil of secrecy off a few of these activities. I'm grateful for that. In my view Snowden and Manning are true patriots.
1
Assange is very much like Trump.
Issolated, angry, unstable, pittied, hated and incredibly conceited.
This email dump was a sad attempt by Assange to make Assange relevant again.
Issolated, angry, unstable, pittied, hated and incredibly conceited.
This email dump was a sad attempt by Assange to make Assange relevant again.
4
Just think: by trusting Wikileaks to cherry-pick what to release and what not to, and whether to do so at all, is basically permitting Julian Assauge to manipulate our politics--and our government. Do we wish for Wikileaks to be determine what effects our government.
And that, by the way, applies only if we can assume the outflow's authenticity. And what is the Emails are, in fact, bogus?
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
And that, by the way, applies only if we can assume the outflow's authenticity. And what is the Emails are, in fact, bogus?
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
2
Now in my mid 80s I look back with dismay at having allowed myself to remain blindly pro-U.S.A. for so very long. At long last convincing (to me) evidence of officially propagated lies and coverups over the decades is apparent.
The lies concerning, say, Vietnam and Iraq should be apparent to all; but having no special sources on which to base my opinions I can only state that I “think” that I was intentionally misled.
So I’ll present only this one situation concerning which I know I am being lied to: the destruction of Building 7 of the WTC. Movies taken from several aspects demonstrate that the official NIST explanation is ludicrous.
My faith in Newtonian physics (applied under non-relativistic conditions) far outweighs any remaining faith in Washington D.C.’s veracity.
The lies concerning, say, Vietnam and Iraq should be apparent to all; but having no special sources on which to base my opinions I can only state that I “think” that I was intentionally misled.
So I’ll present only this one situation concerning which I know I am being lied to: the destruction of Building 7 of the WTC. Movies taken from several aspects demonstrate that the official NIST explanation is ludicrous.
My faith in Newtonian physics (applied under non-relativistic conditions) far outweighs any remaining faith in Washington D.C.’s veracity.
3
We have to rely on WikiLeaks and other odd sources like Snoden because we don't seem to have reliable mechanisms for monitoring our own government.
12
Never seen a better argument for bringing back Civics classes.
2
To a hammer everything is a nail.
There's an awful lot of agenda-driven opinion from a wide variety of people here, and I am doubtful of it all. Berniebusters think the primary was stolen. Anyone actually wanting to check the facts: Snopes did a good job of that. Trumpsters are just in it for what they can get, and mix in freely with those of us who actually care. There can be no question that when it comes to selfish motivation and absence of reliable action, Trump is king of an emperor-sized midden.
Personally, I find Snowden trustworthy; Assange not so much, but we all have benefited from leaks from both. Putin's motives are not clean, but he has sheltered Snowden in order to put a thumb in our eye. He would not begin to tolerate the slightest similar behavior were it deployed against him and his organization.
Transparency, in our electronic world, is a double-edged sword, and nobody is pure. Assange does not feel trustworthy any more.
As to the Democratic organization, it's an organization, and it contains people. Real people. Real people use email. Sort that out without all the hot air, please. The simplified insults are the result of opinion held prior to the information's release.
Don't be played, don't react, just look at everything. Everything *includes* positive information about Hillary Clinton, and I'm sick of the "fair and balanced" biased negativity and hate talk directed towards her.
I love Bernie, but I think Hillary Clinton will be a fine president.
There's an awful lot of agenda-driven opinion from a wide variety of people here, and I am doubtful of it all. Berniebusters think the primary was stolen. Anyone actually wanting to check the facts: Snopes did a good job of that. Trumpsters are just in it for what they can get, and mix in freely with those of us who actually care. There can be no question that when it comes to selfish motivation and absence of reliable action, Trump is king of an emperor-sized midden.
Personally, I find Snowden trustworthy; Assange not so much, but we all have benefited from leaks from both. Putin's motives are not clean, but he has sheltered Snowden in order to put a thumb in our eye. He would not begin to tolerate the slightest similar behavior were it deployed against him and his organization.
Transparency, in our electronic world, is a double-edged sword, and nobody is pure. Assange does not feel trustworthy any more.
As to the Democratic organization, it's an organization, and it contains people. Real people. Real people use email. Sort that out without all the hot air, please. The simplified insults are the result of opinion held prior to the information's release.
Don't be played, don't react, just look at everything. Everything *includes* positive information about Hillary Clinton, and I'm sick of the "fair and balanced" biased negativity and hate talk directed towards her.
I love Bernie, but I think Hillary Clinton will be a fine president.
10
Sure you do, on both counts...no agenda, truly.
2
By the way, it might be useful to shine more light on Jill Stein. She stands for the Green party which is a good thing in my book. But some of the rest of her record is not so great. While not precisely an anti-vaxxer, she gives cover to that by supporting antisocial behavior on vaccinations. Her position on a couple of other medical issues are fringe if not worse. Here's the problem: doctors are not perfect, and they tend to dismiss some good forms of alternative treatment, but on the whole they are professional, ethical, and intelligent.
Bernie would have had more trouble than Clinton if the Republicans had ever gone to town about him. And Jill Stein is not as ethical as Bernie in my opinion. I don't have much to go on yet, so I could be wrong. But, since I said that, if you have taken a stubborn position of opposition, could you consider you might be wrong too?
Jill Stein is also quite an opportunist. As for Philadephian protests, walking out, putting tape on your mouth, yelling oversimplified insults, and saying you are being silenced is your right: that's freedom. But bear in mind the silencer is the person who used the tape, who wanted to silence the joyous majority just abandoned in order to make the protest.
We all have voices, and sometimes we disagree, but dismissing those who don't agree is not always about freedom, sometimes it's about repression. The Bernie-to-Trump people are so mad they're willing to burn the house down.
Bernie would have had more trouble than Clinton if the Republicans had ever gone to town about him. And Jill Stein is not as ethical as Bernie in my opinion. I don't have much to go on yet, so I could be wrong. But, since I said that, if you have taken a stubborn position of opposition, could you consider you might be wrong too?
Jill Stein is also quite an opportunist. As for Philadephian protests, walking out, putting tape on your mouth, yelling oversimplified insults, and saying you are being silenced is your right: that's freedom. But bear in mind the silencer is the person who used the tape, who wanted to silence the joyous majority just abandoned in order to make the protest.
We all have voices, and sometimes we disagree, but dismissing those who don't agree is not always about freedom, sometimes it's about repression. The Bernie-to-Trump people are so mad they're willing to burn the house down.
1
Frankly, Susan,
Your comments are as agenda-driven as those whom you are criticizing.
I'll look at "positive information" about Hillary Clinton ( which means continuing to read op-eds in the NYT) if you'll read Diane Johnstones' book
"the Queen of Chaos".
Deal?
Your comments are as agenda-driven as those whom you are criticizing.
I'll look at "positive information" about Hillary Clinton ( which means continuing to read op-eds in the NYT) if you'll read Diane Johnstones' book
"the Queen of Chaos".
Deal?
3
Assange strikes me as a guy with a chip on his shoulder, not someone who's acting out of some noble cause. I think hacking emails is wrong, and information released in hacked emails should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Will this guy be releasing hacked emails on DT. I bet he'd come up with some juicy material if he did. Wouldn't we all like to know more about Trump's business dealings. I suspect we'd learn a great deal about his character. Assange is tampering in our elections, which in itself is wrong. Does any good really come from this? I'm certainly in favor of transparency, but that's not what this is about. I think he seeks attention for himself, and has a desire to "settle scores".
10
On Friday, he told Bill Maher that he's working on trying to hack Trumplethinskin's taxes. That would work for me.
2
Wikileaks did not expose the personal information of any Turkish women. After reading this claim (which The Times mysteriously declined to link to a story for more context), I spent an hour researching what really happened. Wikileaks posted a dump of a hack billed as AKP emails but that apprently were mostly Google Groups type online discussions. They posted it earlier than they were expected it because of the coup. Subsequent to this, the hacker (still in their systems) passed along more data to a 3rd party, who setup a torrent to share it. This is what contained the personal information on millions (not just women). WikiLeaks, along with many other outlets (Wired, to name one), tweeted links to the 2nd set if data. When a "researcher" moonlighting as a Huffington Post writer found this, she inexplicably told the world about it publicly, without bothering to notify the third party so they could remove it. The writer blamed Wikileaks for this, even though she later edited her article conceding that all Wikileaks did was link to it, while taking no responsibility for her amplification of the problem when she could have fixed it herself. This obviously could lead one to conclude she was in it for publicity/headlines and not the noble cause she held out as as as a front.
tldr: The NYT blames Wikileaks for something they didn't do. If they can't bother to get this right, the credibility of this author/article is suspect.
tldr: The NYT blames Wikileaks for something they didn't do. If they can't bother to get this right, the credibility of this author/article is suspect.
17
If you're an example of how Wikileaks does things, Gibney was way too nice.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/dec/17/wikile...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/dec/17/wikile...
Wikileaks is in favor of radical transparency, unless it is about themselves - like where they got those emails from and whose agenda THEY are pushing.
9
"Wikileaks is in favor of radical transparency, unless it is about themselves - like where they got those emails from and whose agenda THEY are pushing."
NYT reporters go to jail rather than reveal their source. Why should Wikileaks reveal theirs?
NYT reporters go to jail rather than reveal their source. Why should Wikileaks reveal theirs?
6
"And the episode reveals some of the weaknesses of WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, like their recklessness with personal data and their use of information to settle scores and drive personal agendas."
Clearly Alex Gibney has taken this opportunity to settle scores and drive his personal agenda.
I find it sad to see the Times to again allow the paper to be used for character assassination. There is no place for this sort of thing in quality journalism. The new op-ed editor should be ashamed. Though he is only following the template laid down by Rosenthal.
Is it not concerning that nearly the entire essay is one person's opinion? And is the fact that powerful people in our government would put Assange in prison for life not significant information. First he is a figurative bomb thrower, then a rapist, next he will be designated schizophrenic. All with the backing of liberal NYTs readers who in fact have little verified information, go lynch mob.
Remember Nick Kristof's lending his column out for the public lynching of Woody Allen? And his never having the courage to address the fact that the authors supposed facts were almost all factually incorrect.
I find these events to be very concerning, what about you fellow reader. Should unproven allegations be presented as truth in the at one time greatest newspaper?
Clearly Alex Gibney has taken this opportunity to settle scores and drive his personal agenda.
I find it sad to see the Times to again allow the paper to be used for character assassination. There is no place for this sort of thing in quality journalism. The new op-ed editor should be ashamed. Though he is only following the template laid down by Rosenthal.
Is it not concerning that nearly the entire essay is one person's opinion? And is the fact that powerful people in our government would put Assange in prison for life not significant information. First he is a figurative bomb thrower, then a rapist, next he will be designated schizophrenic. All with the backing of liberal NYTs readers who in fact have little verified information, go lynch mob.
Remember Nick Kristof's lending his column out for the public lynching of Woody Allen? And his never having the courage to address the fact that the authors supposed facts were almost all factually incorrect.
I find these events to be very concerning, what about you fellow reader. Should unproven allegations be presented as truth in the at one time greatest newspaper?
12
Gibney's article is in the OPINION pages, as are Rosenthal's comments. There is no pretense of being anything but OPINION and the individual signs the piece as his or her OPINION. Other newspapers follow a similar format. Readers are fully
aware that they are reading an individual's OPINION. You do not agree with his
OPINION which is your right.
aware that they are reading an individual's OPINION. You do not agree with his
OPINION which is your right.
1
Aren't you tired of having to try to educate the newly involved? The idea of opinion pages has been pointed out over and over. This is like the outrage early on by Bernie supporters that the NYT endorsed Hillary. Not that NYT supported her, but that, "since when should newspapers be in the business of endorsing? That is not their job!"
The Iconoclast; I share your concerns regarding the slanted political agenda of the new op-ed editor.
I have noticed how the NYT editors are laying the groundwork for support of Clintons' agenda once she is elected. The purpose of the editorials is to manufacture support for her policies that include:
-the recent Dennis Ross opinion piece, encouraging increased bombing to take out Assad and to drum up fear and loathing of Russia;
-Sunday's editorial chanting support for the TPP and NAFTA;
-today's piece attempting to undermine support for and to ultimately silence whistleblowers.
We will have more of this manufacturing consent, and it is frightening to see so many commenters permitting themselves to be manipulated. (Especially when the pieces are written so poorly.)
I have noticed how the NYT editors are laying the groundwork for support of Clintons' agenda once she is elected. The purpose of the editorials is to manufacture support for her policies that include:
-the recent Dennis Ross opinion piece, encouraging increased bombing to take out Assad and to drum up fear and loathing of Russia;
-Sunday's editorial chanting support for the TPP and NAFTA;
-today's piece attempting to undermine support for and to ultimately silence whistleblowers.
We will have more of this manufacturing consent, and it is frightening to see so many commenters permitting themselves to be manipulated. (Especially when the pieces are written so poorly.)
2
If Mr. Assange holds transparency so dear, why aren't we seeing an equal number of releases of the GOP's email? No doubt they have skeletons in their closets, given their current outrageous public persona.
10
No .. Is that up for debate? Remember, the NYT helped legitimize Wikileaks by allowing them to use its newspaper to publish leaked documents before they had their own platform.
If anything, The DNC Emails show nothing more than how politics work. The DNC spins everything for their benefit and have a ready and willing media to help them get the message out.
I think this is re-in forced by many pundits telling Sanders' people to "grow up".. This is how politics work. This attitude is further confirmed by DWS's resignation quickly followed by a key position on the HRC campaign. For goodness sake, I live in DWS's district and Biden was just out campaigning for her this weekend. I suspect that the other DNC members are moving on to sweet jobs within their network and good for them.
If anything, The DNC Emails show nothing more than how politics work. The DNC spins everything for their benefit and have a ready and willing media to help them get the message out.
I think this is re-in forced by many pundits telling Sanders' people to "grow up".. This is how politics work. This attitude is further confirmed by DWS's resignation quickly followed by a key position on the HRC campaign. For goodness sake, I live in DWS's district and Biden was just out campaigning for her this weekend. I suspect that the other DNC members are moving on to sweet jobs within their network and good for them.
2
And how many millions of dollars were involved?
1
A political party's leadership strategizing politically and pushing for one candidate over another...perish the thought.
6
Transparency is key and someone has to deliver it when the system is corrupt and runs amok. His motives and his personality are unimportant. The Democrats are only annoyed because it's affecting them, but they'd be content if this was biting the Republicans in the rear. The truth is that both parties have become so corrupt and above the law that when the truth come out it's a nuisance. Someone has to keep them in check.
11
It does not matter to the media that in the emails there was proof that democracy was stolen by the powerful. DNC is a private group as is the RNC.
Then another story by the NYT about Trump that opened with "After a week in which Donald Trump insulted babies and their mothers and war heroes and their families, and threw in fire marshals for good measure"
A lot of Americans are fact checking the fact checkers and ALL these assertions have been proven false and yet there is no retraction.
It is a crime of moral turpitude when the media lies regardless of the reason.
The paradigm is shifting right under their noses....very few (except the magical thinking partisans on both sides) actually believe the media...and more importantly no one under 30 believes the media.
It is ALL self inflicted by the media itself...pity
Then another story by the NYT about Trump that opened with "After a week in which Donald Trump insulted babies and their mothers and war heroes and their families, and threw in fire marshals for good measure"
A lot of Americans are fact checking the fact checkers and ALL these assertions have been proven false and yet there is no retraction.
It is a crime of moral turpitude when the media lies regardless of the reason.
The paradigm is shifting right under their noses....very few (except the magical thinking partisans on both sides) actually believe the media...and more importantly no one under 30 believes the media.
It is ALL self inflicted by the media itself...pity
6
What is all the fuss? Assange is just an old-fashioned keyhole peeper and mailbox thief. How does he rate any more attention than your average paparazzi? We should all just ignore the creepy dude. There is nothing glamorous about publishing sensational dirt on folks on the Internet for profit and personal fame.
6
Julian Assange is an anarchist who wants to disrupt and destroy capitalism. He's also a fugitive in a rape case. If he believed in truth or freedom of information, he wouldn't be hiding from justice in London.
Can we trust him? It depends. I don't think he would falsify information, but I have no doubt that he would control the timing of information release, just like he claims to be opposed to, if it benefits his agenda.
Can we trust him? It depends. I don't think he would falsify information, but I have no doubt that he would control the timing of information release, just like he claims to be opposed to, if it benefits his agenda.
6
An embarrassing "kill the messenger" story. Those like Assange should be given every encouragement to expose military atrocities, the apache helicopter butchers, the Abu Ghraib torturers, the CIA, the Pentagon, Special Forces, Navy SEALS, JSOC and the whole rotten lot of them as well as their civilian enablers, so that they may finally be brought to justice for their crimes.
10
As with everything, doesn't it always seem to come down to whose ox is being gored?
11
Wikileaks has evolved into just another terrorist group with its own political agenda. It is not trying to give the world true transparency.
If transparency were its true objective, how come not one of its leaks are from the Republican National Committee, Donald Trump or China? How come no embarrassing Putin or Kremlin emails? It is interesting that no other major country with far more corruption or true terrorist groups has been hit. Nothing from Venezuela, the Philippines, Middle East, ISIS etc.
From all the leaks over the years, Wikileaks has shown it is nothing but another anti US terrorist group trying to tear down the US and now, shape our politics.
By its recent actions, a case could be made that Wikileaks is now another Putin mouthpiece. Perhaps the Kremlin is financing Wikileaks to keep it afloat. Wikileaks is now just another cog in Putin’s world wide campaign of disinformation by selective leaks.
If transparency were its true objective, how come not one of its leaks are from the Republican National Committee, Donald Trump or China? How come no embarrassing Putin or Kremlin emails? It is interesting that no other major country with far more corruption or true terrorist groups has been hit. Nothing from Venezuela, the Philippines, Middle East, ISIS etc.
From all the leaks over the years, Wikileaks has shown it is nothing but another anti US terrorist group trying to tear down the US and now, shape our politics.
By its recent actions, a case could be made that Wikileaks is now another Putin mouthpiece. Perhaps the Kremlin is financing Wikileaks to keep it afloat. Wikileaks is now just another cog in Putin’s world wide campaign of disinformation by selective leaks.
5
I find him repulsive. He is out to get Hillary Clinton come hell or high water and his obvious bias is disconcerting to say the least.
14
The Case Against Assange, In a Nutshell
"I liked Wikileaks and Jullian Assange when he was damaging U.S. National Security and aiding and abetting Islamist terrorists, but now that he's hurting Hillary I no longer like him. Here's an attack column against him, because what he's doing now is far more serious than what he was doing a few years ago. We didn't feel the need to print a critique of him when Afghanis' lives were on the line. And Snowden is still a saint. But now that DNC leaders' positions and reputations, and the reputation of Hillary is on the line, Assange is persona non grata, and a very bad man."
No wonder you people are regarded as anti-American. You only care about how well a war overseas is going when your team is in charge; otherwise, you're okay with actively undermining U.S. security and the security of our allies. And when it comes to transparency and the truth, you're only interested in that when it's of equal benefit to your personal political prospects.
"I liked Wikileaks and Jullian Assange when he was damaging U.S. National Security and aiding and abetting Islamist terrorists, but now that he's hurting Hillary I no longer like him. Here's an attack column against him, because what he's doing now is far more serious than what he was doing a few years ago. We didn't feel the need to print a critique of him when Afghanis' lives were on the line. And Snowden is still a saint. But now that DNC leaders' positions and reputations, and the reputation of Hillary is on the line, Assange is persona non grata, and a very bad man."
No wonder you people are regarded as anti-American. You only care about how well a war overseas is going when your team is in charge; otherwise, you're okay with actively undermining U.S. security and the security of our allies. And when it comes to transparency and the truth, you're only interested in that when it's of equal benefit to your personal political prospects.
9
The NYT never ran an op-ed questioning if we could trust Julian Assange when his targets were in line with the Times' agenda. Only now that Assange has data from Hillary Clinton's secret email server (which was deliberately created in order to avoid public disclosure laws) do we now start asking the "tough questions".
Dear Incoming Public Editor: This is what bias looks like.
Dear Incoming Public Editor: This is what bias looks like.
18
"The NYT never ran an op-ed questioning if we could trust Julian Assange when his targets were in line with the Times' agenda."
The NYT has been writing slime about Assange since Day 1.
The NYT has been writing slime about Assange since Day 1.
1
The commenters to this article who state that Julian Assange is more trustworthy than the press, specifically that of the NY Times, would be well served to watch the documentary "Page One," which includes a significant amount of background information regarding the period when the Times cooperated with Wikileaks, the Guardian and other newspapers in publishing the Iraq War papers.
The significant difference between what Wikileaks purports to do and what responsible journalism is about is well covered in this film; information without responsible curation (redacting the names of private citizens who could be harmed, for example) and the providing of context makes it difficult for the public at large to fully comprehend what they are being shown. I don't see any hand-wringing on the part of Wikileaks about this, certainly not to the extent witnessed by the journalists at the Times who dealt with the implications of the Iraq War leaks, for whom journalistic credibility and integrity are as important as reporting what is "the truth" to the public. Responsible journalists recognize the fungibility of "truth" in the absence of proper context, while an extremist like Assange does not.
The significant difference between what Wikileaks purports to do and what responsible journalism is about is well covered in this film; information without responsible curation (redacting the names of private citizens who could be harmed, for example) and the providing of context makes it difficult for the public at large to fully comprehend what they are being shown. I don't see any hand-wringing on the part of Wikileaks about this, certainly not to the extent witnessed by the journalists at the Times who dealt with the implications of the Iraq War leaks, for whom journalistic credibility and integrity are as important as reporting what is "the truth" to the public. Responsible journalists recognize the fungibility of "truth" in the absence of proper context, while an extremist like Assange does not.
8
How wonderful to know that Julian Assange works off the same playbook as Donald Trump: payback for personal slights real or imagined. I believe we are all prisoners at the mad hatters tea party.
13
Assange’s crusade is no longer about "transparency," but something else. He releases information on other people and their sources but will not divulge his own, Wikileaks. That one-way street gives him no credibility and rightly raises the question of motive.
8
classic shooting of the messenger for his message.
3
1. God bless Edward Snowden!
2. This article is a subtle trashing of Wikileaks not just Assange.
"After all, many news outlets are clearly, and sometimes proudly, biased."
3. Where is your transparency? What news outlets? How about the NY Times as to bias against Bernie Sanders affecting its coverage of Assange when he leaked things detrimental to Clinton - but after it was too late to replace her with Sanders? Or is it??
2. This article is a subtle trashing of Wikileaks not just Assange.
"After all, many news outlets are clearly, and sometimes proudly, biased."
3. Where is your transparency? What news outlets? How about the NY Times as to bias against Bernie Sanders affecting its coverage of Assange when he leaked things detrimental to Clinton - but after it was too late to replace her with Sanders? Or is it??
15
I'd bet money you gave money to wikileaks. The caliber of your questions in #3 expose more of you than your inferred interlocutor.
Timshel,
Thank God there are reasonable people, such as you, still living in America.
It's astonishing to read the comments from the angry Clinton cabal, angry that their chosen one did not skate through the primaries, and may not make it to the Presidency, even though I do agree she is better than Trump, but by no means is she qualified to be our Commander-In-Chief.
I'm fortunate to know, and have seen up close the attributes and character, in the actions of responsible trustworthy people, and I care not who dislikes my opinion, with respect to these two sad, sad, thoroughly self-serving candidates.
Bernie was the real deal, but he just didn't have the chutzpah, so now I'm hoping Jill Stein is recognised for the great lady, and stalwart American, she is.
Pity I'm not a Trump supporter, just to see the vitriol that might be thrown my way.
Crazy that Americans are willing to vote into the Office of President, of the United States of America, the lesser of two evils, therefore acknowledging they have no problem supporting evil, makes one wonder ...
Thank God there are reasonable people, such as you, still living in America.
It's astonishing to read the comments from the angry Clinton cabal, angry that their chosen one did not skate through the primaries, and may not make it to the Presidency, even though I do agree she is better than Trump, but by no means is she qualified to be our Commander-In-Chief.
I'm fortunate to know, and have seen up close the attributes and character, in the actions of responsible trustworthy people, and I care not who dislikes my opinion, with respect to these two sad, sad, thoroughly self-serving candidates.
Bernie was the real deal, but he just didn't have the chutzpah, so now I'm hoping Jill Stein is recognised for the great lady, and stalwart American, she is.
Pity I'm not a Trump supporter, just to see the vitriol that might be thrown my way.
Crazy that Americans are willing to vote into the Office of President, of the United States of America, the lesser of two evils, therefore acknowledging they have no problem supporting evil, makes one wonder ...
3
Jill Stein, stalwart American? You mean the bomb thrower who those of us who know her in Massachusetts have never given nearly double digits. The one who runs for every office that comes up, but never comes close? The one who has Never done Anything??? Really?? Get rid of your spite and stop pretending this is principle.
shining on a light,
even a filtered one,
is better than no light at all.
most of the commentators thus far,
at 0800 pdt,
are attacking the provider or the interpreters of the details from the leaks - -
a whole lot of 'motivational' ups and downs.
not so much is being directed at the raw information itself.
the cautionary tale that current electronic eavesdropping practices overwhelming suggests to those in positions of power and/or influence:
do not commit anything for distribution to anyone else that one does not wish to be exposed in public.
as to the author:
this writing appears to be constructed exactly as he describes his adversary - -
far too self-absorbed with too many sour grapes and an overdose of angst.
8
The DNC's purpose is to get Democrats elected. The best way to do that is to support the strongest candidates. I think a great deal of Bernie, but was he truly ever stronger than Clinton? Could he have been? I have my doubts. I am, therefore, far less alarmed over the DNC's actions than I am over the thought of Mother Russia pulling strings in our elections. Assange's dangerous sense of self is no different than Trump's.
6
Anyone opposed to Assange and the DNC hack needs to reevaluate their position on the Donald Sterling scandal.
In that case, an individual had a private conversation secretly taped and released in which he made racist remarks. I don't remember many people bemoaning the violation of Sterling's privacy or questioning the motives of the person who made the tape. The press was too happy to exploit the leak, and the remarks were used as a basis to take Sterling to court and strip him of his assets.
If you believe Sterling got what he deserved, then principle dictates that you must feel the same way about the DNC. Forget about the source and concentrate on the grotesque things the hack revealed (which included racism).
In that case, an individual had a private conversation secretly taped and released in which he made racist remarks. I don't remember many people bemoaning the violation of Sterling's privacy or questioning the motives of the person who made the tape. The press was too happy to exploit the leak, and the remarks were used as a basis to take Sterling to court and strip him of his assets.
If you believe Sterling got what he deserved, then principle dictates that you must feel the same way about the DNC. Forget about the source and concentrate on the grotesque things the hack revealed (which included racism).
10
“Never write it if you can say it; never say it if you can nod; never nod if you can wink.”
6
http://pioneerinstitute.org/news/dont-nod-if-you-can-wink/
This only applies if you are dishonest or up to no good.
Honest words or deeds cannot be used to harm you, it only exposes the ignorant who fail to understand context. If the ignorant vastly outnumber you or the reasonable fail to stand up for reason then you can be done in but it won't be right, honest or fair.
This only applies if you are dishonest or up to no good.
Honest words or deeds cannot be used to harm you, it only exposes the ignorant who fail to understand context. If the ignorant vastly outnumber you or the reasonable fail to stand up for reason then you can be done in but it won't be right, honest or fair.
1
If WikiLeaks were to expose all my personal emails over the years - I have no doubt that my family relationships, my employment, and possibly my personal freedom could be in jeopardy. Saying things like "he's such a jerk", "I could just kill her when she does that". Saying things does not make them happen, does not make them truth.
6
Context is everything, Assange stock in trade is abusing ignorance of this.
Hillary Clinton and Julian Assange are the outside and inside of the same trash can, respectively.
7
More importantly, can we trust the DNC and Hillary Clinton?
All diversions to Russia, Wikileaks and Trump aside, these were the people who were subverting our electorate for the sake of their own hunger for power and money.
That's the real story...
All diversions to Russia, Wikileaks and Trump aside, these were the people who were subverting our electorate for the sake of their own hunger for power and money.
That's the real story...
15
Actually, not really. Bernie was never a Democrat so why would anyone expect the DNC to give him preferential treatment over their own candidate? It's illogical to assume otherwise.
While everyone is railing about how the DNC subverted the electorate I ask you, if Bernie ran on a 3rd party ticket would he even got half as far? I seriously doubt it.
You do not go to someone's house, insult them, trash it and expect them to actually show you a whit of consideration. Bernie disparaged the machine that he needed the most and then blamed it for his failure after he did everything he could to derail and dismantle it.
With friends like him, who needs enemies?
While everyone is railing about how the DNC subverted the electorate I ask you, if Bernie ran on a 3rd party ticket would he even got half as far? I seriously doubt it.
You do not go to someone's house, insult them, trash it and expect them to actually show you a whit of consideration. Bernie disparaged the machine that he needed the most and then blamed it for his failure after he did everything he could to derail and dismantle it.
With friends like him, who needs enemies?
Ah yes. Russia hacking only one party, an unethical guy releasing information to alter an election in the U.S. Just a diversion. To YOU. Amazing!
I, too, find Assange to be despicable.
But I differ from the others castigating him in one significant way: I found him despicable from the get-go -- not just after he gored my favorite ox.
But I differ from the others castigating him in one significant way: I found him despicable from the get-go -- not just after he gored my favorite ox.
11
Right! His whole back story and demeanor and well the obvious editing he did to that video showed him up for the fraud he is from the get go to me too. Seriously where does an Aussie kid get such hatred for the US? Clearly its partly displaced resentment of parental figures but there seems to be more than that behind his hatred of the US. It might all be paranoid fantasies caused by inflicted schizophrenia but there is a deep personal hatred there that no one has bothered trying to uncover.
"Reckless and agenda-driven" can be equally used to describe the media that supported Hillary and acted condescendingly to anyone who disagreed with or wavered from this consensus since the beginning. Perhaps we've reached a point where agendas, both personal and group-driven, have to be fought with fire?
8
Funny thing, if it were Trump that had emails regarding possible illegal deals while secretary of state about to be released, the left would be ready to make Assange man of the year. But because it's Hillary, they are trying to run damage control and ruin his character. The CONTENT is what matters here. If she has nothing to hide, whats the big deal?
14
You are speculating. As far as we know at this time, Hillary's private email server while secretary of state was not hacked. What has been hacked are the DNC servers and Hillary's election campaign servers. There have been multiple stories everywhere on this. The source of your speculation was a remark made by Donald Trump about the private secretary of state email server she used and how nice it would be if that server had been hacked and its contents out on wikileaks. Just making it clear that at this time your comment is based on a DT comment and not on fact. Since DT comments have been found to be 80% lies and 20% fact, odds are, unless DT has secret knowledge of what Julian Assange and the hackers have been and are doing, it has a truthiness probability of 20%.
In all probability, Russia has hacked into, and has plenty of information on, the RNC as well. They just choose not to release that because, while it gives them some excellent intel, it won't get them what they want; namely, the election of Donald Trump.
3
Just last week email security and top secret designations were no big deal. Remember? Good Times.
4
Who will hack the hackers?
3
I don't trust Julian Assange. I would consider it fair if he were to release the emails of the RNC, but he won't because he wants Clinton to lose.
I am not falling for the media's prognostication of Hillary Clinton in a landslide. Trump can win. There will be a deftly timed release of something else that is damaging to the Clinton campaign. It will be an October surprise.
I volunteered for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And I will for Clinton this year. I will do my best to register as many voters as I can. We must stop Trump.
I am not falling for the media's prognostication of Hillary Clinton in a landslide. Trump can win. There will be a deftly timed release of something else that is damaging to the Clinton campaign. It will be an October surprise.
I volunteered for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And I will for Clinton this year. I will do my best to register as many voters as I can. We must stop Trump.
5
Mr. Gibney's article has resulted in my admiring Mr. Assange a little less, and admiring Mr. Gibney a whole lot less. If anyone is working out some sort of chip on their shoulder, it's Gibney. He is guilty here of everything he charges against Assange.
Having said that, both have made valuable contributions for which I am grateful.
Having said that, both have made valuable contributions for which I am grateful.
6
Assange has revealed something very concerning within the 'democratic' process. The primary vote, which almost equally as important as the presidential vote, was rigged in favor of one candidate. I am now embarrassed to call myself a democrat. Anyone trying to defend these actions in the slightest has done a terrible job including the author of this article. Now, I understand there is an overwhelming fear of a trump presidency and right now everyone will defend Hillary at every turn to protect this. But should we allow corruption in favor of fear? I am a liberal. I believe in strong social programs and social equality. I believe in diplomacy over war. But how can I claim to be righteous when the power our party gains is done so corruptly.
6
The primary vote isn't democratic. It's a rubber stamp of the party's own selection. The voters don't choose the party candidates here, any more than they do in the UK under a parliamentary system. The party chooses. If you believe the candidate selection process is, or is supposed to be, democratic, you're delusional.
1
Feel free to quote any of the emails that prove that any primaries were actually rigged.
1
J. Smith,
I feel for our country and party when your spot on comment has only drawn one recommend. Sad, sad, sad.
I feel for our country and party when your spot on comment has only drawn one recommend. Sad, sad, sad.
3
To answer the question posed in the headline: no.
3
I know. Assange has done a great disservice to those wishing to corrupt the primary process.
2
WikiLeaks has ALWAYS been agenda driven. Anyone who really thinks the project is about "transparency" should also wonder about the lack of great revelations about the Russian, Chinese, Indian or many other governments. Should we believe that all those governments either have impenetrable computer systems -- or no secrets to hide? Or has the target always primarily been the US government and its allies. Too many people applauded when they thought that the leaks just hit the George W. Bush administration -- and are now shocked (shocked!) when the hackers turn towards targets they like.
2
Let's be clear about one thing: Mr. Assange is looking after his own power. He has one mission: to aggrandize his own position in the world and influence events to his own will.
To characterize him as a noble human being uncovering bad things for the public good misses the point. In his secrecy, in his vengefulness, in his toying with private things and exposing them publicly he crosses the line into violating the law, if not legally, then certainly morally and ethically.
If his methods were so right, so justified then he should allow others to release HIS confidential emails and information and make all his private writings public.
To characterize him as a noble human being uncovering bad things for the public good misses the point. In his secrecy, in his vengefulness, in his toying with private things and exposing them publicly he crosses the line into violating the law, if not legally, then certainly morally and ethically.
If his methods were so right, so justified then he should allow others to release HIS confidential emails and information and make all his private writings public.
4
With the decades-old exit of the Times and other coastal progressive-run outlets from the independent news business, the Assange types are the only sources of information we have left.
When everyone else is aligned with a political party, we are left hoping an independent voice like Fox News will pop up. Guccifer(s), Assange and Wikileaks are the only alternative.
Assange would be happy to have discussed Hillary getting that Iranian physicist killed due to her lawless arrogance, but most of the coastal liberal media still refuse to touch it.
When everyone else is aligned with a political party, we are left hoping an independent voice like Fox News will pop up. Guccifer(s), Assange and Wikileaks are the only alternative.
Assange would be happy to have discussed Hillary getting that Iranian physicist killed due to her lawless arrogance, but most of the coastal liberal media still refuse to touch it.
8
WikiLeaks apparently has the ability to pick and choose what they leak. That being the case they loose all credibility with me. The organization, and in particular, Julian Assange, likes to play judge, jury, and executioner. That doesn't sit well in a democracy. The organization and all they pretend to be ought to be dismissed by all.
1
"I was struck by how insistently he steered the conversation away from matters of principle to personal slights against him, and his plans for payback. He demanded personal “intel” on others I had interviewed, and dismissed questions about the organization by saying, 'I am WikiLeaks' repeatedly."
What a creepy vengeful narcissist drunk with power! I'm so not surprised there are women out there with charges of rape against him while he cowers like some sort of man-child in the Ecuadorian closet. Which leads me to wonder, why are they giving him refuge and for so long? Why would Ecuador, of all countries, even care? What's in it for them? With an oil-based economy predicted to have a $7-8 billion spending shortfall for 2016, could it be PUTIN?
Meanwhile, Edward Snowden has earned some new respect for his willingness to call Assange out on journalistic standards and tangle with him publicly, especially from a Russian-controlled "safe harbor". It will be interesting to watch his future unfold in such circumstances.
Thank you for taking on Julian Assange and the attacks it's brought about, another example of the finest in journalistic tradition.
What a creepy vengeful narcissist drunk with power! I'm so not surprised there are women out there with charges of rape against him while he cowers like some sort of man-child in the Ecuadorian closet. Which leads me to wonder, why are they giving him refuge and for so long? Why would Ecuador, of all countries, even care? What's in it for them? With an oil-based economy predicted to have a $7-8 billion spending shortfall for 2016, could it be PUTIN?
Meanwhile, Edward Snowden has earned some new respect for his willingness to call Assange out on journalistic standards and tangle with him publicly, especially from a Russian-controlled "safe harbor". It will be interesting to watch his future unfold in such circumstances.
Thank you for taking on Julian Assange and the attacks it's brought about, another example of the finest in journalistic tradition.
2
What is it with megalomaniacs these days?
6
Since Assange and Greenwald coaxed and inveigled Manning and Snowden to hack millions more documents than necessary to promote the leakers original purpose, and since the vast illegal hack of hundreds of thousands of documents by Manning has put him in jail for decades, while Snowden is relegated to living under the thumb of Putin, Wikileaks has exposed itself as an arrogant purveyor of chaos, with no regard for the consequences it creates for leakers or anyone else.
2
Hmm... let me see... Mainstream media has COMPLETELY given up on holding the system accountable, and only seems interested in further the agenda of the corporate world (The New York Times obvious bias against Bernie Sanders, and hard sell of Hillary Clinton, being but one excellent example, and the reason I canceled my subscription, and will NEVER renew it), and organizations like Wikileaks are now taking up the reins of exposing the truth. I don't care WHAT Assange's motivations are, I just want to the truth to keep being exposed, so we at least know the evil that we're dealing with. The very fact that Alex Gibney writes for The Times, makes him far less trustworthy in my opinion, than Julian Assange will EVER be.
12
The private server setup by then Secretary of State Clinton was NOT hacked, whereas other Government servers were hacked. It appears that Mrs Clinton has strong competency in computer security despite the ranting of GOP .
2
The Russian component of the emails is a red herring. The take away from the emails is that Hillary Clinton got the nomination after the DNC sabotaged Bernie Sanders' campaign and helped the Clinton campaign.
10
If Bernie's campaign could have been sabotaged by a few nasty emails and griping around the water cooler, his diehard supporters need to realize that he had very little chance of winning the nomination or the election.
2
Assanges is no different from those he fears collect intelligence to misuse it.
I lost all respect for him when he explained why he chose to release the DNC emails; not because of Wasserman-Schulz, who I was glad to see go anyway; not because of the damage to
Clinton, who has made mistakes. But because of his stated need for personal revenge, which he attempted to couch as being for the greater good of the free press and democracy, while willfully blind to Trump actively shutting out media organizations or audience members critical of him, not to mention his many statements on using authoritarian and unethical means.
I lost all respect for him when he explained why he chose to release the DNC emails; not because of Wasserman-Schulz, who I was glad to see go anyway; not because of the damage to
Clinton, who has made mistakes. But because of his stated need for personal revenge, which he attempted to couch as being for the greater good of the free press and democracy, while willfully blind to Trump actively shutting out media organizations or audience members critical of him, not to mention his many statements on using authoritarian and unethical means.
2
Bill Maher really blew when Assange changed the subject multiple times. We need a real journalist to take him to task.
2
I read these comments, presumably from HRC supporters, and I wonder if any of them are playing with a full deck. You can't argue with what he exposed. It would be one thing if he made it all up - which he didn't (why would DWS resign within 24 hours after the release of that info?) So, you are basically griping about someone exposing a corrupt political process. As I wrote in reply to another Clinton supporter: get a grip.
2
Mr Assange, as happens with most celebrities, has become way too impressed with himself. He thinks he knows people and their motives better than anyone. I believe it's time to put stringent controls on Wikileaks. One person should not have such control and since he's being guided by the Russian govt, he has truly become a traitor, a thin line between being a person who releases information for the benefit of one's country and releasing for personal satisfaction and the benefit of governments who don't support us. Assange just isn't smart enough to handle that tesponsibity now.
3
This is the same newspaper that published the Pentagon Papers, giving us the now famous 'prior restraint' standard? Is it only worth publishing if it damages Republicans? This article reads like a preemptive attack on the certain release of new, damaging material against the DNC and Clinton, designed to influence and mitigate the impact of future leaks.
18
And just who is guarding the guard dog?
2
May I point out that Senator Bernie Sanders is owed no more grace by the Democratic Party election machinery than is Donald Trump; neither is a Democratic Party politician.
2
You take you information where you can get it, since the model of corrupt institutions is concealment. Elites, of course, can't bear it.
Whether Assange is a saint or devil is beside the point. You don't need to trust him. Just put on your reading glasses and trust your lying eyes.
Alex Gibney, on the other hand, routinely shapes information to suit the needs of mass-market movies (including the desires of funders) and offers his own distinct points of views as "factual -- and no more so than in his much disputed account of Julian Assange. There, caution is definitely needed.
Whether Assange is a saint or devil is beside the point. You don't need to trust him. Just put on your reading glasses and trust your lying eyes.
Alex Gibney, on the other hand, routinely shapes information to suit the needs of mass-market movies (including the desires of funders) and offers his own distinct points of views as "factual -- and no more so than in his much disputed account of Julian Assange. There, caution is definitely needed.
7
Assange sounds like somebody who would admire and work with Trump. He does way more harm than good.
1
To sum up: It's okay to leak facts when doing so favors your beliefs. It's wrong to leak facts when it violates your beliefs.
To quote your article: "That is evidence of bias."
To quote your article: "That is evidence of bias."
8
When you operate on behalf of the GOP and Russia, you're no longer an objective observer sharing important information, you're a propagandist or a tool of them.
1
Thanks for this.
Let's now have an editorial on how unlikable Brad Marshall, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, et al. are.
Let's now have an editorial on how unlikable Brad Marshall, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, et al. are.
6
Where there's smoke, there's fire. The shenanigans at the DNC has caused me to become an Independent. Assange gives me the creeps in some ways, but that in no way blurs what was going on in the DNC. Transparency is an important part of a democracy and nobody like a cheater. In this age of digging up dirt, if you do not want it exposed, you better just keep your actions and thoughts to yourself.
4
He seems to share a lot of the same behavioral maladies with Mr. Trump.
2
Snowdon did not trust the New York Times because they sat on the story about Bush acting illegally with regard to telecom companies sharing data with the NSA until after the 2004 election. Since then, the Times has made its animus with whistleblowers clear in the op-Ed pages.
If you collude with or defend the establishment, especially with regard the disastrous waged war on ME territory you are going to create a vacuum that more courageous individuals or journalists step into. We need more reporting that alarms our political masters instead of comforting them. Sadly the Times is in the vanguard here, not the leading edge.
If you collude with or defend the establishment, especially with regard the disastrous waged war on ME territory you are going to create a vacuum that more courageous individuals or journalists step into. We need more reporting that alarms our political masters instead of comforting them. Sadly the Times is in the vanguard here, not the leading edge.
7
The releasing of Democratic emails certainly hurt Democrats and as Assange has publicly expressed support for Trump, OK. But....what if Wikileaks gets ahold of Trumps tax returns and they show a story completely different than what he has publicly stated along with paying little or no taxes. Would Assange also release them?
3
I wonder what you thought we didn't already know about the DNC's preference for Hillary and concern about Bernie before the release of the DNC cache. The DNC is a political organization whose mission is to elect Democrats at every level. The only people who could have been surprised by what was in those e-mails are people who misunderstand, profoundly, the nature of politics. So yes, I guess their release was, as you say, in the public interest, if only for introducing idealists and ideologues to the world of realpolitik and strategic thinking.
7
The hero with feet of clay. Assange turns out to be just another in a long line of self-absorbed, petty, pretenders to morality.
In other words, he's a fake.
In other words, he's a fake.
1
So Assange is an absolutist on freedom of information and also a bit of a jerk. This latter characteristic hardly disqualifies him from playing a role in today's political world, which is overpopulated with jerks. As for his absolutism, that seems to fit, as well, in a polarized environment. All that said, I find it ironic that many of his latest critics didn't become critics until their own goose (the DNC) got cooked. As I say, politics.
9
The question raised by many here is this; is he "an absolutist on freedom of information?" If he is, that's one thing. If he's only interested in the release of information that suits his politics, that's quite another isn't it?
Lets not forget that it was NSA/CIA?etc. that required "back doors" in emails and other programs and operating system so they can spy on us. So--a lot of any blame falls on our own "security" branches of Gov't. Everybody said making security weak would lead to Hacking and it has hundreds of thousands if not hundreds of million people. So much for the right to privacy that was wiped out by mere legislation and which alot of us still believe is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL invasion without AUTHORITY. This applies to both Dems and Repubs.
4
Though initially the thought was that Julian Assange was knight in shining armor against governmental agency injustices – particularly those, real or imagined, committed by US government – the more we come to know about him, the more we know that he is SIMPLY a small-minded bitter man.
We ALL need confidentiality. As long as NONE of us is committing an illegal act, we - including governmental agencies - MUST be allowed to keep things confidential or "secret" as we see fit. No one – NONE – has the right to divulge someone else’s confidential or "secret" information. The DNC members may have just participated in rumor mongering, bordering lack of ethics, but they did NOT commit anything illegal.
There are privacy laws, even though not always flawless, to protect us from snooping. There are also laws to spy into secrecy of criminals to indict them.
Now that he has access to what others call confidential, certainly from sources that have their OWN agenda, he is being used as a pawn. Being bitter and vindictive, he is simply lashing out. He has no honor anymore.
In the beginning he garnered lot of sympathy and support. Now not so. Given what we know about him, it now also seems that he should stand trial for the rape charges he is accused of. Chances are that he is just using the imaginary cloak of injustice against him to escape from responsibility – his own.
We ALL need confidentiality. As long as NONE of us is committing an illegal act, we - including governmental agencies - MUST be allowed to keep things confidential or "secret" as we see fit. No one – NONE – has the right to divulge someone else’s confidential or "secret" information. The DNC members may have just participated in rumor mongering, bordering lack of ethics, but they did NOT commit anything illegal.
There are privacy laws, even though not always flawless, to protect us from snooping. There are also laws to spy into secrecy of criminals to indict them.
Now that he has access to what others call confidential, certainly from sources that have their OWN agenda, he is being used as a pawn. Being bitter and vindictive, he is simply lashing out. He has no honor anymore.
In the beginning he garnered lot of sympathy and support. Now not so. Given what we know about him, it now also seems that he should stand trial for the rape charges he is accused of. Chances are that he is just using the imaginary cloak of injustice against him to escape from responsibility – his own.
2
It seems Mr Assange and Wikileaks are all for "radical transparency" for everyone but themselves. How "noble".
3
You don't have to worry about trusting Julian Assange as long as you can verify the emails are authentic. Stop diverting the issue here. Your op-ed is biased as well. He exposed the DNC and everyone is pointing the finger elsewhere. You journalists need to retake a couple of courses on objectivity. All of you.
7
the way this is going, assange's october surprise has to be something on the level of clinton ordering the murder of scalia to have any effect at all.
2
In the release of the DNC emails, there is no there there. ideas were batted around by some who did not favor Bernie but it was nipped in the bud... Shows that fairness was executed by those in charge. To pretend that everyone is fair is fake. We all have opinions and favorites... it is what action we take that determines the level of unfairness.
Mr. Assange is anything but truthful in his motivations... which discredits his work.
Mr. Assange is anything but truthful in his motivations... which discredits his work.
4
Assange & Trump: Two sides of the same narcissistic personality disordered, megalomaniacal and completely reckless coin.
Assange is an utter fool to think the pejoratives he uses to describe Clinton do not apply tenfold (or more) to Trump and the angry, lawless way he would govern based on his own clear (and massively ignorant statements).
Wikileaks & Assange are now nothing but Putin's puppets as he seeks to get Trump elected -- some achievement for Assange! Despicable.
Assange is an utter fool to think the pejoratives he uses to describe Clinton do not apply tenfold (or more) to Trump and the angry, lawless way he would govern based on his own clear (and massively ignorant statements).
Wikileaks & Assange are now nothing but Putin's puppets as he seeks to get Trump elected -- some achievement for Assange! Despicable.
2
You "believe that WikiLeaks was fully justified in publishing the D.N.C. emails...".
How do you "justify" illegally accessing a private computer network?
How do you "justify" illegally accessing a private computer network?
4
Amazing how many commenters and the author seem to hate truth. The emails and the war logs were truth. I guess you all prefer your news with a nice fat propaganda edge. Let me know when you take your heads out of the sand.
7
This is an interesting coming from someone in a country that is not exactly known for embracing the "truth" or transparency.
3
Assange has turned wikileaks into something that is not too different from any other media. We all know now that wikileaks has an anti-Dem agenda. Going forward, while I may trust the veracity of leaked documents, I will always be wondering about the motive and beneficiaries of wikileaks. Context is everything. As such, I didn't even care about the DNC emails. I have seen worse interoffice exchanges. So some in the DNC had a personal preference for Hillary, the life-long democrat vs Bernie the interloper-big deal. This did not cost Bernie the election. If Bernie supporters think the election outcome would have been different with some emails by DNC, they are deluding themselves.
1
Shouldn't there be a moral and legal distinction between information sourced from leaks and information sourced from hacks? "WikiHacks" doesn't have the same warm and fuzzy feel, does it?
3
"I was struck by how insistently he steered the conversation away from matters of principle to personal slights against him, and his plans for payback. He demanded personal “intel” on others I had interviewed, and dismissed questions about the organization by saying, 'I am WikiLeaks' repeatedly."
What a creepy narcissist drunk with power! I'm so not surprised that there are women out there with charges of rape while he cowers in the Ecuadorian closet like some sort of man-child. Which leads me to wonder, why are they giving him refuge? Why would they even care? Who's making it worth their while? With plunging oil prices and a predicted economic shortfall of $7-8 billion dollars, could it Putin?
Edward Snowden on the other hand has earned renewed respect with his willingness to call Assange out on upholding journalistic standards, especially from his Russian lair. That takes some guts.
Thank you for exposing Julian Assange in the finest tradition of investigative jourbalism. . I was struck by how insistently he steered the conversation away from matters of principle to personal slights against him, and his plans for payback. He demanded personal “intel” on others I had interviewed, and dismissed questions about the organization by saying, “I am WikiLeaks” repeatedly. (Later, Mr. Assange and his followers attacked both me and my film.)
What a creepy narcissist drunk with power! I'm so not surprised that there are women out there with charges of rape while he cowers in the Ecuadorian closet like some sort of man-child. Which leads me to wonder, why are they giving him refuge? Why would they even care? Who's making it worth their while? With plunging oil prices and a predicted economic shortfall of $7-8 billion dollars, could it Putin?
Edward Snowden on the other hand has earned renewed respect with his willingness to call Assange out on upholding journalistic standards, especially from his Russian lair. That takes some guts.
Thank you for exposing Julian Assange in the finest tradition of investigative jourbalism. . I was struck by how insistently he steered the conversation away from matters of principle to personal slights against him, and his plans for payback. He demanded personal “intel” on others I had interviewed, and dismissed questions about the organization by saying, “I am WikiLeaks” repeatedly. (Later, Mr. Assange and his followers attacked both me and my film.)
2
Hmmm. Methinks the NYT thinks, or is afraid, there's more to come and is trying to discredit it in advance. Such an even-handed newspaper! A real pleasure to read.
8
How can you trust anyone willing to let others suffer harm or possible death because they don't pass his warped morality test?
Assange belongs in a Swedish prison without access to the internet.
Assange belongs in a Swedish prison without access to the internet.
When information can lead to the deaths of people, who are innocent of crimes, there is nothing noble about the release of that information!
I think the actions of Assange have been determined by his Trumpian ego and his pathological need for constant attention!
I think the actions of Assange have been determined by his Trumpian ego and his pathological need for constant attention!
3
Two questions: Can we be sure that Russian intelligence hasn't tampered with the emails it hacked? What should we make of the fact that Mr Assange seems so determined to undermine Ms Clinton and showing such animosity towards her while only viewing Mr Trump as 'completely unpredictable'. Hopefully the released emails are unaltered, but I would like to know that for sure. And the character traits Mr Trump has shown lately (and earlier) make Assange's view of the candidates seem rather strange and frankly unbalanced.
2
Julian Assange is like the central character in the American film The Conversation (1974), who likes to listen in as a voyeur; yet hates the scrutiny when the light is turned on him. With the DNC leak, he demonstrated that he is nothing more than a tool of Putin's intelligence services whether some like it or not. Trusting Assange is like an early Christian worshiping the pagan gods of old and expecting a different result.
2
Wikileaks made all the emails searchable, no one has disputed their authenticity, we (by which I mean the plebeians that deign to coexist with those six figure DNC donors) got to learn valuable information about how the Democratic Party operates, and can now have a better understanding of why our democracy is an absolute farce.
In other words, Wikileaks taught me more about our dysfunctional political system in one email dump than the NY Times has taught me in 20 years of reading.
Maybe you should hire Assange.
In other words, Wikileaks taught me more about our dysfunctional political system in one email dump than the NY Times has taught me in 20 years of reading.
Maybe you should hire Assange.
6
The narcissists are running the world now and Assange is right up there with the best of them. Leaking documents is simply the vehicle that provides Assange with narcissistic supply. It's all about him.
3
How degraded journalism has become! The op-ed, in its inception, was an essay by a disinterested writer whose opinion differed from that of a newspaper's editorial board. Now The Times will run a hatchet job by a documentarian who doesn't like its subject's personal quirks. But Gibney's pieces misses the point of WikiLeaks, doesn't it? The public is better off knowing how the DNC cheated Bernie Sanders out of the nomination, just as it's better off knowing that the NSA monitors our every communication. Who cares if Julian Assange's ego seems as big as that of the average Hollywood filmmaker?
7
Gibney's point is that Wikileaks shows no care for personal information that can injure private ordinary citizens. His argument is against the reckless nature of Wikileaks' posting. You can post important documents that make information public without being reckless.
1
Julian Assange did an interview with Bill Maher on Friday. He was quite straightforward about his desire to release DNC communications timed just right to hurt Clinton. He also said, "we know where the information about the DNC came from", meaning the DNC itself. How disingenuous. Of course DNC communications came from the DNC, but Maher wanted to know how were they obtained? They were obtained by hacking or other nefarious means. They were not obtained by a FOIA request. Now the question of who did the hacking, and this is where Russia comes in.
At another point in the interview, Assange mentioned safeguarding his info for timed release and the idea of protecting his sources. Now that's hutzpah. Why is the information that he obtained from hacking, theft and bribes so sacrosanct? In this way, Assange and Trump are similar. Information transparency is mandatory, unless it is MY information.
At another point in the interview, Assange mentioned safeguarding his info for timed release and the idea of protecting his sources. Now that's hutzpah. Why is the information that he obtained from hacking, theft and bribes so sacrosanct? In this way, Assange and Trump are similar. Information transparency is mandatory, unless it is MY information.
3
(Not Mark) I wonder if all this outrage would still be going on if the RNC emails had been hacked and released. Somehow I doubt it.
8
I think we should ask the women assange has "allegedly" assaulted.
2
The only possible defense to what will be revealed is that it can not be trusted.
This article is laying that foundation.
It won't work.
This article is laying that foundation.
It won't work.
7
No, he's saying that there's a difference between making information public and recklessly making information public.
3
A hit piece from a journalist with an admitted axe to grind and financial self-interest (in the form of his movie)?
The question is not should we trust Wikileaks, given the Times history of nonobjective and hostile coverage of Wikileaks and Assange in particular, the question is, "Does anyone still trust the New York Times or care what it says."
The question is not should we trust Wikileaks, given the Times history of nonobjective and hostile coverage of Wikileaks and Assange in particular, the question is, "Does anyone still trust the New York Times or care what it says."
10
I do.
4
The DNC leak exposed the editing of a NY Times piece at the behest of the D.N.C. to be less damaging toward Hillary. Why are you deflecting attention away from the substance of the leak? Are you still in cahoots with the D.N.C.?
12
Every human operates on personal motives, period. Whether those motives be self-destruction or self aggrandizement, or every stripe in between, they serve the life of the human. Mr. Assange appears to be a man who enjoys sticking it to the self-appointed elite. We ordinary members of society KNOW we are manipulated, used, and cheated. Mr. Assange confirms it. I am grateful. As to the controversy over redacting? If you are telling the truth, you should tell the "Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Otherwise you are just another spin doctor. I always say, if you would be shamed by sunlight shining on your deeds, don't do the deed.
4
Assange's time is clearly past since there are signs that he is critical of HRC and probably WJC. And all because of a few emails and a misconstruance of the regulations, probably by some intern!
1
Good question. Can we trust Nicholas Confessore and the New York Times?
10
People seem to get upset when the truth finally surfaces
6
Interesting read, my question is, would it have been written if the WikiLeaks target was Trump and/or the RNC?
I think not.
I think not.
8
Thank you Mr. Assange, for once again verifying the corrupt nature of the Clinton machine.
11
You probably wouldn't be thanking him if it were your information being hacked, and quite possibly shared with a third party you don't even know about.
'As for Mr. Assange’s animus against Hillary Clinton — he has written that she “lacks judgment and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism” — that is evidence of bias, but no more than that.'
Again -- if, as in the Rutenberg piece, reporters are allowed to make (negative) judgments of Trump based on whatever they wish to make (negative) judgments of Trump on-- how is it bias to think Clinton will "push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism" when her entire political career suggests she will do just that?
THIS is why Trump so bothers the media -- your faults, hypocrisy, laziness, biases, shoddy journalism for all to see.
Again -- if, as in the Rutenberg piece, reporters are allowed to make (negative) judgments of Trump based on whatever they wish to make (negative) judgments of Trump on-- how is it bias to think Clinton will "push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism" when her entire political career suggests she will do just that?
THIS is why Trump so bothers the media -- your faults, hypocrisy, laziness, biases, shoddy journalism for all to see.
8
The days of investigative reporting, of at least some candidates, is over. The Times, like most of the media, is demanding Trump's tax returns. Why?
Tax returns providing an opening peek into a candidate's economic picture, but not much more. To find more, you must follow the clues in the tax return to find the dirt. But, regarding Hillary, the Times has not done this.
Hillary and Bill's return show lots of income from speeches given to industries that a President has a lot of influence in regulating. Hillary has a track record of saying different things on the same issue, depending on the audience being addressed. Her public campaign rhetoric suggests she would keep Wall Street on a short leash. Given the speeches, her Wall Street donations, and close ties with Wall Street individuals, any investigative reporter worth his salt would want to know what she said in those Wall Street speeches. But since she refuses to disclose this information voluntarily, no reporter, or newspaper, has even tried to find out what she told them, and has not even made it a serious issue.
Given the failure of the media to do its job, the only way the public will ever know the answer to this question is through vehicles such as Wikileaks. More power to them. Even if the Times dislikes the messenger.
Tax returns providing an opening peek into a candidate's economic picture, but not much more. To find more, you must follow the clues in the tax return to find the dirt. But, regarding Hillary, the Times has not done this.
Hillary and Bill's return show lots of income from speeches given to industries that a President has a lot of influence in regulating. Hillary has a track record of saying different things on the same issue, depending on the audience being addressed. Her public campaign rhetoric suggests she would keep Wall Street on a short leash. Given the speeches, her Wall Street donations, and close ties with Wall Street individuals, any investigative reporter worth his salt would want to know what she said in those Wall Street speeches. But since she refuses to disclose this information voluntarily, no reporter, or newspaper, has even tried to find out what she told them, and has not even made it a serious issue.
Given the failure of the media to do its job, the only way the public will ever know the answer to this question is through vehicles such as Wikileaks. More power to them. Even if the Times dislikes the messenger.
10
That media serves an agenda should not be a surprise to anyone alive in this century. Fox, MSNBC, Washington Post, and even the beloved NY Times all are clearly steered by editorial forces that serve specific (fairly easily identifiable) agendas. Therefore it should be no surprise that WikiLeaks or any of the myriad of other non-traditional outlets for neo-journalism are evolving to serve specific agendas. However, as a modern consumer of news, I believe I can read the contents and filter out the agenda and assess the merit and meaning of the contents whether the information appears in the press or these new outlets.
3
Compare the breadth and scale of the Panama Papers release as well as its unvarnished picture of world kleptocracy and hypocrisy to the farce of Assange's vanity publication filtered for anything that might cause embarrassment to the Russians who own him. That is all there is to say about this sorry fellow other than Sweden was right to nail him on unsafe sex practices.
2
or more appropriately.. "Can we trust the New York Times".. It's become apparent in the past 6 months that you are nothing more than a Clinton Mouthpiece.. Ironic that you ask if we can trust Wiki Leaks when they exposed the fraud and corruption surrounding the DNC and the $Hillbillary Campaign.. and collusion with the so called Independent (state run) media.......Laughable. spin. how much were you paid??
10
Julian Assange has proven untrustworthy and hypocritical since the inception of Wikileaks. Despite his belief in "radical transparency," Assange has operated his business affairs with secrecy, lashing out at journalists who have sought to give the public a better understanding of the ways that Wikileaks operates. Assange's cozy relationship with the Kremlin is deeply problematic. He hosts a program on Putin's propaganda channel, and has remained silent while the Putin regime assassinates, jails, and brutalizes independent journalists. Assange has been unable to refute allegations by past Wikileaks supporters that he acquired a trove of damning information on the Putin regime and, rather than publish the materials, chose to use it as a bargaining chip for his own personal gain.
Given Assange's willingness to use Wikileaks as his own personal weapon and the dark forces that he has aligned himself with, anyone viewing documents on the site should do so with caution. What has Assange withheld from view in order to support his chosen narrative of events? Are all of the documents on the site authentic, or are some falsified by Assange and his handlers? What checks and balances exist within the Wikileaks organization to prevent abuse of power and deliberate misinformation? If Wikileaks operated with the same transparency that it demands of others, the public might be more willing to trust what it posts.
Given Assange's willingness to use Wikileaks as his own personal weapon and the dark forces that he has aligned himself with, anyone viewing documents on the site should do so with caution. What has Assange withheld from view in order to support his chosen narrative of events? Are all of the documents on the site authentic, or are some falsified by Assange and his handlers? What checks and balances exist within the Wikileaks organization to prevent abuse of power and deliberate misinformation? If Wikileaks operated with the same transparency that it demands of others, the public might be more willing to trust what it posts.
5
I think many Americans on both the liberal left and libertarian right have given Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and their co-conspirators far too much blind praise and have bought into the whole "protecting individual liberties and freedom of information" narrative. It's entirely false. These men and Wikileaks in general are agents of espionage and they work for Russia and China from all the evidence I have seen. Snowden is heavily aligned with the techno libertarian elites of Silicon Valley like Peter Thiel, Palantir Technologies, that in fact spy on Americans in from the private sector. His lawyer I believe used to represent Ron Paul awhile back, and keep very questionable fringe right wing company...
2
How ironic that an individual 'dedicated' to 'radical transparency" ... is so secretive. I believe the description for a person like this is 'sociopath'.
I have zero tolerance for Assange and his band of merry thieves and, be clear on this, they are simply fences for stolen property with an assortment of petty axes to grind and precisely zero integrity. There is no lofty goal of a world without secrets and knowledge making us free.
And let us also be clear that a world without secrets would be a very, very dysfunctional and dangerous place. All organizations, the DNC, the CIA, the GOP and, yes, even the NRA and EXXON/Mobile have a right to, and a need for, privacy.
And those of you claiming otherwise, that *you* have a 'right' to this information, are you willing to put all you personal information online? Have every conversation and ill-considered comment made public? Do I have a right to pry into *your* life based on where you work, what you do, who you know or where you live? Didn't think so. So enough with the self-righteous indignation and hypocrisy.
Oh, and the DNC e-mails? All that proves is democracy is alive and well with a political organization engaging in internal politics. Such a shock. The GOP and DNC primaries are *not* part of the U.S. electoral system. They are internal processes for two groups to chose their nominees. I imagine all the indignant might be shocked by what goes on wth the Green and Libertarian parties ...
I have zero tolerance for Assange and his band of merry thieves and, be clear on this, they are simply fences for stolen property with an assortment of petty axes to grind and precisely zero integrity. There is no lofty goal of a world without secrets and knowledge making us free.
And let us also be clear that a world without secrets would be a very, very dysfunctional and dangerous place. All organizations, the DNC, the CIA, the GOP and, yes, even the NRA and EXXON/Mobile have a right to, and a need for, privacy.
And those of you claiming otherwise, that *you* have a 'right' to this information, are you willing to put all you personal information online? Have every conversation and ill-considered comment made public? Do I have a right to pry into *your* life based on where you work, what you do, who you know or where you live? Didn't think so. So enough with the self-righteous indignation and hypocrisy.
Oh, and the DNC e-mails? All that proves is democracy is alive and well with a political organization engaging in internal politics. Such a shock. The GOP and DNC primaries are *not* part of the U.S. electoral system. They are internal processes for two groups to chose their nominees. I imagine all the indignant might be shocked by what goes on wth the Green and Libertarian parties ...
2
Can we trust the Times?
I used to think yes, absolutely.
But it has increasingly shown its extreme bias in reporting.
In this case, only after Assange published data on the DNC leaks, only then does the NYT publish an article smearing him. This after a string of attempts trying to muddy the issue by saying Russia was involved.
The DNC behaved unethically & undemocratically. How about a string of articles analyzing what happened within the DNC & what this means for the democratic process in the Dem party? Instead,Sanders supporters who accused the DNC of voter manipulation were derided & mocked. Yet it was *true*. Result: Clinton does nothing at all, & *rewards* DWS.
Instead of analysis of a DNC scandal (which is more serious b/c the pool of candidates was already extremely small) we got Trump 24/7, who is literally compared to Hitler & Voldemort - in serious circles.The scandal around Trump's comments during the convention, though newsworthy, caused *far* more media coverage than the DNC leaks & effectively stopped the discussion cold.
The problem, as a reader points out, is that the Times can no longer be trusted because of its extreme bias & propagandist articles during this election cycle. Is Assange truly a sociopath, as Gibney is saying? Maybe.Does it matter to the DNC accusations? No.
And how about doing 1/2 of the investigative articles on Clinton that the NYT has done on Trump? I want to learn about her actual positions & history. I object to fear-mongering.
I used to think yes, absolutely.
But it has increasingly shown its extreme bias in reporting.
In this case, only after Assange published data on the DNC leaks, only then does the NYT publish an article smearing him. This after a string of attempts trying to muddy the issue by saying Russia was involved.
The DNC behaved unethically & undemocratically. How about a string of articles analyzing what happened within the DNC & what this means for the democratic process in the Dem party? Instead,Sanders supporters who accused the DNC of voter manipulation were derided & mocked. Yet it was *true*. Result: Clinton does nothing at all, & *rewards* DWS.
Instead of analysis of a DNC scandal (which is more serious b/c the pool of candidates was already extremely small) we got Trump 24/7, who is literally compared to Hitler & Voldemort - in serious circles.The scandal around Trump's comments during the convention, though newsworthy, caused *far* more media coverage than the DNC leaks & effectively stopped the discussion cold.
The problem, as a reader points out, is that the Times can no longer be trusted because of its extreme bias & propagandist articles during this election cycle. Is Assange truly a sociopath, as Gibney is saying? Maybe.Does it matter to the DNC accusations? No.
And how about doing 1/2 of the investigative articles on Clinton that the NYT has done on Trump? I want to learn about her actual positions & history. I object to fear-mongering.
14
I'm sorry to be unpleasant, Mr. Gibney, but your article does sound rather whiny and a little bit self-pitying, as if your main objection is that that big, nasty bully, Assange, was mean to you. Assange may be quirky and maybe even sometimes ill-mannered, but I thank him for the information that he outs.
8
Did you even read the article? Plenty to dislike about Assange. Passing on this information doesn't make anyone petty.
no. julian assage and ed snowden, by their actions, appear to be acting as russian agents
1
to quote the ingenue's line i Dorddie Whrotten Schoundrels,
russian agents,
"is that bad??"
russian agents,
"is that bad??"
"I believe that WikiLeaks was fully justified in publishing the D.N.C. emails, which provided proof that members of the D.N.C., in a hotly contested primary, discussed how to undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders. They are clearly in the public interest."
Clearly in the Kremlin's interest, you mean. You don't think 30k leaked emails from the RNC would be at least as embarrassing? The release couldn't be more lopsided and was clealy intended specifically to influence the Presidential election.
Putin's puppets, easily played, are mindlessly doing his bidding.
Clearly in the Kremlin's interest, you mean. You don't think 30k leaked emails from the RNC would be at least as embarrassing? The release couldn't be more lopsided and was clealy intended specifically to influence the Presidential election.
Putin's puppets, easily played, are mindlessly doing his bidding.
5
No, clearly in my interest, Jon.
Democracy for America and MoveOn held poles to decide whether to endorse a candidate. MoveOn went 70%+ pro-Sanders and the DFA went 80%.
Keep in mind 38% of registered Dems distrust HRC.
As a long time volunteer for the party, I am disgusted with the DNC and its Italian Salute given to the party's left and the majority of potential voters 40 and younger.
Really, really stupid.
The DNC needs a serious purging to get back to its true pre-corporatist-Clinton values.
Democracy for America and MoveOn held poles to decide whether to endorse a candidate. MoveOn went 70%+ pro-Sanders and the DFA went 80%.
Keep in mind 38% of registered Dems distrust HRC.
As a long time volunteer for the party, I am disgusted with the DNC and its Italian Salute given to the party's left and the majority of potential voters 40 and younger.
Really, really stupid.
The DNC needs a serious purging to get back to its true pre-corporatist-Clinton values.
Julian Assange cares about Julian Assange and nothing else. The recent leak of DNC emails was so transparently and embarrassingly aimed at disrupting Hillary Clinton's campaign that it looked childish. If you want to portray yourself as a pariah saving the world from evil then maybe use the (stolen) information you have to advance transparency and not to settle a petty perceived slight. Just a sad, self interested narcissist. Hmmm, where I have seen that lately?
2
More propaganda against the truth.
7
Is this America or Australia? Rupert Murdoch --an Australian-- owns too many media outlets in the U.S., one in particular which is followed by a great number of Americans and is the ONLY place where they receive their biased news, information and marching orders. Now we have Julian Assange, another Aussie, trying to be a catalyst in the presidential election in America. If his actions are so altruistic, where is the RNC dump of hacked information? Is everything the RNC is doing really honest, genuine, principled and for the greater good? I think we all know the answer to that question. What Assange is doing is reckless. Think of how you would feel if he released information about you. So Julian, if you want to be taken seriously, we don't want to hear from you unless you are willing to drop what you feel (because after all is is all about you) is pertinent information about the other side. On second thought,...keep the information. We don't want to hear from you ever again. Sick your nose in the affairs of Australia or just go away. And for those of you annoyed that people are glossing over the content of the leaks and focusing on the act of leaking, I believe the latter is the bigger crime but let's go to the content: Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Why should the DNC not support its liberal-democratic candidate over a socialist candidate? Bernie is a socialist, not a liberal and there's a huge difference between the two.
3
The mystery that is Assange, the haughty self-righteous Assange.
Is he a new form of anarchist, a cyber-anarchist? In his councils of war, assuming he bothers to hold them -- and it is war, his NGO against GOs manipulated by other GOs, like Putin's -- does he discuss destroying Clinton's candidacy in self-important tones with ill-disguised glee and a gleam in his eye?
Another wrinkle: if Putin's cyberwarfare directorate did hack Clinton's server and send him the information, does he see any problem with it and being Putin's cats-paw, his "useful idiot", borrowing a contemptuous term usually attributed to Lenin; another anarchist? Joachim Fest described Heydrich's cynical opinion of Himmler and Hitler, his superiors, as "an aide of passing value". Is Assange Putin's Heydrich?
Does he actually think foisting Trump on us will destroy the hated United States? Is that his aim? Can the nobler, purer world that he claims to seek be built on a field of ruins? Or does he do it because he is a spiteful man who echoes the main character in Dostoevsky's "Notes from Underground". “I used to imagine adventures for myself. I invented a life so I could at least exist somehow". A little man, smug in his conceits, contemptuous, who points his wikileaks like a pistol at those more powerful than himself and pulls the trigger hoping to inflict a lethal wound; a virtual assassination. “Perhaps I regard myself as intelligent only because I've never been able to start or finish anything.”?
Is he a new form of anarchist, a cyber-anarchist? In his councils of war, assuming he bothers to hold them -- and it is war, his NGO against GOs manipulated by other GOs, like Putin's -- does he discuss destroying Clinton's candidacy in self-important tones with ill-disguised glee and a gleam in his eye?
Another wrinkle: if Putin's cyberwarfare directorate did hack Clinton's server and send him the information, does he see any problem with it and being Putin's cats-paw, his "useful idiot", borrowing a contemptuous term usually attributed to Lenin; another anarchist? Joachim Fest described Heydrich's cynical opinion of Himmler and Hitler, his superiors, as "an aide of passing value". Is Assange Putin's Heydrich?
Does he actually think foisting Trump on us will destroy the hated United States? Is that his aim? Can the nobler, purer world that he claims to seek be built on a field of ruins? Or does he do it because he is a spiteful man who echoes the main character in Dostoevsky's "Notes from Underground". “I used to imagine adventures for myself. I invented a life so I could at least exist somehow". A little man, smug in his conceits, contemptuous, who points his wikileaks like a pistol at those more powerful than himself and pulls the trigger hoping to inflict a lethal wound; a virtual assassination. “Perhaps I regard myself as intelligent only because I've never been able to start or finish anything.”?
2
I for one am profoundly greatful to Wikileaks for their exposure of the corrupt Democratic National Committee's duplicitous treatment of Senator Sanders campaign. Julian Assange is right to bring this critical information to public notice.
13
Nice pretext for preparing the public opinion against WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.
Sorry, the response of the mainstream media was still pathetic in terms of delving into the information released on the DNC. We learned only by using other sources than the ones in the pocket of Hillary and the Democrats, and establishment Republicans. You know - the status quo guys.
Stop trying to malign the messenger. The facts released still matter. We just won't expect that the NYT and it's Op-Ed writers and assorted company will adequately follow up or report on the released information.
Sorry, the response of the mainstream media was still pathetic in terms of delving into the information released on the DNC. We learned only by using other sources than the ones in the pocket of Hillary and the Democrats, and establishment Republicans. You know - the status quo guys.
Stop trying to malign the messenger. The facts released still matter. We just won't expect that the NYT and it's Op-Ed writers and assorted company will adequately follow up or report on the released information.
10
No, he's saying that there are more responsible ways to release information and that failure to do so taints the very purpose of and value of that information.
2
she (HRC) “lacks judgment and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism” is not a statement that is evidence of bias.
It's an accurate depiction of her behavior to this point.
It's an accurate depiction of her behavior to this point.
8
It really is just a conclusion someone has come to. No more no less.
2
it understates the case, woefully,
but ok?
who's actually listening anyway??
more's the pity.
but ok?
who's actually listening anyway??
more's the pity.
1
Simply not true.
1
How do we know that Assange is the beacon of integrity? In the world we live in, Everyone has an agenda. Julian Assange is no reincarnation of St. Peter. While the western powers have a lot to hide and so does Russia. How come Wikileaks hasn't come forward with info about wrongdoings in Russia. Why is Julian silent on Trump's tax invasion? To win trust of the readers, Wikileaks must avoid being seen as an agent of Russia or stooge of Trump.
2
And the New York TIMES Editorial Board wouldn't know anything about presenting information in an agenda-driven framework. If Assange and Wikileaks had done nothing but serve the TIMES's agenda, the TIMES would be pompously singing its praises.
Pot, meet kettle.
Pot, meet kettle.
8
He has been incarcerated de facto in the Ecuadorian embassy since 2012 as a result of US extradition proceedings and likely phony rape allegations instigated by US agents. So he is basically in jail and the United States is his jailer. Regardless of the rightness of his or US actions, is it surprising or in any way odd that he would harbor resentment?
3
I'm really tired of hearing how unfair it was that the DNC was favoring HRC over Bernie. Of course they did, she's a DEM, he was not!
3
Governments ought not transparent as that is inevitably a vulnerability in national security. For those who think otherwise, maybe you need to live in the Middle East for a while to understand how good you have and keeping secrets is part of the reason.
This adolescent obsession needs to stop and Julian Assange along with Edward Snowden need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They are danger to national security and too immature to be trusted with their own skills.
This adolescent obsession needs to stop and Julian Assange along with Edward Snowden need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They are danger to national security and too immature to be trusted with their own skills.
Can we trust the liberal media to provide a fair portrayal of the candidates? The NY Times, Washington Post, CNN and ABC all have liberal bents (hence, also agenda-driven). Yes, WIkileaks has its agenda, but let's look at all the other media outlets as well.
Just take a look at the opinion pieces and how candidates are "marketed" in these liberal outlets. It's a 90% positive portrayal of Hillary and a 10% positive portrayal of Trump.
WIkileaks merely leaks information of "bad" things that have ALREADY occurred. Julian merely shines light on these actions. If anything, one needs to look at the source of why it's happening in the first place. Republicans were open about how they wanted to rig the system against Trump. (they failed). Democrats? They were secretive about it. Which one is worse? The stealthy one.
Trump may not say things the general public doesn't like; however, he's honest and genuine. Hillary says things that people like to hear. But is it genuine? Or is she merely pandering to the public? Furthermore, Hillary has ACTUALLY performed "bad" actions. From Benghazi to the careless handling of emails. These are actual actions. Trump? Hasn't done anything bad. He just says things that shake up the status quo. Something for liberals to think about.
Just take a look at the opinion pieces and how candidates are "marketed" in these liberal outlets. It's a 90% positive portrayal of Hillary and a 10% positive portrayal of Trump.
WIkileaks merely leaks information of "bad" things that have ALREADY occurred. Julian merely shines light on these actions. If anything, one needs to look at the source of why it's happening in the first place. Republicans were open about how they wanted to rig the system against Trump. (they failed). Democrats? They were secretive about it. Which one is worse? The stealthy one.
Trump may not say things the general public doesn't like; however, he's honest and genuine. Hillary says things that people like to hear. But is it genuine? Or is she merely pandering to the public? Furthermore, Hillary has ACTUALLY performed "bad" actions. From Benghazi to the careless handling of emails. These are actual actions. Trump? Hasn't done anything bad. He just says things that shake up the status quo. Something for liberals to think about.
4
"Mr. Assange still claims that WikiLeaks is a beacon of transparency. We should no longer take him at his word."
If Wikileaks was exposing Rebublicans, their revelations would never be doubted.
The Democrats' hypocrisy is so transparent.
I am a non-partisan Independent, so have no illusions that the Republicans are pure...but still! This year, the overreaching and corruption of Hil-liar-y, Obama and the DNC are on display for all to see.
If Wikileaks was exposing Rebublicans, their revelations would never be doubted.
The Democrats' hypocrisy is so transparent.
I am a non-partisan Independent, so have no illusions that the Republicans are pure...but still! This year, the overreaching and corruption of Hil-liar-y, Obama and the DNC are on display for all to see.
4
really melinda? the republicans poison is as well. Lets see the overreaching corruption of trump, his russian allies and the whole stinking brew. where are those hacked taxes? those republican emails that show his machinations and lies? it is extremely biased against the democrats who have given you - health care, a robust 401k, a revitalized auto industry, gay and transgender rights, job growth every single month since he took office - (and yes that includes people who aren't looking for work but it always has. they didn't invent the method so its been the same methodology since Reagan or before) so unemployment of 4.9% is accurate. check the lies at the door, read a little then come back to us with thoughtful discourse.
@jb
There are some people who are so vehemently against one thing, that they can't see the other -- such appears to be the case with Melinda.
There are some people who are so vehemently against one thing, that they can't see the other -- such appears to be the case with Melinda.
In other words, don't believe what he's about to release on Hillary. Got it.
12
First of all, it is beyond naïve to think that you are going to hire totally unbiased workers for a political position. To do that you would need to go to Bernie's children's brigade before Bernie... kids with minds a clean political slate due to disinterest and apathy until coming under the spell of their Messiah. And we've seen how suggestible they are.
The job of the DNC is to select a support a Democratic candidate who will go on to win POTUS. That some leaked e-mails show that there were leanings in the DNC for Hillary? Really? That's what you got?? I still haven't seen an example of where any actions were taken. DWS was never my favorite. But that was due to lack of charisma. I saw literally dozens of interviews with her and never saw anything but a lack of bias. Ever since she caught the Sanders campaign stealing info from Hillary's, and called them on it, they have had it in for her.
I saw Assange on Maher Friday, and he made my stomach turn. Slimey, snarky, agenda driven. Not sure if he was a Bernie fan, or just using him the way Trump supporters do to malign Hillary. He even got Maher wrong, intimating he gave money to Hillary. Maher was a Bernie supporter, gave money to him, and gave to Obama.
But of course the worst is using his networks selectively. We all need to be very afraid of the consequences. And Bernie needs to be more honest about his charges the primary was stolen. Or he will be anathema when this is all over.
The job of the DNC is to select a support a Democratic candidate who will go on to win POTUS. That some leaked e-mails show that there were leanings in the DNC for Hillary? Really? That's what you got?? I still haven't seen an example of where any actions were taken. DWS was never my favorite. But that was due to lack of charisma. I saw literally dozens of interviews with her and never saw anything but a lack of bias. Ever since she caught the Sanders campaign stealing info from Hillary's, and called them on it, they have had it in for her.
I saw Assange on Maher Friday, and he made my stomach turn. Slimey, snarky, agenda driven. Not sure if he was a Bernie fan, or just using him the way Trump supporters do to malign Hillary. He even got Maher wrong, intimating he gave money to Hillary. Maher was a Bernie supporter, gave money to him, and gave to Obama.
But of course the worst is using his networks selectively. We all need to be very afraid of the consequences. And Bernie needs to be more honest about his charges the primary was stolen. Or he will be anathema when this is all over.
1
"After all, many news outlets are clearly, and sometimes proudly, biased."
I would rank the NYT at the top of that list. It's no longer All The News Fit to Print", merely a daily enumeration of biases that culminate in the Editorial Board's agenda driven thunderbolts, shrill articles and tailored op-eds.
If Assange is a villain, he is by no means alone. The vast majority of media today is agenda driven and would never cross authority the way the NYT used to be.
I would rank the NYT at the top of that list. It's no longer All The News Fit to Print", merely a daily enumeration of biases that culminate in the Editorial Board's agenda driven thunderbolts, shrill articles and tailored op-eds.
If Assange is a villain, he is by no means alone. The vast majority of media today is agenda driven and would never cross authority the way the NYT used to be.
6
Wrong headline and focus.
The question is not "Can we trust Julian Assange?" The question is: "Why are the Russians trying to throw a US election to Trump?"
What do the Russians know about Trump that the American people don't? Why do they by all appearances wish to discredit Clinton to Trump's benefit, including with the latest hack on the DNC servers, released by their known good friend Mr. Assange?
The time is long past due for full transparency around Trump's business dealings with foreign countries, particularly Russia.
And to the extent that Assange appears to be aiding and abetting Russian interests, an investigation into that initiative would be of interest also. But it's a second-order priority compared with Trump.
The real question is: Why do the Russians apparently like Trump so much?
The question is not "Can we trust Julian Assange?" The question is: "Why are the Russians trying to throw a US election to Trump?"
What do the Russians know about Trump that the American people don't? Why do they by all appearances wish to discredit Clinton to Trump's benefit, including with the latest hack on the DNC servers, released by their known good friend Mr. Assange?
The time is long past due for full transparency around Trump's business dealings with foreign countries, particularly Russia.
And to the extent that Assange appears to be aiding and abetting Russian interests, an investigation into that initiative would be of interest also. But it's a second-order priority compared with Trump.
The real question is: Why do the Russians apparently like Trump so much?
138
wrong. the question is, why do peeps like you simply assume it has to be the case, that those mean bad ruskies are trying to replay the whole cold war game . . . again?
what are you, OLD? like me? i'm 73 and i've got disabused by the pap and blather i get from the regurgitated US powers that be 'party line'.
it's an old and very unsophisticated game. and it seems to werk too!!
why, ??
maybe it has to do with a dumb'd down electorate, and a generally ignorant body politic in the US.
that's the body that is avidly watching and egging on this clown show for the 2016 election year.
and whoa . . . !!! they're also the ones who will cast the lions' share of the ballots.
is this scarey??? or not?
forget yr anxieties about, what? NATO???
gimme a break.
what are you, OLD? like me? i'm 73 and i've got disabused by the pap and blather i get from the regurgitated US powers that be 'party line'.
it's an old and very unsophisticated game. and it seems to werk too!!
why, ??
maybe it has to do with a dumb'd down electorate, and a generally ignorant body politic in the US.
that's the body that is avidly watching and egging on this clown show for the 2016 election year.
and whoa . . . !!! they're also the ones who will cast the lions' share of the ballots.
is this scarey??? or not?
forget yr anxieties about, what? NATO???
gimme a break.
We know the answer. Trump will undermine NATO and throw Eastern Europe to the wolves. He keeps saying it. We should believe him. Putin will get the free hand to meddle in European affairs he so desires with a Trump presidency.
This is not as hard question to answer. The Russians like uncertainty more than anything. Therefore the Russians like Trump.
While I think that Wikileaks has performed a great public service in several areas, I've always thought there was something shady about Assange. The more I read about him, the more I think of Trump. An egomaniac who will do anything to smear those who attack him.
Julian Assange has never been an human being to admire; even before he had to scurry away to a third world embassy to hide from accusations of rape it was clear he was a self-promoting egoist. His determination that anyone who worked against the interests of the Taliban deserved to die was widely known at the time, although ignored by his self-righteous supporters. His close ties with Russia and its client states (such as Belarus) has long been clear. Yes the DNC acted in a shoddy and even tawdry way and some of those now gone needed to be cleaned out. The real story, which even the Times seems to be giving short shrift, is that a hostile foreign power and its agents, including Assange, are attempting to sway an election. I say grab him and ship him to Sweden next time he comes out of his hole to meet with his adoring press
Julian Assange is now, and always has been, a criminal. He's an amoral narcissist and a coward.
1
Can we trust NY Times on US election coverage?
Ask how Donald Trump feel about the NY Times.
Ask how Donald Trump feel about the NY Times.
2
Since when did anyone trust Assange to begin with??
1
Clearly, Mr. Assange can pursue his own interests and create various nefarious alliances, holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, with potentially dangerous consequences. However what is the State Dept.'s excuse for releasing the Hillary Clinton's emails, which appeared to condemn an Iranian nuclear scientist to death over the weekend? Why were these emails not exempted from the FOIA?
BBC News, 5 February 2016: "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange should be allowed to walk free and be compensated for his 'deprivation of liberty,' a UN legal panel has found."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35499942
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35499942
4
Of greater concern is how the mainline media such as the New York Times publishes with an agenda. For example, why hasn’t the Times mentioned Khizr Khan’s journal article "Juristic Classification of Islamic Law," Houston Journal of International Law, Vol. 6, Issue 1 (Autumn 1983), pp. 23-36 in which he stated "This brings up an important fact which is generally overlooked, that the invariable and basic rules of Islamic Law are only those prescribed in the Shari’ah (Quran and Sunnah), which are few and limited. All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari'ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims.” Isn’t this article relevant to a balanced understanding of Mr. Kahn’s views of the Constitution? Certainly not all self-identified Muslims hold Shar’ah law above the Constitution. But with the many words the Times has devoted to Mr. Kahn’s views, doesn’t the Times have a responsibility to explore what tenants of Shar’ah law Mr. Khan felt had legal primacy to “all Muslims"?
4
Mr Assange has obviously lost it. If information is being "hacked" rather than "leaked," can anybody be sure that it has not been doctored, edited, or even completely falsified? Disinformation, anybody?
"And the episode reveals some of the weaknesses of WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, like their recklessness with personal data and their use of information to settle scores and drive personal agendas."
Again, as w the Rutenberg piece, in this very same issue, the idea that the Times is above it all, doesn't have ITS agenda; are you kidding????
I think sometimes the objective of the Times is to kill off all the good journalists by giving them heart attacks. Worry, not, Times: all your reporters will be spared.
Again, as w the Rutenberg piece, in this very same issue, the idea that the Times is above it all, doesn't have ITS agenda; are you kidding????
I think sometimes the objective of the Times is to kill off all the good journalists by giving them heart attacks. Worry, not, Times: all your reporters will be spared.
4
Er, following the stealing of what some say was at least 500,000 documents from our security apparatus, and then fleeing to Russia with these encrypted documents, NOW Alex Gibney has 2nd thoughts about Julian Assange and his motives? Mr Assange is simply a traitor, and every effort ought to be made to make that clear and bring this turncoat to justice, plain and simple.
To answer the question posed in your headline: About as much as we can trust Donald Trump. It would be helpful if the media would cease giving him the publicity to maintain his '15 minutes'........
1
The title of this column says it all...OF COURSE you can't trust Assange. Nor Snowden. If there is any doubt that we are the freest country on earth, our treatment of these two people who are so egocentric that they think our security system protocols should be managed by them says it all. Heck, the fact that Trump is a candidate for President says it all. In most other countries, they would not still be alive to posit points of views for journalists!
Both Assange and Snowden have taken it upon themselves to decide what should and should not be public information, both with their own agendas. I have no respect for either of them, and both have compromised our national security. If we, as citizens of this country were more concerned about the operation of our democracy staying true to its Constitutional mores, we would worry less about so-called invasions of privacy and worry more about the people who manipulate the system and abuse their freedoms to gain their own ends.
Both Assange and Snowden have taken it upon themselves to decide what should and should not be public information, both with their own agendas. I have no respect for either of them, and both have compromised our national security. If we, as citizens of this country were more concerned about the operation of our democracy staying true to its Constitutional mores, we would worry less about so-called invasions of privacy and worry more about the people who manipulate the system and abuse their freedoms to gain their own ends.
1
The "bias" that the biased media keeps accusing Assange of (the biased media we now know as a fact conspired with the DNC to derail Bernie), a bias they express as personal animus against Hillary, is anything but. It is a disapproval of her actions in politics and her avowed policies. That is not a personal vendetta. It is a disagreement on substance. Every time the media accused Assange of having a "personal" problem with Hillary, it lies. Nothing new.
8
The author seems to perpetuate the myth that it was somehow wrong for the DNC to favor a candidate who was a lifelong Democrat over a Democrat-by-convenience who has already announced his intention to change his affiliation back to Independent. Bernie Sanders has conducted himself honorably, but his rejection by party regulars is not in itself dishonorable.
2
Assange can be trusted as far as you can throw him out of the sanctuary he has inhabited for years. The guy's been up on more charges than Hillary, and he alleged crimes far more dastardly. Trust him? Like I trust a snake in the grass.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
3
One of the first things you learn in doing research is to see if your source has a bias and after that you try to find opinion from the opposite side. Missing that, all othe leaks in the world that show you only one political party are inadequate to drawing a reasonable conclusion. We still don't know what the internal emails of the Republican Party might reveal. We don't know what part of oppositional research is played by Russia. I am not convinced that the comments passed back and forth by people within the Democratic Party are all that catastrophic. But all of it does prove the wisdom of my mother, "if you having nothing good to say about something, try to not say anything at all."
Probably not. He's a criminal hiding in a foreign embassy. He looks shifty, too. Would you buy a used car from this man?
3
Did I forget to mention that he is hiding from a rape charge? Who would give such a person refuge? If he's not guilty, he should present himself to the court and prove it. For all we know he's a liar. And once a liar, always a liar.
There is no evidence that Alex Gibney has killed pedestrians with his car. But pedestrians could be killed by his car. Therefore, we cannot trust Gibney to drive a car.
6
The man has always been an opportunist and a sleeze ball. His cozy relations with Putin make him completely uncredible. I say him on Bill Mahr and he is just an egotistical ass. No he doesn't really care about anyting other than playing with fire. Just a complete jerk. He does make Snowden look like a saint by comparison.
2
The truth hurts, so threatened people naturally start attacking the messenger.
The only people who want the truth to remain hidden are the supporters of Hillary Clinton. Talk about agenda-driven. And they refuse to recognize that they are agenda-driven, shoot-the-messenger people.
Their desire to protect Hillary, a woman whom they have never met and only "know" through the media (a not unbiased messenger for sure) versus wanting to know the truth regardless is disturbing and cultish.
The only people who want the truth to remain hidden are the supporters of Hillary Clinton. Talk about agenda-driven. And they refuse to recognize that they are agenda-driven, shoot-the-messenger people.
Their desire to protect Hillary, a woman whom they have never met and only "know" through the media (a not unbiased messenger for sure) versus wanting to know the truth regardless is disturbing and cultish.
6
How can we spy other nations and leaders, and wish that nobody else does the same. What you think the CIA and NSA does. America hypocrisy in big scale. Stop criticizing foreigners because we have plenty hackers over here too.
1
"Mr. Assange still claims that WikiLeaks is a beacon of transparency. We should no longer take him at his word."
Who of Assange's targets, who of Mr. Gibney's documentary-film targets, who of any administration should ever be taken at his word?
Who of Assange's targets, who of Mr. Gibney's documentary-film targets, who of any administration should ever be taken at his word?
2
Hmm. When Julian Assange is exposing the CIA, NSA or groups deemed "right-wing", the encomiums to freedom of speech are endless. But when he starts doing the same to progressive Left sacred cows, my how quickly sentiments change.
7
Assange will apparently do anything to get his name in print. He is as narcissistic as Trump.
6
Julian Assange is a coward with a personal grudge, and there's nothing heroic or revolutionary about that.
4
Sorry but WikiLeaks is based on theft of private property. No one has a right to go for a joy ride in my luxury sports car because they can drive it better than I can or they can't afford bus fare and need to get to work. North Korea has no right to break into Sony's servers even though execs. say ugly things. Do you want Mr. Assange to determine if your credit card numbers can better serve third world nations than you?
5
How do we know what he publishes is even accurate?
1
WikiLeaks has always served the interests of Assange, and I do not support any of the leaks associated with the US--including the DNC leaks, which were most definitely not what the mainstream press nor right-wing "news" sites made them out to be.
Reading the most recent DNC leaks revealed to me nothing more from actual DNC officials than growing frustration that Sanders--whom I voted for in the primary, by the way--would not yield the field when he stood almost no chance for victory. I wonder what GOP emails over the same time period reflect regarding Trump? Yes, the consultant's suggestion to use atheism in the South was disturbing, but there are no indications that the DNC followed through. The State Department leaks served no useful purpose either, other than to sour American relations with friendly countries that already knew we were surveilling their leaders.
It's time to start treating cyber-crimes as acts of war. The US should negotiate with Sweden about terminating WikiLeaks's contract with Bahnhof. Should Sweden and Bahnhof not be interested in assisting the US, then the US could block all Banhhof and possibly Swedish traffic on the internet through the US. Fight fire with fire. Finally, I'm generally anti-war, but can you take out a nuclear bunker like Pionen with a smart bomb?
Reading the most recent DNC leaks revealed to me nothing more from actual DNC officials than growing frustration that Sanders--whom I voted for in the primary, by the way--would not yield the field when he stood almost no chance for victory. I wonder what GOP emails over the same time period reflect regarding Trump? Yes, the consultant's suggestion to use atheism in the South was disturbing, but there are no indications that the DNC followed through. The State Department leaks served no useful purpose either, other than to sour American relations with friendly countries that already knew we were surveilling their leaders.
It's time to start treating cyber-crimes as acts of war. The US should negotiate with Sweden about terminating WikiLeaks's contract with Bahnhof. Should Sweden and Bahnhof not be interested in assisting the US, then the US could block all Banhhof and possibly Swedish traffic on the internet through the US. Fight fire with fire. Finally, I'm generally anti-war, but can you take out a nuclear bunker like Pionen with a smart bomb?
5
Ask not what is done in secrecy rather ask the motives of the
leakers.
leakers.
2
I trust Julian Assange a lot more than I trust Hillary Clinton or the DNC.
10
I trust Assange more than any members of our government, specially the top lesder of the two corrupt political parties. Republican/ Democrat. The implications of the DNC alone, against Bernie Sanders, was disgusting enough. Forget about Russia. Millions of americans , specially the young generation was denied to vote, only because our corrupt and anti- democratic system has the ability to NOt allowed people to vote if they want to register in different party . We need to change this system. A decent democracy dos Not have this particularities , that a person have to be affiliated with a party, we should have to make a choice about candidates and not a stupid party like the ones we have.Yes with a candidate. The biggest evidence is the situation now with the buffoon Trump. I only hope that millions of americans realize how bad our system is . If you are Greenparty, Independent or...etc, We should vote no matter what. Oligarchs are in charge.
4
Although it is legitimate to criticize Wikileaks for failing to redact personal information that had nothing to do with the story (the e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of DNC donors, for instance) I find them far more trustworthy than the New York Times. In particular, one cannot help but wonder if this editorial would have been written had it been the RNC's e-mail server that had been broken into.
Wikileaks serves a crucially important role in modern journalism, because virtually none of the media outlets in the English-speaking world practice investigative journalism any more. That is one reason why Journalists Without Borders ranks no English-speaking country in the top tier of press freedom.
Wikileaks serves a crucially important role in modern journalism, because virtually none of the media outlets in the English-speaking world practice investigative journalism any more. That is one reason why Journalists Without Borders ranks no English-speaking country in the top tier of press freedom.
5
If the information that is released in accurate and verifiable, then the motives of the releasor are immaterial.
I suspect that many of those who assail Assange as a narcissist, etc. would be praising him as a patriot if he leaked damaging information about Republicans and/or Trump!
And by the way, I saw two Clinton ads running in New York yesterday. One must wonder if Wiki has truly damaging information on HRC -- why else run ads in deep blue NYC market, and why else the campaign to vilify Assange and assert a link to Russia without any proof?
I suspect that many of those who assail Assange as a narcissist, etc. would be praising him as a patriot if he leaked damaging information about Republicans and/or Trump!
And by the way, I saw two Clinton ads running in New York yesterday. One must wonder if Wiki has truly damaging information on HRC -- why else run ads in deep blue NYC market, and why else the campaign to vilify Assange and assert a link to Russia without any proof?
4
Who cares? Tell us if and when wikileaks publishes false or altered documents. Your nasty little tiff with Assange and your assertions about his motives don't belong in the NY Times.
10
So it's ok with you that personal information of private citizens was shared?
Interesting. But I'll wager that if the leaks were about a Republican the author would never have written this.
8
Can we trust Julian Assange and WikiLeaks? Why is that even a question? Assange is a creep and a meglomaniac. Like Donald Trump, it's all about him. He doesn't care about democracy; he cares about himself and himself alone. Let's upack what he found: members of a political party talked smack about a man who crashed their party (Sanders wasn't a Democrat until he wanted to be president). Bring out the smelling salts! Assange has the vapors.
127
Whatever Assange's shortcomings, and there appear to be many, his assessment that Hillary Clinton “lacks judgment and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism” is on the money.
Would that so many Times commentators were not so blind as to fail to believe her record.
Would that so many Times commentators were not so blind as to fail to believe her record.
9
We seem to have gone a bit nuts over the "public's right to know." I'm not sure that the DNC's bias against Sanders counts. Can that organization not prefer one candidate over another legitimately? The RNC struggled mightily against Trump. Where's the beef over that? More seriously is the argument used for spreading gossip: Prince's ex-wife has, or perhaps by now, had a sealed divorce settlement that the press claims now that Prince is dead should be released to the public. She's not dead. Doesn't she have privacy rights? And the medical information about anyone anywhere? Does the public have the right to any of that? Prurience in this country is on the rise. . .
2
Party members have a civil right to expect their organizations will not be biased during primaries. Both insider groups based in corrupt Washington, D.C. proved to be corrupt.
As Bernie & Trump supporters know, the war this time is not between the parties so much as between the insiders and the 99% of us living 50 miles or more from D.C.
As Bernie & Trump supporters know, the war this time is not between the parties so much as between the insiders and the 99% of us living 50 miles or more from D.C.
4
How do we know that the emails that are released have not been modified? Not many would have to be changed to create problems just a key few.
1
If they had been altered, would Debbie Wasserman Schultz have resigned?
2
We are seeing the entire page, not the Hillary version. We get to see all the system-created disclaimers and other add-ons that often take up most of the page.
These releases are a thousand times more credible than anything an obviously corrupted politician would ''share.''
These releases are a thousand times more credible than anything an obviously corrupted politician would ''share.''
1
Does Mr. Assange already have Mr. Trump's tax returns (courtesy of Vladimir Putin)? What else? We know Russia has RNC data. Are they holding on to that for leverage in a Trump Administration? You bet.
Mr. Assange is mad because Hillary Clinton demands he go to Sweden to face sexual assault charges and Mr. Putin is mad because Clinton called the 2011 Russian elections flawed. And now they want their revenge. Trump is the all too willing stooge in this grudge.
Mr. Assange is mad because Hillary Clinton demands he go to Sweden to face sexual assault charges and Mr. Putin is mad because Clinton called the 2011 Russian elections flawed. And now they want their revenge. Trump is the all too willing stooge in this grudge.
2
Russia's REAL financial partner - whom has enriched them greatly - is Hillary Clinton. Trump is a friendly teenager from down the street by comparison.
Ever heard of Uranium One? Do you read actual news?
Ever heard of Uranium One? Do you read actual news?
1
The Russians also hacked the oppo research on Bernie...odd that none of that was interesting enough to leak. The Clinton campaign had enough decency and restraint not to use the information publicly. I would think, if Assange is so pure, he would want more transparency on that!
No. Assange is a nasty little now with a magnifying glass who is attempting to set ants on fire with the help of sunlight. Transparency and sunlight only work effectively as a disinfectant if they are used on everything. Selective transparency isn't transparency at all.
No. Assange is a nasty little now with a magnifying glass who is attempting to set ants on fire with the help of sunlight. Transparency and sunlight only work effectively as a disinfectant if they are used on everything. Selective transparency isn't transparency at all.
I think it is very clever, how the democrats have shifted the debate from a serious scandal, to blaming Russia and the wikileaks, that is amazing manipulation of public opinion.
In my opinion, the question of this article should be, can the americans trust the DNC and Clinton?
In my opinion, the question of this article should be, can the americans trust the DNC and Clinton?
10
Any example of media that is not agenda driven? If so, I will gladly watch/read.
3
Just look at the message and not the messenger
He has proven to be more trust worthy than either of the major Presidential candidates
He has proven to be more trust worthy than either of the major Presidential candidates
9
Then he should man up face those rape accusations...
1
There was a time when The NYT would have celebrated some one bringing up to light the secrets of the strong and powerful. There was a time when the NY would have been investigating rigged elections in foreign countries, and if it happened here, it would have been a Pulitzer winning investigation, followed by a book and a movie.
But not if it's done to the NYT's Queen.
Your devotion to one person has turned you blind. You would have been all over this, but instead you cheer on, and attack those who attempt to bring to light her misdeeds.
What happened to you?
But not if it's done to the NYT's Queen.
Your devotion to one person has turned you blind. You would have been all over this, but instead you cheer on, and attack those who attempt to bring to light her misdeeds.
What happened to you?
7
"beacon of transparency" ...but he is reportedly holding on to leaked data so that he can engineer an October surprise. Withholding supposedly public property to further his personal agenda seems disdainful of the public.
4
Walt's president Obama NEVER releases anything with the potential to embarrass the administration except at 4;00 P.M. on Fridays - or on the days before holidays. Were you touring Asia when Obama followed this pattern the past 7 years?
Federal court orders for Obama's & Eric Holder's Fast & Furious gun-walking scandal are STILL being withheld. Perhaps you should read the news sometime.
Obama's & holder's Mexican guns have shown up at crime scenes even recently.
Federal court orders for Obama's & Eric Holder's Fast & Furious gun-walking scandal are STILL being withheld. Perhaps you should read the news sometime.
Obama's & holder's Mexican guns have shown up at crime scenes even recently.
4
I watched Julian Assange on the Bill Maher show on HBO. More shocking than his uninformed attempt to "catch" Maher for donation he made to the Obama campaign -- which Maher has been disclosed numerous times on the air -- was his vindictiveness.
I don't trust this man's judgement.
I don't trust this man's judgement.
2
Assange's personal motivations aside, if the information he leaks contains the truth, then so be it for all involved. HRC should be worried.
7
Wow. Do you also support police raids on your house - no search warrant, no probably cause, just a personal vendetta, so long as they find something illegal in your house?
1
Love it. Where was this scrutiny back when his treason contained more palatable topics to the left?
6
Mr. Gibney: I'm not understanding your question. Are you asking whether we can expect (trust) Assange to do his level best to disrupt democracy at every turn, with no care for the consequences? Or are you asking whether Assange himself is trustworthy?
The answer to the first question is "yes." The answer to the second question is "no." Assange is a jackal, and some day, the lion will have him for dinner.
The answer to the first question is "yes." The answer to the second question is "no." Assange is a jackal, and some day, the lion will have him for dinner.
5
Fair is fair.
Wiki, please find Trump's tax returns.
He seems to have misplaced them.
Wiki, please find Trump's tax returns.
He seems to have misplaced them.
1
Are you serious?
Trump lives in a country where rich people get audited all the time. Prominent Romney supporters got audited REPEATEDLY because of the corruption in the White House and the IRS. One guy said the audits cost him over $80 million in CPA fees, copying, etc.
There is NO chance Trump recently broke the tax laws or you would have heard it over a year ago. This effort by the blogs to get you upset over Trump's taxes is beneath you. You went to school to be too wise for such tricks.
Trump lives in a country where rich people get audited all the time. Prominent Romney supporters got audited REPEATEDLY because of the corruption in the White House and the IRS. One guy said the audits cost him over $80 million in CPA fees, copying, etc.
There is NO chance Trump recently broke the tax laws or you would have heard it over a year ago. This effort by the blogs to get you upset over Trump's taxes is beneath you. You went to school to be too wise for such tricks.
3
Betteridge's law of headlines applies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines See a headline with a question mark? The answer is, "no." --DHB, RNB's spouse
I never trusted either the judgement or the motives of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Or for that matter, Edward Snowden or any other self-appointed messiahs. I'm amazed anyone does.
1
Obviously not if they are going to release material damaging to the prospects of Democrat insiders. Plainly unacceptable.
4
Wao wao wao. The grapes are indeed sour hey NYT. Dont be so jealous that the preferred bearer of leaks is Gurdian and not you. All these allegations were personally addressed by Assange in Bill Mahers show. Check youtube. He only released the last 4 digits of credit card numbers and SSN.
3
Zealots of all shapes, sizes, and political persuasions can be dangerous. Mr. Assange's personal dispute with Hillary Clinton has already cost the life of one Iranian put to death last week for being a spy following his Wikileaks exposure. In my view, that equates with the "collateral damage" that Mr. Assange rails against. The biggest zealots are often proven to be the biggest hypocrites.
144
Poppycock
2
The beauty of authentic primary source documents is that they do not require that we "trust" Assange or anyone else. The documents give us a fuller understanding of how human institutions actually function in practice as opposed to how their apologists tell us they function. For that reason, the work that Wikileaks is doing is absolutely crucial to a healthy, functioning, democratic society based on the real world. This remains so regardless of how many trashy, second-rate smear pieces NYT decides to publish by hacks like Gibney.
2
If revealing the truth can be considered reckless then we know we are in deep trouble with our political system. It's as simple as that!
2
You want to see an agenda driven news outlet, look no further than the New York Times.
5
So where are the RNC's emails? The DNC correspondence makes a nice appetizer, but I can't help wondering why the red meat isn't being served.
Assange is a hero. Like it or not, a government functions better for WE THE PEOPLE, when their affairs are in the sunlight, not hidden, like the powers that be would like them to be.
1
Idealistic and naive fantasy.
I'm sorry but no, not when Assange is releasing personal info like ssn's. He's just being an irresponsible jerk. The problem with Assange and others like him is their total disrespect for individual personal information. There's also the issue that he didn't get it, the Russians did and provided it to him. So basically he's working with a hostile power to hack into our elections. Finally there's the issue that he's doing this because of a personal feud. What a loser this guy is.
135
I get that the leaked DNC emails are embarrassing and could negatively impact Hillary Clinton's campaign.
But...
Does anyone out there *really* believe that the RNC wasn't desperately trying to find ways to knock The Donald off his pedestal before the unthinkable happened?
And, if Julian Assange came upon documentation of such a strategy, would he be so quick to release it? Or, like the Russians, is he merely trying to influence a US presidential election?
But...
Does anyone out there *really* believe that the RNC wasn't desperately trying to find ways to knock The Donald off his pedestal before the unthinkable happened?
And, if Julian Assange came upon documentation of such a strategy, would he be so quick to release it? Or, like the Russians, is he merely trying to influence a US presidential election?
3
A rapist who releases personal information of hundreds of innocent people- and we are discussing whether the trust him?
3
I would hope he is an altruist, and not an anarchist. Any credibility he has depends on motive and responsibility.
"Where in short is it leading us, the procession of the sons of educated men?”
~ Virginia Woolf
~ Virginia Woolf
Assange sounds like the Donald Trump of transparency world.
Ok, now we know that Assange is not a principled man. Are we happy that he possesses stolen information with which he could blackmail powerful people and governments all around the world? Does this make us safer?
The man needs to be apprehended and prosecuted.
The man needs to be apprehended and prosecuted.
2
Is this the New York Times telling us "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
But what if we are curious to what is actually happened?
But what if we are curious to what is actually happened?
5
Who does Julian Assange think that he is?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?
It is Bibi's "job" to foreign interfere in American politics and elections while spying on America and taking American welfare in the form of military aid.
What does WikiLeaks think that it is?
Israel?
It is Israel's job to be the tiny tail that wags the big American dog.
Who does President Vladimir Putin think that he is? Benjamin Netanyahu?
Unlike Israeli spy Jonathan Jay Pollard neither Assange nor WikiLeaks are American citizen traitors. Unlike George W. Bush they are not responsible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Unlike Barack H. Obama they did not dissolve Libya, ignore Syria, arm Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and engage in drone wars inside of sovereign nations.
Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are both more trustworthy than either Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or Benjamin Netanyahu. And a lot less dangerous.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?
It is Bibi's "job" to foreign interfere in American politics and elections while spying on America and taking American welfare in the form of military aid.
What does WikiLeaks think that it is?
Israel?
It is Israel's job to be the tiny tail that wags the big American dog.
Who does President Vladimir Putin think that he is? Benjamin Netanyahu?
Unlike Israeli spy Jonathan Jay Pollard neither Assange nor WikiLeaks are American citizen traitors. Unlike George W. Bush they are not responsible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Unlike Barack H. Obama they did not dissolve Libya, ignore Syria, arm Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and engage in drone wars inside of sovereign nations.
Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are both more trustworthy than either Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or Benjamin Netanyahu. And a lot less dangerous.
4
as long as it affects the republicans its ok, when it affects the democrats it is bad. what a joke, make everything public wikileaks
8
Wikileaks has become all about Assange, his bruised ego, his need for payback and his (probably warranted at this stage) paranoia. He is no longer (if he ever was) in a position to determine what should be aired and what would be better to keep under wraps. If it's able, Wikileaks should transition to some kind of rational process without Assange.
1
Post-Snowden, when NSA trolls spilled into the commentariat w/the con that 'ya shouldna oughta not worry if ya got nuttin' ta hide'; apparently, DNC staffers, w/plenty that was hide-worthy, didn't get the memo from Martin Lomasney, the old political boss of Boston's Ward Eight, "Never write when you can speak. Never speak when you can nod. Never nod when you can wink," quoted by CHARLES PIERCE, Esquire, 7/24, Even the Smart Reptiles Don't Write This Stuff Down.
1
Despite what you might think of Julian Assange personally, the failure to redact source material is probably more practical than principle. If Assange doesn't know how to code an algorithm to strip personal information, I don't really criticize his reluctance to hire outside help. Think about it. You have just about every major intelligence agency in the world watching you. Posting a developer position and giving them access to your computer sounds like a really great idea. The phrase “I am WikiLeaks” is likely more literal than you think.
1
The NYT is upset because Wikileaks has exposed the ugly dark corners of a rigged "Democratic" primary and their role in the process. If these leaks were against Trump or the Republicans the NYT would be calling for the Nobel Prize for Assange and Wikileaks.
9
Bingo.
1
Funny how the Clinton News outlet has to knock the messenger. Yet little to no story on the DNC rigging the primary. We have yet to hear or read an apology from Clinton and her surrogates. Nor the impropriety of immediately hiring all shamed, corrupt leaders in the DNC into the Democratic Fold. Even the base gas lights it's own children and tells them to "grow up" and "of course they are biased." Lying and cheating are part of politics and Dems do it as well as Republicans. Neither are worth believing anything they say as they self admit to being dishonest and corrupt.
Sorry Alex. You lay down with the dogs your going to get up with fleas and nobody needs to believe anything said. Just another Pantsuit Propaganda Piece from the Clinton News Network.
Sorry Alex. You lay down with the dogs your going to get up with fleas and nobody needs to believe anything said. Just another Pantsuit Propaganda Piece from the Clinton News Network.
9
On balance, and despite obvious and imagined personal shortcomings, I think the world today is much the better for having had Assange than not.
4
Julian Assange is one of those ego starved megalomaniacs who pretend to be a do-gooder but the opposite is really what is happening. All mail including email should have the same level of federal protection that your mailbox has at the front of your house. Too bad he isn't trumps running mate. They would be the perfect pair of political goons
1
The article makes it apparent that the New York Times thinks Assange will be able to deliver on his promise to release more material damaging to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The message is that the material should be ignore because Assange doesn’t like Hillary. We can trust WikiLeaks only when it releases material damaging to Republicans.
7
I think the nytimes is afraid that Assange will fabricate what he wants to see in leaks...a very dangerous man now.
The crocodile tears are not selling.
If Mr Assange can hack the DNC, an organization WITH a professional security team, why does anyone believe that Clinton's server was not an open book to all of our enemies?
I don't seem to remember these concerns when the Pentagon papers were released?
I am sure the fact these emails hurt the democrat party has nothing to do with this story attacking Mr Assange.
Nothing I tell you, nothing.
If Mr Assange can hack the DNC, an organization WITH a professional security team, why does anyone believe that Clinton's server was not an open book to all of our enemies?
I don't seem to remember these concerns when the Pentagon papers were released?
I am sure the fact these emails hurt the democrat party has nothing to do with this story attacking Mr Assange.
Nothing I tell you, nothing.
10
daniel ellsberg stood trial, and that trial brought out so much stuff against the government it exposed much more than assange has.
the pentagon papers couldn't have been hacked, anyway. i don't see your analogy here.
the pentagon papers couldn't have been hacked, anyway. i don't see your analogy here.
NY Times was not concerned about who was attacked when the papers were released. Seems to me a double standard.
No story on the Iranian nuclear scientist just hung as a results of Hillary's emails. Why?
Hacking has nothing to do with it. There were no email then, hello. It's the release of secret documents to the public. AKA, secret emails of Hillary, more coming, and the DNC.
Times sure is upset about those releases.
Gee wonder why? I suspect this is a pre attack on Assange to attempt to discredit him now, so that when the additional emails of Hillary are released they will down play them, AGAIN.
No story on the Iranian nuclear scientist just hung as a results of Hillary's emails. Why?
Hacking has nothing to do with it. There were no email then, hello. It's the release of secret documents to the public. AKA, secret emails of Hillary, more coming, and the DNC.
Times sure is upset about those releases.
Gee wonder why? I suspect this is a pre attack on Assange to attempt to discredit him now, so that when the additional emails of Hillary are released they will down play them, AGAIN.
2
Seeing Assange on Bill Maher the other night, he reminded me of Trump: a think-skinned, petty person who does things solely for personal self-aggrandizement. It was clear that his criteria for releasing information is based on his personal bias rather than any structured moral or ethical analysis such as a news organization might go through before releasing, say, the Pentagon Papers. He clearly perceives information gathered from hacking as his own personal arsenal to deploy how he, in his megalomaniacal way, he sees fit.
204
Totally agreed that Assange is a narcissist--just like Trump. Which government do we contact--Ecuador or Britain--to extradite him back to Sweden to stand trial??
Why feed into paranoia which seems to drive many Americans.. on both sides of the political aisle. The gov creates more problems for itself and for the citizens -- I am apparently the victim of something-- on some list--which creates problems with both the IRS (which won't send me a tax transcript) and requires me to go thru a special screen upon re-entry to country. (a 71 year old woman, who pays her taxes accord to schedule and no fancy deducting?? no other indication of identity theft? WASTE of my tax dollar!!)
Watch the language already.. Why does the Times want Hillary so badly? Why not Jill Stein?
PS when I was 8 years old my mother told be don't put it into writing... Any citizen investigated for a crime can have all of her e-mails, diaries , etc. seized by the authorities.. from what I understand. The children who work at the DNC who think they are immune from their nastiness, just found out otherwise. Now they can go on with Wall Street schemes.. Is this what the Times really wants??
Watch the language already.. Why does the Times want Hillary so badly? Why not Jill Stein?
PS when I was 8 years old my mother told be don't put it into writing... Any citizen investigated for a crime can have all of her e-mails, diaries , etc. seized by the authorities.. from what I understand. The children who work at the DNC who think they are immune from their nastiness, just found out otherwise. Now they can go on with Wall Street schemes.. Is this what the Times really wants??
2
If you want to assign blame, go after Snowden. Unlike Assange , he broke his oath of secrecy and was paid while doing it. Lock him up for treason and throw away the key.
1
Assange is a shady international arms dealer trading in information instead of weaponry. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Riiiight.....
1
Was was Watergate? The sixties version of Wikileaks attack on the DNC. Assange is a Nixon, a slimy, bitter creep who is aiding and abetting Donald Trump because he loves Bernie Sanders. What Assange knows about our political system can fit into a thimble. There was quite a bit of Bernie abetting in that Assange leak. He's not only a Hillary hater but a Bernie Bro to boot using the creepy misogyny and win at all costs man-tactics that characterized the sleazy Sanders campaign. And no to the author of this piece, the DNC hack/leak was in no way appropriate and showed nothing other than grumbling about a non-Democrat trying to occupy the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a private organization, not an arm of the US Government. If you don't like the Democrats, don't vote for them but hacking/leaking is not fair play but sore loser-ism by the worst kind of Bernie Bro.
People are forgetting that the DNC is not a public institution - it is a private entity, and private entities are under no obligation to be "transparent"... if so, then your kid's Little League finances or that of your bowling league - or even your household! - should be open to public scrutiny. What WikiLeaks is doing, then, is stealing information from private entities in the name of "transparency." You might say, "Well, what about reporters who obtain private information from private companies?" That is different - they do not call it "transparency" and make it morally equivalent to revealing the inner workings of public institutions - they just call it "news."
1
Why do commenters here continue to repeat thoroughly debunked claims? There is no evidence that HRC ""traded money for uranium. Nearly all of these occurred under GWB, and they were all approved by nine federal departments. Nothing in the emails shows actual "rigging" of the primaries, just stupid talk. And the implication in using the term "ransom" is simply wrong, too. Amazing that people believe the ranting, self-serving propaganda from Iran over our own government.
3
Thank you for calling this writer out for repeating the impossible claims of the uranium mine deal and DNC 'rigging'. Anyone with half a brain can follow the mine sale and see that HRC was an irrelevant signer after the sale had been approved, vetted, structured by the federal and state departments tasked with homeland security, energy security, intelligence, etc. And, since the 1993 Megatons to Megawatts treaty, the spent fuel from old Soviet era war-heads is sold all over (here too!) - better electricity than bombs.
1
People COULD have been hurt". Well, by all means stop the presses. By exposing what crimes occur and who DID get hurt or murdered, Wikileaks provides an invaluable public service. Mr. Gibney's article is a lame attempt to discredit transparency by a personal attack on Mr. Assange. It is a defense of secrecy, state murder, and the status quo. Why is this personal diatribe even given premium editorial space?
4
In a court of law, evidence obtained illegally is considered "fruit of a poison tree" and is inadmissible. But when it comes to WikiLeaks disclosures, we're talking the court of public opinion, not a court of law. Just because WikiLeaks obtains information illegally - or with dubious intentions - doesn't mean you can dismiss the information outright.
When WikiLeaks released the e-mails, the reaction of the Dems was like a kid caught with his or her hand in the cookie jar. Can you say "busted?" They immediately pressured DWS to resign. This defensive reaction convinced me that the information released by WikiLeaks was true.
Any information that comes from WikiLeaks should not be taken immediately at face value, given that Assange is a rather despicable character. But it should not be dismissed outright either.
When WikiLeaks released the e-mails, the reaction of the Dems was like a kid caught with his or her hand in the cookie jar. Can you say "busted?" They immediately pressured DWS to resign. This defensive reaction convinced me that the information released by WikiLeaks was true.
Any information that comes from WikiLeaks should not be taken immediately at face value, given that Assange is a rather despicable character. But it should not be dismissed outright either.
1
Jullian Assanges of the world (and this includes the religious kinds) are misguided and brainwashed individuals hiding in countries that shelter them and who think they alone know all the facts and are always right!
It is time they were brought under the same scrutiny that they want for the governments they war against.
It is time they were brought under the same scrutiny that they want for the governments they war against.
1
Julian Assange is a vile rapist who evades justice while pretending to be a noble warrior of freedom. Spare us your anti-war saltiness and confront the charges against you in court.
5
I agree that we should not blindly trust Jullian Assange. We should also not blindly trust the New York Times, or Alex Gibney, or any other source. Any proper evaluation of a story looks at multiple sources and multiple angles.
In this case, the multiple sources and angles make it quite clear that:
1. The DNC top brass did some stuff they should not have done. If they hadn't, there would have been no damage done by the leak, and instead 5 of them have resigned in response to accusations against them.
2. Nobody has tried to deny the authenticity of the contents of the leaks.
That's all regardless of the motives of the person or people behind the leaks.
In this case, the multiple sources and angles make it quite clear that:
1. The DNC top brass did some stuff they should not have done. If they hadn't, there would have been no damage done by the leak, and instead 5 of them have resigned in response to accusations against them.
2. Nobody has tried to deny the authenticity of the contents of the leaks.
That's all regardless of the motives of the person or people behind the leaks.
6
I have always been a supporter of Wikileaks' mission. They exposed criminality that otherwise would have gone unreported. Having watched two interviews with Julian Assamge, first with Chuck Todd and then Bill Maher, I feel that Mr. Assange has undermined the credibility of the organization in a rather profound way.
138
Here is a little secret; the Assange you saw on TV is the same Assange it has always been. Wikileaks is his personal mission, his personal vendetta... always has been.
The DNC entails merely showed that like all humans, their staff have opinions. What was not shown is that actions were taken to undermine bernie, who benefited greatly from DNC funds and the platform they gave him. Assange, on the other hand, is actively seeking to undermine a candidate, possibly on behalf of a hostile power. The hypocrisy is staggering.
165
I don't agree at all. People have to have the right to confidential contacts. The electronic era has made it possible for people's private conversations to be exposed. State level conversations that expose security information, diplomatic exchanges, or private relationships
are simply destructive,
are simply destructive,
Thank you, Olivia James, for your observation about the so-called DNC "primary rigging" scandal. I have been racking my brain for several weeks to figure out how and why the DNC staff email revelation is supposed to be truly scandalous. There was not much actual undermining of the process, as far as I can see, just a lot of trash talk and theorizing about possible actions. And is it really so awful that DNC staffers favored the Democratic machine's preferred candidate over a candidate who wasn't (and isn't) actually a Democrat. I don't agree with the assertion that the DNC's job is to be an unbiased facilitator. The DNC's job is to make sure that Democrats get elected. I made a decision months ago that Clinton represents the best chance to win the Presidency even though I agree with many of Sanders' issues. Is it surprising that the DNC made the same political calculus? And hasn't the RNC done the same...favoring establishment candidates over the party outsider? The fact they failed doesn't change the import of their strategy. Both approaches are distasteful perhaps, but beyond the pale? No. Surprinsingly? Absolutely not.
I thought he came off as a pathetic narcissist during his recent interview with Channel 13's NewsHour.
If Mr. Assange truly believes in transparency, let him go to Sweden and answer the rape charges against him.
If Mr. Assange truly believes in transparency, let him go to Sweden and answer the rape charges against him.
183
I'll bet he won't release anything about Ecuador.
3
Excellent article. Alex Gibney is a first-rate journalist who asks all the right questions. He is self-aware, self-critical, curious, and always clear.
2
There is a legitimate need for any government to restrict some information to a small number of people. If this is done responsibly, then it would be irresponsible for any news agency to release it. Alas, far too much information -- some already available publicly -- is marked *classified* or SSI, leaving a murky area into which slime like Assange wade.
The US has a Public Information Declassification Board
https://www.archives.gov/declassification/pidb/index.html#about
established by Congress and appointed by the President. In addition to reviewing a huge volume of info and releasing some, they have issued some very thoughtful reports. The news media should publicize and discuss the content of these reports, esp.
The Importance of Technology in Classification and Declassification (2016)
Setting Priorities: An Essential Step in Transforming Declassification (2014)
Transforming the Security Classification System (2012)
They can be dowloaded for free at
https://www.archives.gov/declassification/pidb/recommendations/
I strongly recommend that people read these reports and urge Congress and the President to take action consistent with their recommendations so that we can have both transparency in government and security when needed.
Snowden released little info which compromised national security. He showed the extent to which the US government was obtaining vast troves of info
about its citizens in violation of the 4th amendment.
The US has a Public Information Declassification Board
https://www.archives.gov/declassification/pidb/index.html#about
established by Congress and appointed by the President. In addition to reviewing a huge volume of info and releasing some, they have issued some very thoughtful reports. The news media should publicize and discuss the content of these reports, esp.
The Importance of Technology in Classification and Declassification (2016)
Setting Priorities: An Essential Step in Transforming Declassification (2014)
Transforming the Security Classification System (2012)
They can be dowloaded for free at
https://www.archives.gov/declassification/pidb/recommendations/
I strongly recommend that people read these reports and urge Congress and the President to take action consistent with their recommendations so that we can have both transparency in government and security when needed.
Snowden released little info which compromised national security. He showed the extent to which the US government was obtaining vast troves of info
about its citizens in violation of the 4th amendment.
2
Assange is no hero. He is a common thief with a team of unscrupulous techno terrorists. The DNC information would have been eventually uncovered, without his self-aggrandizing "radical transparency". It is incredible that any country would offer him asylum in their embassy. Assange needs to he arrested and held accountable. His leaks endanger not just American politics, but the very foundations of democracy. He serves no use in this world but to himself.
146
I get this eerie sense of the remarkable while reading the Times' picks today. As I write this there are 22 choices made by Times staff, 16 of which are blatantly negative towards Mr. Assange, this by a news organization that has consistently so overly sided with Hillary Clinton that it required notice that something was off even by your own Public Editor. There's just no intention of balance here any longer. If anything the Times seems to be bending over backwards to make themselves as much of a joke as some here find Mr. Assange. It's as if the Times is now the Rush Limbaugh at the other end of the table.
Out of these 22 'Picks' by the Times, Mr. MacLachlan's seems to take the cake (at least for now). "A common thief"? What are your thoughts sir, on those that would attempt to steal an election? Did you drop by here calling them thieves as well? You're not just supporting Hillary, you're demonstrating what its like to be polluted with distorted admiration.
Out of these 22 'Picks' by the Times, Mr. MacLachlan's seems to take the cake (at least for now). "A common thief"? What are your thoughts sir, on those that would attempt to steal an election? Did you drop by here calling them thieves as well? You're not just supporting Hillary, you're demonstrating what its like to be polluted with distorted admiration.
1
I applaud Mr Assange and Wikileaks for the journalistic integrity they show in informing the American public regarding the corrupt nature of the DNC and their rigging of the Dem primary/convention.
The MSM, including the NYTimes, should follow the investigative lead of Wikileaks and drive toward exposing how the Dem primary election fraud can stand ... instead the NYTimes(possibly at the behest of HRC) wants to divert American public attention to Russia's hacking...give me a break!
The MSM, including the NYTimes, should follow the investigative lead of Wikileaks and drive toward exposing how the Dem primary election fraud can stand ... instead the NYTimes(possibly at the behest of HRC) wants to divert American public attention to Russia's hacking...give me a break!
11
but they didn't show it was rigged..... no rules were changed to favor HRC....discussing disarray in the Sanders campaign should have occurred but didn't.......
re: 'didn't show it was rigged'... again, give me a break... see: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/29/1543792/-Stanford-University-Stu...
2
I highly doubt the real Elvis, who served in the military against Communist aggression, would be so cavalier and utterly clueless about the dangers of Russian interference in American domestic affairs.
Mr. Gibney's thoughts appear to be part of a campaign of deflection brought about by a mainstream media that is, and has been, clearly in the pocket of Ms. Clinton. Certainly the NY Times has played a part in that campaign.
Were the content of this recent leak to have been proven fraudulent in any way whatsoever, examining Mr. Assange's motivations and/or personal faults might be of some value. But that is absolutely not the case. I know not of a single source that has claimed these emails leaked weren't genuine. Given that, it is difficult to understand how we even arrive at a next step of questioning why Mr. Assange has done this deed? Of what real value is that inquiry, particularly when compared to the import of having a concealed truth revealed, one that substantially affects the future of our country?
Mr. Gibney shows his hand when he attempts to write off these emails as simply having "discussed how to undermine the campaign of Berrnie Sanders". There's more than a mere 'discussion' that went on here, and the authors of these emails weren't average Joe's having a water cooler debate. That Mr. Gibney proceeds to describe Mr. Assange as one who is likely working with a "Russian agent" only confirms that this editorial should be taken at a jocular level.
Mr. Assange had done a great service by delivering the truth to us. That truth should have come from solid reporting of the facts by organizations like the Times. It did not. I thank him for his efforts.
Were the content of this recent leak to have been proven fraudulent in any way whatsoever, examining Mr. Assange's motivations and/or personal faults might be of some value. But that is absolutely not the case. I know not of a single source that has claimed these emails leaked weren't genuine. Given that, it is difficult to understand how we even arrive at a next step of questioning why Mr. Assange has done this deed? Of what real value is that inquiry, particularly when compared to the import of having a concealed truth revealed, one that substantially affects the future of our country?
Mr. Gibney shows his hand when he attempts to write off these emails as simply having "discussed how to undermine the campaign of Berrnie Sanders". There's more than a mere 'discussion' that went on here, and the authors of these emails weren't average Joe's having a water cooler debate. That Mr. Gibney proceeds to describe Mr. Assange as one who is likely working with a "Russian agent" only confirms that this editorial should be taken at a jocular level.
Mr. Assange had done a great service by delivering the truth to us. That truth should have come from solid reporting of the facts by organizations like the Times. It did not. I thank him for his efforts.
7
The question of integrity comes with what the bulk of this piece was about. Why were Social Security numbers published? Why were credit card numbers published? Why does Mr. Assange believe that he has the right to determine who in Afghanistan gets killed? Being associated with murder is very serious business and it is absolutely a matter of integrity.
ATTACK THE MESSENGER: Amazing how many major media pundits didn't care so much about Assange until the DNC was exposed AND how many major media pundits were shown to have their thumb on the scales for Hillary.
The NY Times is a prime example, with one email claiming Nick Confessore buried reporting on the controversial Hillary Victory Fund after conversing with Hillary's finance lawyer Marc Elias.
We know the DNC's damage control strategy has been to divert attention from what's IN the leaks and try to get voters to focus on who published them. They even say the Russians are responsible, with major media pundits helping push the narrative despite concrete evidence.
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE: Us NYT readers can walk and chew gum at the same time. The media should be accountable for doing improper things, separately from any questions of Assange being hero or villain. The Times is not addressing the claims either way, not addressing the off-the-record meetings but happy to go after Assange full bore. So why shouldn't we believe the media is still in cahoots with the DNC?
The NY Times is a prime example, with one email claiming Nick Confessore buried reporting on the controversial Hillary Victory Fund after conversing with Hillary's finance lawyer Marc Elias.
We know the DNC's damage control strategy has been to divert attention from what's IN the leaks and try to get voters to focus on who published them. They even say the Russians are responsible, with major media pundits helping push the narrative despite concrete evidence.
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE: Us NYT readers can walk and chew gum at the same time. The media should be accountable for doing improper things, separately from any questions of Assange being hero or villain. The Times is not addressing the claims either way, not addressing the off-the-record meetings but happy to go after Assange full bore. So why shouldn't we believe the media is still in cahoots with the DNC?
12
You claim there's no evidence that Russia is connected to this leak. If you are a NYTimes reader, you should know that there is evidence. Of course, you don't believe anything the mainstream media says, but you can go directly to the statements of these intelligence agencies and see for yourself. And then, of course, you won't believe the agencies, because you know better.
Mr. Assange's personality is irrelevant to the content of the material he has released, the veracity of which no one has challenged. The NYT appears once again to be promoting Clinton, whom Comey made clear has broken federal statutes, by misdirecting attention toward the Russians and Wikileaks. Apparently still more revelations are in the pipeline, and we are being primed to dismiss them. I, however, would like to know more about Clinton's conduct as SoS, esp as regards promoting the CIA-backed militia that has morphed into ISIS, as well as the role of the Clinton Foundation in peddling American influence and favors.
12
The leaked material contained extremely personal information! The personality of Mr. Assange is one that believes he can determine who gets killed. Engineering murder is something that everyone should be concerned with.
The real question here is, can we trust the NYTimes and your reporting? I can't wait until some hacker exposes the NYTimes for your biases and approval of the sensationalist, and absolutely with certain articles, yellow journalism.
When you question other's, who simply dumped raw data into the public view, not edited, about their intent, you certainly show yours.
When you question other's, who simply dumped raw data into the public view, not edited, about their intent, you certainly show yours.
10
"If an Afghan civilian helps coalition forces, he deserves to die."
For that statement alone someone needs to afford Assange the same sentiment.
For that statement alone someone needs to afford Assange the same sentiment.
3
I did nothing and then they came for me .....
It's fine when the leaking helps the other guy .... How will will view the next reckless handling of e-mails ? All is a slippery slope.
It's a careless system run by carless people!
It's fine when the leaking helps the other guy .... How will will view the next reckless handling of e-mails ? All is a slippery slope.
It's a careless system run by carless people!
1
For those commenting that Assange should first address his sexual assault charges, would you ask the same of Bill Clinton? Or ask Hillary how she addressed such accusations, sorry, "bimbo eruptions"?
Cue the intergalactic silence..
Cue the intergalactic silence..
7
Not sure what the purpose of this op-ed is other than to distract attention from the fact that explicit proof exists of thumbs on the scale for Hillary Clinton by people who are not supposed to be partisan.
All during the organization of the Sanders Campaign, volunteers and others widely reported pushback ranging from ridicule to outright hostility from local parties heavily staffed with Clinton partisans. Of course the bulk of our media ignored this with the New York Times endorsing Ms Clinton before one vote was cast.
Julian Assange is a flawed person as we all are. Having never met him personally, I cannot make a judgement, but that in no way changes the importance of the work Wikileaks has done and continues to do. His criticisms of Ms Clinton are also supported by her actions, opinions and track record.
The op-ed I would like to see is "Can we trust Hillary Clinton and why is she still hiding her Goldman speeches?"
All during the organization of the Sanders Campaign, volunteers and others widely reported pushback ranging from ridicule to outright hostility from local parties heavily staffed with Clinton partisans. Of course the bulk of our media ignored this with the New York Times endorsing Ms Clinton before one vote was cast.
Julian Assange is a flawed person as we all are. Having never met him personally, I cannot make a judgement, but that in no way changes the importance of the work Wikileaks has done and continues to do. His criticisms of Ms Clinton are also supported by her actions, opinions and track record.
The op-ed I would like to see is "Can we trust Hillary Clinton and why is she still hiding her Goldman speeches?"
9
Answer to the title's question: NO !!!!
And about dear old Bernie (and I DO like the guy) : Why should 't the DNC disparage him??? MHe isn't even a real Democrat !!! After many years as an Independent, he suddenly barges in and tries to hijack the Democratic Party by switching his declared party at the last minute! Why didn't he run as what he really is -- and Independent -- with the Indepent Party, or even the Green Party? I'd be a little annoyed, too, if I was them.
And about dear old Bernie (and I DO like the guy) : Why should 't the DNC disparage him??? MHe isn't even a real Democrat !!! After many years as an Independent, he suddenly barges in and tries to hijack the Democratic Party by switching his declared party at the last minute! Why didn't he run as what he really is -- and Independent -- with the Indepent Party, or even the Green Party? I'd be a little annoyed, too, if I was them.
1
Dear Mr. Gibney,
Welcome to the "Internet Age" which has replaced "normal" journalism which, by the way, ALSO seems to, historically, lived by information given newspapers by "informants". I re-call Horace Greeley telling a photographer, "You supply me the pictures, I'll supply the war" bringing "yellow journalism", and a war with Spain, to the American public.
Mr. Assange is as "trustworthy" as any of the NYT news sources and if someone wishes NOT to be exposed, quoted or viewed then one should just stay OFF the Internet. The DNC used their e-mails to espouse certain themes and ideas inimical to one of their candidates in a, supposedly, even and fair playing field but, ultimately, exposed for what it was, a tool of the powerful in that party.
Let a court of law determine if Mr. Assange has overstepped his bounds but, until them, it seems that he and Mr. Snowden have lifted a very great rock off the ground exposing thousands of wriggling little creatures to the light.
One might say that's what journalism and reporting is all about bringing the truth, no matter how painful, to light. Imagine of the REAL news of the Gulf of Tomkin attack on U.S. ships had been exposed when it happened? 50,000 Americans might still be alive instead of having their names inscribed on a wall dedicated to their dying for a hopeless and false cause.
Welcome to the "Internet Age" which has replaced "normal" journalism which, by the way, ALSO seems to, historically, lived by information given newspapers by "informants". I re-call Horace Greeley telling a photographer, "You supply me the pictures, I'll supply the war" bringing "yellow journalism", and a war with Spain, to the American public.
Mr. Assange is as "trustworthy" as any of the NYT news sources and if someone wishes NOT to be exposed, quoted or viewed then one should just stay OFF the Internet. The DNC used their e-mails to espouse certain themes and ideas inimical to one of their candidates in a, supposedly, even and fair playing field but, ultimately, exposed for what it was, a tool of the powerful in that party.
Let a court of law determine if Mr. Assange has overstepped his bounds but, until them, it seems that he and Mr. Snowden have lifted a very great rock off the ground exposing thousands of wriggling little creatures to the light.
One might say that's what journalism and reporting is all about bringing the truth, no matter how painful, to light. Imagine of the REAL news of the Gulf of Tomkin attack on U.S. ships had been exposed when it happened? 50,000 Americans might still be alive instead of having their names inscribed on a wall dedicated to their dying for a hopeless and false cause.
3
If "[the release of selected] DNC e-mails are in the public interest" [your subhead], then we should also have access to the RNC's emails. Otherwise, our voyeurism lacks all perspective.
To "trust" Julian Assange, in this case, would be to rely on him to be a fount of wisdom for our political process: to filter his purloined letters so fairly that all persons involved in the 2016 election are treated equally. But Mr. Assange has an agenda. As does Mr. Putin, as did Anna Chennault in 1968, as did Richard Nixon's CREEP in 1972.
To "trust" Julian Assange, in this case, would be to rely on him to be a fount of wisdom for our political process: to filter his purloined letters so fairly that all persons involved in the 2016 election are treated equally. But Mr. Assange has an agenda. As does Mr. Putin, as did Anna Chennault in 1968, as did Richard Nixon's CREEP in 1972.
2
WikiLeaks and computer hacking. I wonder why Delta's computers were wiped out today. Maybe they got hacked by the Russians.
1
Why doesn't Mr. Assange ever release hacked documents from Russian government computers? Is their security so much better than yours in the States? Or is Vladimir Putin's neo-Stalinist state simply Mr Assange's idea of the model Democracy? "Noble cause corruption", indeed.
2
A personality given to "settle scores" and that uses his power to "drive personal agendas"? Gee, does that sound like anybody we know? Wonder how he hooked up with Trump.
2
"Reckless and agenda driven". As opposed to who or what? The DNC? Hillary Clinton? Donald Trump? US Foreign Policy?
9
An astute column. As the Trump campaign footsies with Assange they would do well to be mindful of what happened to Jefferson after he footsied with James Callender to smear John Adams in 1800.
2
We need secure and private communications. We also need transparency and ethics in our political system. We have neither.
5
It is not a little ironic that the New York Times is publishing an opinion piece questioning Assange's motives and ethics in publishing the DNC emails. It is doubly ironic for the New York Times to publish this paragraph:
"As for Mr. Assange’s animus against Hillary Clinton — he has written that she “lacks judgment and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism” — that is evidence of bias, but no more than that. After all, many news outlets are clearly, and sometimes proudly, biased."
without any apparent sense of irony.
WikiLeaks recklessness with personal data? If the NYT, or the U.S. government, goes after people or entities they deem wrongdoers, do they seek to unmask the financiers of wrongdoing? Is WikiLeaks exposing innocents to harm? What responsibility does the NYT, or the U.S. government bear, for cheerleading the Iraq invasions, or perpetrating that invasion? Has the U.S. government consistently protected the safety of essential Iraqi and Afghani translators and informants?
Assange has an agenda regarding Clinton and the DNC? And the NYT does not? And using Edward Snowden as a character witness against Assange? Did Snowden have an agenda? Every actor has an agenda. Otherwise, the actor would not act.
The only issue with Assange is, is the information he is leaking true? People have rights to privacy about things which do not harm others. Assange exposes those doing harm. He meets a standard his accusers do not exceed.
"As for Mr. Assange’s animus against Hillary Clinton — he has written that she “lacks judgment and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism” — that is evidence of bias, but no more than that. After all, many news outlets are clearly, and sometimes proudly, biased."
without any apparent sense of irony.
WikiLeaks recklessness with personal data? If the NYT, or the U.S. government, goes after people or entities they deem wrongdoers, do they seek to unmask the financiers of wrongdoing? Is WikiLeaks exposing innocents to harm? What responsibility does the NYT, or the U.S. government bear, for cheerleading the Iraq invasions, or perpetrating that invasion? Has the U.S. government consistently protected the safety of essential Iraqi and Afghani translators and informants?
Assange has an agenda regarding Clinton and the DNC? And the NYT does not? And using Edward Snowden as a character witness against Assange? Did Snowden have an agenda? Every actor has an agenda. Otherwise, the actor would not act.
The only issue with Assange is, is the information he is leaking true? People have rights to privacy about things which do not harm others. Assange exposes those doing harm. He meets a standard his accusers do not exceed.
8
"Is WikiLeaks exposing innocents to harm?" Yes.
"Has the U.S. government consistently protected the safety of essential Iraqi and Afghani translators and informants?" You imply here that safety should have been protected. So why is this standard only applied to the US?
"People have rights to privacy about things which do not harm others. " People have the right to not be murdered. For some reason, you trust the veracity of the Afghan War documents in naming each of these individuals, and believe that the safety of others should be compromised because of them. Just because it didn't happen so far doesn't mean that we should take this lightly.
"Has the U.S. government consistently protected the safety of essential Iraqi and Afghani translators and informants?" You imply here that safety should have been protected. So why is this standard only applied to the US?
"People have rights to privacy about things which do not harm others. " People have the right to not be murdered. For some reason, you trust the veracity of the Afghan War documents in naming each of these individuals, and believe that the safety of others should be compromised because of them. Just because it didn't happen so far doesn't mean that we should take this lightly.
Can we trust Julian Assange?
Why should we trust him? He's an Australian who is clearly attempting to affect the US election.
And he is very likely being aided by Russian intelligence in at least the most recent DNC leadks.
Coincidently, he has threatened to publish Russian leaks for years, but never has.
He clearly has a "cause" in opposing Hillary Clinton. Why?
And why hasn't he leaked documents about Putin's election fraud and the huge demonstrations that resulted? If people are outraged at the DNC, they should recall that Bernie Saunders has never been a Democrat, and reiterated again after the primaries that he is an independent.
Why would Russian intelligence aid Wikileaks? Try "Why Putin Hates Hillary."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-putin-226153
Then consider the following: "Wikileaks is a Front for Russian Intelligence"
https://20committee.com/2015/08/31/wikileaks-is-a-front-for-russian-inte...
Gibney is being cautious, but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, there is a good liklihood it's a duck.
Why should we trust him? He's an Australian who is clearly attempting to affect the US election.
And he is very likely being aided by Russian intelligence in at least the most recent DNC leadks.
Coincidently, he has threatened to publish Russian leaks for years, but never has.
He clearly has a "cause" in opposing Hillary Clinton. Why?
And why hasn't he leaked documents about Putin's election fraud and the huge demonstrations that resulted? If people are outraged at the DNC, they should recall that Bernie Saunders has never been a Democrat, and reiterated again after the primaries that he is an independent.
Why would Russian intelligence aid Wikileaks? Try "Why Putin Hates Hillary."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-putin-226153
Then consider the following: "Wikileaks is a Front for Russian Intelligence"
https://20committee.com/2015/08/31/wikileaks-is-a-front-for-russian-inte...
Gibney is being cautious, but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, there is a good liklihood it's a duck.
6
It's kind of weird to read a commentary on a media outlet being agenda-driven and untrustworthy in the New York Times. This is the same outlet that was the cheerleader for the US invasion of Iraq. And is there any media outlet that is not pushing some agenda? Wikileaks may eventually give us some damning stuff on Donald Trump. What is clear is that the DNC emails are authentic. For me, that is enough.
8
Bill Maher asked Assang why is he not going after Donald Trump`s Tax returns ? Julian admittedly hates Hillary Clinton and he goes he is working on it.
The man was dressed impeccably with expensive clothing and overly starched fifi white shirt.
It was obvious purpose was to impress the audience for which he is always hungry for attention.The man has rape charges and several sexual assault charges hanging on his head , obviously he is a coward man in hiding.
And NO he can not be trusted.
The man was dressed impeccably with expensive clothing and overly starched fifi white shirt.
It was obvious purpose was to impress the audience for which he is always hungry for attention.The man has rape charges and several sexual assault charges hanging on his head , obviously he is a coward man in hiding.
And NO he can not be trusted.
7
Professional standards kept me from telling all I know, even when a reporter called to confirm an event. To me, neither political party deserves to be disgraced, while the other is untouched. Sorry, but you've been fooled again.
4
Mr. Assange was interviewed by Bill Maher, August 5th. Mr. Assange consistently "steered the conversation away from matters of principle". He was asked to respond to Eric Snowden's view that there is a difference between transparency and privacy. His response was to impugn personal motive to Mr. Snowden, along with a detailed account of the 'all I did for him' storyline. Mr. Assange even went so far as to question whether Mr. Maher had his own agenda, referencing the $1 million donation made by Maher to Obama's campaign (which Maher announced loudly and proudly at the time the donation was made). He was smug and it was a very troubling interview. My youngest daughter, aged 19, has been getting a crash course in American history/politics on account of my concern over your election. She watched the interview with me and her innocent eyes/ears concluded that he was a man not to be trusted, that he was quite obviously self-aggrandizing. I think she's right. Without commenting on the issue of whether these "hacks" should/should not take place, it is clear to me that Mr. Assange is not a person I would trust with much, let alone world-wide intel/privacy. To whom is he answerable?
8
To whom is he answerable?
Answer: The Truth
If you don't like the message, just kill the messenger, right?
Answer: The Truth
If you don't like the message, just kill the messenger, right?
3
I'll take my chances.
I know for a fact that the government cannot be trusted.
Assange is a hero and Wikileaks should be treasured by anyone who truly values freedom.
I know for a fact that the government cannot be trusted.
Assange is a hero and Wikileaks should be treasured by anyone who truly values freedom.
10
I'm not sure where the trust question comes from. If the leaked information is truthful, then trust is moot. Whether Assange is careful about redacting personal or financial data is beyond external control.
7
When one selectively chooses what content is suitable for 'transparency' and whether said transparency applies to the one releasing the information, then the 'truth' lacks all context. Assange is a sociopath, and I think wants nothing more than to stir every pot, destabilize every system, and declare himself a demigod. No thanks.
The trust question comes from Mr. Assange's carelessness with other people's lives. Why should we trust someone who carelessly engineers the destruction of others' safety? Or is the loss of trust only applied to Clinton?
In the end, it all speaks to character, that attribute we, at the very least, want to be the very fabric of our President.
Neither Trump, nor Hillary, possess any.
Support either, and call into question whether you have any ...
Neither Trump, nor Hillary, possess any.
Support either, and call into question whether you have any ...
8
Clearly you don't.
If the emails from the DNC are real, who cares about their appearance, or who did it? I remember that the Watergate scandal was helped by the revelations of a "deep throat". Who wad he, a communist, a spy, maybe a mafia don? Who cares?
41
And who cares about suicides that resulting from the Ashely Madison hack - it was true right? And if someone decides to release all of your emails, medical records, tax returns and credit card receipts for the last 10 years to family, friends and coworkers, it would be in the cause of honesty of course! It would benefit those people to know what you really think and do right? I mean, if someone decides that it serves the public good, even if it isn't illegal, what can you do now? Why shouldn't Assange decide that you are his target on this day. (The DNC is a private org that did nothing illegal and morality, well that is in the eye of the beholder right?) Of course, since we all say things we don't mean or gripe about things just because, you would be stuck explaining everything you wrote about everyone else and possibly lose some cherished relationships or even a job. But hey, as long as it is true, who cares!! What a fun world this will be.
2
Dear Guido:
"Deep Throat" was revealed years ago, where have you been? And he was a member of the administration, known by Woodward and Bernstein as someone credible but who wanted his anonymity. They could verify to their Editor Bradlee his veracity. That is the difference, and that is why we care who the source is. The source is as important as the info.
DD
Manhattan
"Deep Throat" was revealed years ago, where have you been? And he was a member of the administration, known by Woodward and Bernstein as someone credible but who wanted his anonymity. They could verify to their Editor Bradlee his veracity. That is the difference, and that is why we care who the source is. The source is as important as the info.
DD
Manhattan
1
But the DNC "wrongdoing" is hardly a crime. Don't conflate the two. The DNC at most violated its commitment to neutrality--shocking, I'm sure, given Mr. Sanders' late arrival tot he party.
"For many of those who know him well, Mr. Assange is afflicted by what the police call “noble cause corruption,” a belief that noble ends justify reckless or immoral means".
Barack Obama has said, as a matter of US policy, that innocent people will be killed by his drone strikes if that results in the killing of terrorists; known, or thought to be. That's where the bar is set for 'ends justifying means'.
We also can't know what Mr. Assange, or Mr. Snowden, has held back because of sensitivity to personal privacy. The most important item to know through all of this, so far, is that Mrs. Clinton's circumvention of the White House protocol for her personal convenience, clearly compromised any encryption that might be in place.. and she still doesn't care.
Barack Obama has said, as a matter of US policy, that innocent people will be killed by his drone strikes if that results in the killing of terrorists; known, or thought to be. That's where the bar is set for 'ends justifying means'.
We also can't know what Mr. Assange, or Mr. Snowden, has held back because of sensitivity to personal privacy. The most important item to know through all of this, so far, is that Mrs. Clinton's circumvention of the White House protocol for her personal convenience, clearly compromised any encryption that might be in place.. and she still doesn't care.
1
This guy refuses to stand trial for the multiple rapes of which he is accused in Sweden and has been hiding in the embassy of Ecuador for years like a guilty coward. Is it any wonder that someone who is enough of a coward and misogynist to rape women and then hide from accountability in Sweden would want to hide behind Wikileaks to discredit a strong female candidate for President in the US? The man is pathetic.
I have never understood why Assange (and Snowden for that matter) have been such darlings of the radical left. Assange acts more like a Bond villain than an agent of progressive change. He trucks with either amoral hackers or worse, undemocratic regimes, in some deranged notion of justice, antiestablishmentism, or who knows what.
I
In the end, Assange is out for one thing: Assange.
I
In the end, Assange is out for one thing: Assange.
Transparency is wonderful, but it never harms dictators. Assange can publish reams of info about Putin but it would never harm him in any way. It's funny how we never find out how much money Putin has stolen from the Russian people, or Drumpfs tax returns.
Assange's animus towards Clinton IS a big deal because he is after all a foreign national who, with the aid of the Russian government, is interfering in a U.S. Election. He is not just trying to provide newsworthy information. He is timing the release of his data in order to destroy a party apparatus and a candidate. That, to quote a phrase, "short circuits" the democratic process. Assange, like Edward SNowden, has no problem with destroying American democracy in order to save it. And like any politician, he has no problem obfuscating and lying about his true motives, as he did recently in a softball interview conducted by Anderson Cooper on CNN. The answer to a corporate media that presents a distorted view of reality isn't a sociopath media led by pied pipers like Assange.
After people get over their outrage and righteous indignation (if ever) towards the leaks, it is reasonable to conclude that existing controls on integrity, honesty, fairness, etc. in the large organizations society depends on are not effective enough.
1
Assange, not being American, should be treated by our intelligence services as a foreign spy, and dealt with accordingly. He should be chased, caught, and brought to justice for damaging the national security of the USA. Preferably, of course, would be to include his name in a kill list and dealt with forthwith, as with Anwar al-Awlaki and other motivators against our national security.
Julian Assage has made no secret over the animosity he feels towards Hillary Clinton.
We can, therefore, trust Julian Assange to expose Hillary Clinton's campaign for president to as much harm as he possibly can.
We can, therefore, also trust Julian Assange to hide Donald Trump's campaign for president from as much harm as he possible can.
The degree, generally speaking, to which Wikileaks is trustworthy has always been somewhere less than 100%...espionage, vendettas and sour-grapes being what they are.
We can, therefore, trust Julian Assange to expose Hillary Clinton's campaign for president to as much harm as he possibly can.
We can, therefore, also trust Julian Assange to hide Donald Trump's campaign for president from as much harm as he possible can.
The degree, generally speaking, to which Wikileaks is trustworthy has always been somewhere less than 100%...espionage, vendettas and sour-grapes being what they are.
1
Bottom line, there is nothing in the leaked emails that will effect my vote. There's nothing nefarious in them. So they reveal the DNCs preference for Clinton over Sanders. Does anyone in this country really believe that the Parties are neutral, or even that they are supposed to be?
I would be much more interested in Clinton's emails on Ben Ghazi or her approval of the sale of Uranium One to the Russians (if any still exist) - or for that matter, any of her speeches to Goldman Sachs.
And when will Wikileaks publish Trump's tax returns?
I would be much more interested in Clinton's emails on Ben Ghazi or her approval of the sale of Uranium One to the Russians (if any still exist) - or for that matter, any of her speeches to Goldman Sachs.
And when will Wikileaks publish Trump's tax returns?
1
While leakers like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning are quite obviously in danger of detention, charges, trials and imprisonment, those who take their leaks aren't really.
Snowden leaked his material to Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, and while they made some of the same sounds Julian Assange has been making about what daring people they were, both of them travel the globe quite freely. Only once, when David Miranda was thought to be and actually was transporting unpublished documents was anyone detained, and he was detained to get the documents.
Julian Assange holes up in the Ecuadorian embassy and pretends his life is endangered by extradition to Sweden. But the record shows his freedom is only really imperiled by whether or not he committed sexual assault.
Snowden leaked his material to Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, and while they made some of the same sounds Julian Assange has been making about what daring people they were, both of them travel the globe quite freely. Only once, when David Miranda was thought to be and actually was transporting unpublished documents was anyone detained, and he was detained to get the documents.
Julian Assange holes up in the Ecuadorian embassy and pretends his life is endangered by extradition to Sweden. But the record shows his freedom is only really imperiled by whether or not he committed sexual assault.
1
There are two distinct issues here.
One is the value of the information and the second is the collateral damage.
Wikileaks in releasing the DNC e-mails did a public service.
There should be safety guards to protect those who might be harmed by the release.
Additionally, there should be better protection for those who release such data, so that people such as Mr. Snowden don't have to exile themselves to avoid the retaliation of a long prison sentence by a vengeful government.
One is the value of the information and the second is the collateral damage.
Wikileaks in releasing the DNC e-mails did a public service.
There should be safety guards to protect those who might be harmed by the release.
Additionally, there should be better protection for those who release such data, so that people such as Mr. Snowden don't have to exile themselves to avoid the retaliation of a long prison sentence by a vengeful government.
1
Is Mr. Gibney trying to argue that the DNC's e-mails, as exposed by WikiLeaks, are not important to The People?
When the interest of The People and of Wikileaks coincide, then there should be no debate. The DNC emails showed that the management of the party were far from the ideals of democracy to the point of being tyrannical in the support of Clinton.
If Assange and his group want to expose hypocrisy and corruption, as most of their releases have shown, let them do it.
If the corrupt and deceitful object? That's their problem and they only have themselves to blame.
I am reminded that Barack Obama promised many time that his administration would be the most open and transparent in our history. And, we all know now just how much of a lie that statement has become.
We need people like Assange and his associates to do the work of exposing the frauds which, it appears, will not be taken seriously by our Department of Justice and/or the FBI.
Long live WikiLeaks. My donation will go in today.
When the interest of The People and of Wikileaks coincide, then there should be no debate. The DNC emails showed that the management of the party were far from the ideals of democracy to the point of being tyrannical in the support of Clinton.
If Assange and his group want to expose hypocrisy and corruption, as most of their releases have shown, let them do it.
If the corrupt and deceitful object? That's their problem and they only have themselves to blame.
I am reminded that Barack Obama promised many time that his administration would be the most open and transparent in our history. And, we all know now just how much of a lie that statement has become.
We need people like Assange and his associates to do the work of exposing the frauds which, it appears, will not be taken seriously by our Department of Justice and/or the FBI.
Long live WikiLeaks. My donation will go in today.
7
I may not trust Wikileaks or Julian Assange 100%, but I do trust them more than the documentary maker who wrote this piece. The article misrepresents Assange and Wikipedia by ignoring the fact that there was much redaction in the diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks, and Wikileaks reportedly even reached out to the US government to cooperate in the process so to not inadvertently place individuals at risk. The documentary maker must know this.
Secondly, casually characterizing Assange as a "rapist" is character assassination by half-truth, as anyone at all familiar with the exact nature of the charges against him would recognize.
The one thing I have learned from this article is that documentary maker's films are not ones I will bother watching.
Secondly, casually characterizing Assange as a "rapist" is character assassination by half-truth, as anyone at all familiar with the exact nature of the charges against him would recognize.
The one thing I have learned from this article is that documentary maker's films are not ones I will bother watching.
5
This is the wrong question. The real question is can we trust our government and political parties?
The answer is a resounding "NO." They spin tales faster than we can keep up, which have massive negative consequences including thousands of deaths, and our media rather than being perpetual skeptics are perpetually partisan. As long as the liar is their liar they are happy.
We don't have transparency in government and the only thing to ponder is are we looking at the iceberg or just the tip of the iceberg.?
The answer is a resounding "NO." They spin tales faster than we can keep up, which have massive negative consequences including thousands of deaths, and our media rather than being perpetual skeptics are perpetually partisan. As long as the liar is their liar they are happy.
We don't have transparency in government and the only thing to ponder is are we looking at the iceberg or just the tip of the iceberg.?
6